CIVIL DEFENCE

HL Deb 22 March 1967 vol 281 cc815-42

6.45 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for introducing this Motion to-day. It is extremely valuable that we should review the situation after five years have elapsed and hear what has been done since we last debated this very important subject. I am very heartened by much of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said and by his obvious dedication to this important problem. It is six years since I was closely connected with Civil Defence in the No. 1 Region, and I am impressed with quite a lot that has been done. I should like to add my tribute to all those devoted people who keep the Civil Defence organisation going: the Civil Defence workers, the W.R.V.S., and I should like to add also the officials of the Home Office, who do not get many thanks, for continuing for a very long period a very difficult job.

I regret to see that the Government plan a reduction in costs of 20 per cent. on the expenditure for 1967–68. This is overall; so that some authorities will probably suffer even greater cuts. For these, even more than others, this reduction, that has to start on April 1 next, is virtually impossible as leases cannot be terminated and any employees who are redundant must be found other jobs, if possible. The new organisation, in which local authorities are given the important responsibilities, has been touched on by several noble Lords, and I do not intend to say anything more on that except to wish the scheme well. It is so important, first of all, that they have the time to devote to this and that they take to it enthusiastically. I hope that they will be able to do the very important job that they have now to take on.

In addition to the local authorities, there are the education authorities, and I want to say a word about them. In March, 1964, the Ministry of Education issued Circular No. 3 of 1964, in which it was stated that in the first, or planning, stage it will be necessary to earmark those educational premises which would be needed for specified Civil Defence purposes and to decide, so far as may be practicable, the duties to be carried out by educational staff in an emergency. Under the Civil Defence emergency feeding regulations, emergency feeding authorities, the county councils and the county boroughs, are required to prepare plans for the emergency feeding of the civil population. Schools and the school meal service play a prominent part in these plans. The Circular continues: The staff of schools and colleges which were closed would be available for other duties. Teachers might be asked to help in dealing with members of the public attending emergency feeding centres, in the issue of ration cards, in the work of rest centres, in arrangements for dispersal and so on. All this is sensible and efficient, if it works and if everyone plays his part in it. But I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made as a result of the circulars. Have local authorities and educational authorities prepared plans? They have now had three years in which to do so. Are they giving this scheme their wholehearted support? What has been done and what remains to be done?

My Lords, I want to say how impressed I was with what the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, said about youth. I think there are great opportunities for the youth of this country to take part in voluntary training in Civil Defence. There is no doubt at all, if this appalling tragedy fell upon us, that they would be able to do a very large amount of work. I should like to see this followed up, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply could say that those proposals—which, like all the noble Lady's proposals, are so very good—could be taken seriously and put into effect. I should like also to underline what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said about the part that could be played by the clergy. As a son of a parson, a vicar in the town and a rector in the country, I know well what the clergyman and his wife can do in the leadership of our communities. Most of them take the lead in many ways and they can do a great deal. I hope that the Government will take very seriously the recommendations of the clergy in this respect.

I want now to say a word about the Army. So far as home defence is concerned, the Territorial Army has been reduced to A.V.R. III, whose role is to support the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order in the event of an actual nuclear attack or a national emergency. The A.V.R.III, as well as being very small in numbers compared to what the Territorial Army was before, are the very simplest type of infantry; just riflemen, in fact. All the other arms and services which used to exist in the Territorial Army have disappeared, or will do so very shortly. So this force cannot undertake many of the tasks they could in the past. The numbers are greatly reduced, so it is unlikely that they could be much more than just a support for the police. Their duties might include a little traffic control, acting as cordoning guards at vital stops, and limited reconnaissance. They are armed with rifles only and with no automatic weapons, which is a disadvantage, as in their guard duties they may well be confronted by saboteurs or looters armed with superior weapons.

In peace-time, training would be easier if they had more wireless sets and more transport, and on mobilisation they would certainly require more sets. Their transport requirements would be made up by requisitioning. It is no good giving them wireless sets unless they are trained to use them. A slightly better scale of vehicles and equipment, especially automatic weapons, would make training much more attractive and would lead to better recruiting. Has the Minister any plans to make training more attractive? Regarding wireless sets, there must be a vast number of old War Department wireless transmitter-receiver sets in depots. They are now obsolete for the Regular Army and the Volunteers, but they are perfectly serviceable over short ranges, and I should think that it would be a very good idea, and most encouraging, to issue these to Civil Defence sections.

Regarding command and control, I am very worried about the effect on Civil Defence of the disappearance of the territorial Divisional Districts. England is at present neatly divided up into Civil Defence Regions which correspond, and the military organisation was made to correspond, with Divisional Districts. These become one entity in war, with operation rooms presided over by the Civil Defence Director alongside the District Commander, heads of Police, Fire Service, Post Office and other departments which could be involved. It was an efficient organisation which showed up well in combined exercises in which I have taken part in the past. The Divisional District has provided a complete communication network for the Civil Defence organisation of wireless, trained staff officers, transport drivers and orderlies. When these disappear, as I understand they will this year, what will replace them? Is the Minister confident that other arrangements are adequate?

My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor referred to the pamphlet called The Hydrogen Bomb, and I should like to refer to words which appear on page 31 about which I am a little alarmed. The words are: … all the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom who were not required actively to engage the enemy would have the responsibility of assisting Civil Defence. Because of the planning and training now in progress they would be to undertake a wide variety of tasks. Of course all troops in this country, Army, Navy and Air Force would take part, but I hope that the Minister does not think that the Regular Forces will have very much knowledge and will know really what to do.

I should like to know whether, as part of the ordinary training of a teeth-armed unit when it gets to its barracks, say, in Edinburgh, Fort George or Wellington Barracks in London, it is given a Civil Defence scheme and exercised in that scheme. I very much doubt it, in which case the Regular troops may not be the asset that they are being counted upon to be. Of course, in war there will be various mobilisation tasks which may take them away, and it would be difficult to count on them; but I appreciate that if they are looked upon as a "bonus" to the existing organisation, it is all well and good.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that is precisely what we have in mind, and we realise, of course, that the exigencies of the moment, or the points of attack, may mean that units of the Armed Forces may not be available for that purpose.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, despite the little money which is available there is in this country a vast network of authorities who can be used if they are told what to do and how to do it. Most important of all, if their interest is encouraged they could be a source of volunteers; but I think that a little more equipment and more realistic training is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was not present in the Chamber when I said that we know of the noble Lord's immense keenness and enthusiasm for this job. I believe that publicity is needed, as was said by my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, and it would be very encouraging if the Prime Minister would make some personal effort to show that what is being done by these Civil Defence workers is appreciated by the Cabinet and the Government. We know that the Home Office and the Ministers concerned are most encouraging and take the greatest interest in it, but I think that a lead from the head of the Government would give a great deal of encouragement.

6.59 p.m.

BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER

My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for moving this Motion, for it gives me an opportunity to explain the new role to be played by the voluntary aid societies in helping fill the first-aid gap in the Civil Defence services. Before I go on, may I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that, owing to the late start of this debate, I shall not be able, alas! to hear the end of it.

Both voluntary aid societies, the Order of St. John and the British Red Cross Society, in this country, have accepted the Government's request to make our organisations available to the local authorities for first aid throughout the country. We are also helping in Scotland, but the final arrangement with the Scottish Office has not yet been settled. This differs from the old arrangement, under which members were free to join Civil Defence as individuals. Now the voluntary aid societies are responsible for numbers and not for names. This means that we shall not now have to serve two masters, which was the unsatisfactory feature under the original plan.

We know that recruiting for Civil Defence has for some time been difficult, and I see no reason why it should be any better now, unless some purpose is put into it. So far as the first aid side of Civil Defence is concerned, many more people trained in first aid will be needed. Those who belong to the voluntary aid societies do training all the time and keep up to date with new methods, but in the past Civil Defence recruits took one first-aid course, and that was that. The same thing is again proposed for those members of the public who are trained through their local authorities. That sort of training may or may not be better than nothing, but I feel that unless there is some purpose besides a problematic atomic bomb, few people will think it worth while to give up precious spare time to train. That is why I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this is a wonderful opportunity to link Civil Defence in peace time with disaster training, safety in the home and road accidents —with any or all three of these.

As regards disaster training, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, as head of the W.R.V.S., will agree with us in the Red Cross that the training and discipline of our organisations was of great help at Aberfan. Safety in the home affects all of us, especially the very old and very young. It happens that yesterday evening I was talking to a doctor about first aid, and he said that he wished every mother and housewife could be trained in first aid. Hardly a day passes without some sort of accident on the road. Basic first aid should be taught to all of us, and the fruits of that training would be there if there were an atomic disaster.

How can we get over to the public the idea that training in first aid is worth while and not just a waste of time? This question applies also to Civil Defence. I suggest that we ought to start with the schools, as they do in the United States and Canada. I would also suggest that some sort of national service after school might be considered. Such service could include not only basic first aid but possibly Civil Defence training also, because there are young people who are bored with the jobs they do every day and want a worthwhile outlet after work. I think that could help.

Saving lives and preventing accidents is not dull, but training for something we all hope will never happen is something about which it is not easy to enthuse. Those who have taken part in Civil Defence exercises will agree that they are realistic, and more of this kind of active training in other fields would make all age groups realise that accidents can and do happen to people. Could the Minister tell us how the National Health Service Reserve fits into the new Civil Defence organisation? I speak here as an interested party, because I am a member of the Reserve. I am sure that this Reserve could be used mach more now for emergencies, and if it were so used it would give the members much greater interest in training.

May I digress for a moment to what other noble Lords said about the Press and public relations of Civil Defence? I feel that if only a quarter of the space in the Press and a quarter of the time on television and radio that is given to exaggerated news of strikes, "sit-downs", drugs and other people's misfortunes, were given to the achievements of Civil Defence in peace-time, a great service would be done to this country. But of course, as has already been pointed out, Civil Defence would have to co-operate. Finally, I hope that the Government will not turn down all these ideas on the ground of cost, saying that the reorganisation of Civil Defence is designed to save money. In the long run, the saving of lives and the prevention and treatment of accidents would reduce hospital costs, and it would also link Civil Defence training with a really useful purpose.

7.6 p.m.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, those of us who vigorously opposed the mutilation of the Territorial Army used as one of our most telling arguments that Civil Defence could not work properly without the Territorial Army. In my time of commanding units and formations of the Territorial Army, I did the Army Civil Defence courses at Millom and at the Civil Defence Staff College at Sunningdale, and everything I picked up only went to support the arguments that we used. Just last week, at the farewell to one of the formations which the Government are abolishing this month, a senior police officer reinforced these views from the police point of view. This month sees the end of a large number of famous names in the history of voluntary service to this country. They are to be replaced by such exciting initials as "A.V.R. II" and "A.V.R. III"— and I am pleased to see that the band I helped to reform after the last war has been allowed to stay on as—your Lordships have guessed it—A.V.R. IV.

To cap it all, the Civil Defence Corps is now also being mutilated. I think that a small but somewhat voluble section of the community speak from two basic misapprehensions. They seem to think that anything traditional must be conservative, and therefore must be wrong, and that anything voluntary must smack of "blacklegging" and must also be wrong—or perhaps it is not considered right to have anything done except by a professional. I certainly shall never forgive the Government for what they have done to the Territorial Army; I hate and detest it. But I realise that it is our duty to see that the small crumb which our masters have permitted to exist specifically to help in home defence should get all the support possible, so as to be efficient and, what is even more important, appreciated. I refer to the A.V.R. III.

The Government have been so niggardly towards these new babies of theirs that one is tempted to believe that they want them to fail. With all the disbanding of units that is going on, could the Government not at least make them Landrover-mobile? Could they not at least give them adequate communications? Could they not at least provide them with light machine guns as well as First World War rifles? Without light machine guns, as anyone who knows anything about soldiering can tell them, the men cannot do even the basic military manœuvre, which is fire and movement.

I maintain that these people must be made to think of themselves as soldiers, because in times of crisis the veneer of civilisation wears extremely thin. If there is one lesson that I learned in the 15 months that I spent with the partisans in the mountains of Italy, behind the lines, during the war it was that once law and order break down, then man becomes a disgusting animal. I think the only hope here is to build up A.V.R. III so that if we ever become reduced to that state the police have at least that unit with the necessary discipline behind them. That is the Territorial Army side of the defence point.

What about the Civil Defence organisation itself?—and, naturally, I shall refer mainly to my own county of Devon. It was reorganised in 1962, with the reorganisation due to come into effect by 1964–65. The delays and the Press rumours started long before—and I think it was on September 4, 1965, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made a speech in Poole, which he will no doubt remember. I think it was made with the object of alleviating the uncertainty that existed at the time among the volunteers to the Civil Defence Corps because of the delay. In November, 1965, the Civil Defence Committee of the county publicly expressed their concern on this subject. On February 2, 1966, the Home Secre- tary issued a statement which said inter alia that the Government had decided to maintain an effective Civil Defence policy.

On March 23 the Devon County Civil Defence Committee, because of the announcement of odd plans, began to make their reductions in Civil Defence. On September 1 last the Chairman publicly expressed his anxiety about all this uncertainty and the effect it was having on the volunteers, and requested a meeting with the Minister. The meeting eventually took place with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on October 29. The result was reported to the Committee when the members returned on November 2, and they passed this resolution: That this Committee greatly deplores the Government's attitude and inactivity on the future of Civil Defence, and requests that, as a matter of urgency, much more information should he made available to the public about measures which they should take for their protection in the event of emergency. It was not until December 14 that the Home Secretary made a further statement, which mainly emphasised the part to be played by the local council. Then, after two years of loyal Civil Defence service and uncertain waiting by over 3,000 volunteers, on February 1 Home Office Circular 1/1967 arrived.

The reaction was as follows—and I will put it in a series of 10 questions. First, is this the end of the Civil Defence Corps? Secondly, if not, why should 75 per cent. of the volunteers, after four years' intensive training, be transferred to the emergency list when in the prime of their volunteer service? Thirdly, why is not their £10 bounty free of tax? How niggardly can you be? Fourthly, what is to happen to the Civil Defence Corps when the new local government structure is produced? Fifthly, the Government say that there will he another review in 1970. Do they expect that there will be any loyal Civil Defence volunteers left by then? If so, what further tests of their loyalty will there then be? Sixthly, why is there no mention in the circular of the civil disaster role, of prime importance to counties like Devon? And following from that, do the Government still support Home Office Circular No. 5 of 1957?

Seventh, what happens if the council employees refuse to do the training allocated them in the new scheme? Eighth, is it true that their union is already expressing doubts on this subject? Ninth, how does the rate of pay and overtime which will go to the council employees compare with what the volunteers were getting before? Finally, what will be the effect on the overall system if councils refuse to co-operate?—if they had a CND clerk or something like that? Was there not a relevant case in Coventry a couple of years ago? However, those are the reactions in the Civil Defence organisation in my particular part of the world.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to suggest to him it is truer to say that that is the reaction of some Civil Defence personnel in Devon. I do not claim to know Devon as well as he does, but I know the Devon people very well. I met the deputation from Devon, and we had a most friendly and fruitful discussion. I have also read the Tiverton Gazette and other newspapers, and there are some very balanced comments from members of the Civil Defence forces there, as well as uncomplimentary ones. I think it does no good service to give what sounded to me rather like an unbalanced picture of the situation in Devon.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He is extremely popular in Devon. If I may refer to the report issued after the visit of the noble Lord, the delegates were all extremely appreciative of his behaviour and kindness to them. His personal views on emergency planning and the Civil Defence Corps seem to coincide in many ways with those expressed in the past by members of the Civil Defence Committee. I am trying in these questions to give the reaction. I do not say that everybody reacts in the same way, but this is the overall reaction. I should not like to quote it in public, but I can tell the noble Lord personally, if he would like to know, how it arose.

The great things that this country has done in the past have generally been done in spite of our laws: as an example, the volunteer movement which started in 1852. I hope that we shall not go to the extreme now and do irreparable damage to our volunteer system, whether it is on the military side or on the Civil Defence side. Finally, mention has been made in the Press and in another place of various questions of alleged breaches of faith on the subject of gratuities. I implore the Minister to use his influence with the Government to err on the side of generosity when dealing with those who have given loyal service, either to the Civil Defence Corps or to the Territorial Army.

7.19 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, when I first saw the Statement made in this House on December 14 last I feared very much that the Government had fallen into the same error as they fell into when dealing with the reorganisation of the Territorial Army—that is to say, first, that they had started their reorganisation before they were quite firm on their operational plan; and, secondly, that they had based its implementation on saving, which is, after all, a negative aspect. I still thought so when I saw the last Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham—who we are all glad to see back again in the House—has only partly persuaded me that there is a definite operational plan to work on.

Chapter 11 of the Statement on Defence starts by saying that in the last year—that is, 1966—home defence plans have been revised. It then goes on to say Since then we"— that is, Her Majesty's Government— have decided, after consultation, that the Civil Defence Corps should be reorganised". On the face of it that does not lead any ordinary person like myself to suppose that the reorganisation followed a change of plan. I feel and have felt—and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, touched on this when he was talking about the A.V.R. II and III—that it is no good trying to collect and inspire a keen, loyal and well-trained set of people unless one can tell them precisely what to do. Some indication of that came out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but not, to my mind, quite enough, partly because I am one of those people who do not believe that measures to deal with nuclear warfare should be the be-all and end-all of the Civil Defence organisation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, made an important point about the use of the Civil Defence organisation and the practice they have in dealing with disasters and floods, as did my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. Then there is that borderline between armed action and Civil Defence, with which the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have never been able to come to terms, because they will insist on assuming that the enemy, whoever he may be, will be obliging enough to respect the borderline drawn by the two Government departments. Thus two important matters, sabotage and espionage, get left out. Just think what would happen if the brains of the people who organised, we will say, the Great Train Robbery, or the escape of Mr. George Blake, were turned on the planning of subversive activities. It has been a gap in our plans since the end of the war, but a clear statement of the operational need would go a long way towards producing the effect that we all want, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to get the reorganised Civil Defence organisation off to a good start.

I must return to the problem of trying to do what I would call "exercising leadership by negative". The Statement of December 14, and the circular, dealt with the whole matter as something which has arisen because of the need to cut expenditure. That may be so, but as one who has had a certain amount to do with leadership and its problems for a good deal of my life, I would say that that is the very last way to begin and the very first way to make sure that things do not go right—and that is the atmosphere in which circular No. 1 has been received.

I am not saying for a moment that it was not right to reorganise or reduce the Civil Defence organisation. I have no doubt that there is a great deal to be said for it. I do not think that the matter is being entirely correctly handled at the present moment, and I am not at all sure that sufficient attention is being paid to the need to allow for a sufficient expansion factor in the various parts of the Civil Defence organisation which have been cut down. There is a point beyond which they cannot go, and in fact the instructions to local authorities to make an overall cut do not tend to improve the handling of that particular factor, because if they were interpreted literally (which I do not think they Will be for a moment) those local authorities who have been economical and good housekeepers will be penalised, and those who have been extravagant will be favoured. This we do not want. However much the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may shake his head, that is an extremely serious danger.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, which I found interesting, could he explain what he means by "limiting plans for expansion"? He did not develop that point.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that if we reduce any force to a small number, we must take the greatest care to see that it is sufficient to provide an expansion factor for any needs; not necessarily needs which are likely to arise in the near future, but needs which might conceivably arise later on. That was one of the reasons why I was very glad indeed to see that more use was going to be made of organisations like the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John. To my mind, they have been under-employed so far, as, I think, have the Women's Institutes, which have not been mentioned in this debate. If an evacuation were to take place their services would be invaluable, and the expansion factor in those organisations is extremely high. Therefore their use in Civil Defence will be extremely helpful, in more ways than one.

I now want to go back to the point of saving money and cutting down expenses. When all this began, which was about 18 months ago, it seemed to me that the whole thing was being done in a manner which was far from being objective. What happened—and I am not speaking entirely without some knowledge—was a kind of game of departmental "old maid", where the great object seemed to be (to anyone who had a seat in the second row of the stalls) to pass the expenditure from the Home Office to the local authorities, or from the Ministry of Defence to the Home Office. A great deal of time was taken up with that, to the detriment of the consideration of the role of the Corps in the future.

I am greatly concerned that this should not happen when the Ministry of Health is brought in—as I think it is now being brought in—in order to deal with the problems of the first-aid organisations—such as the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John. For heaven's sake! let the Government lay down the law about it and say which Department shall bear the cost. Do not let us spend any more time in arguing about which department shall bear the cost while all the Civil Defence Corps personnel wait on the touchline to see what is to happen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said, now that we have come to the time when those who were recruited in 1947, when Civil Defence was restarted after the war, are about to retire, new people should be brought in, and this should be done in the right atmosphere. I think this right atmosphere has to be produced. It is not there yet.

As a last point, I feel that the business of settling the exact part that the local authorities will have to play warrants a little firmer handling than it has had up to now. Unlike a number of other questions, such as, shall we say, diseases of animals or public protection, which can be handled by local authorities by and large in the way they want, this question of Civil Defence has a national aspect and cannot be left to the opinions of one local authority or another. It must be mandatory on local authorities to carry out certain directions of the Government. A moment's thought will convince any local authority that that must be so. It is not a local plan, not local administration, except in the sense that it is local administration of a national plan which is essential to the defence of this country.

That leads me to wonder how far the Government have the balance right between volunteering and the use of local authority staffs. I was not absolutely clear what was meant, and I am sorry to say that I may not be here to hear the answer. It seems to me that if, for example, you made the roads and bridges department of the Salop County Council responsible, then it ought to be part of the duties of a certain number of those employees to do that work. Put the other way round, if it is not made part of the duty of the roads and bridges department, then we are back to the position where you are at risk as to whether the work is done properly or not. That has been the position in the rescue sections up to now, where you have local authority A, with someone very keen on it doing what is wanted, and local authority B doing nothing of the kind.

I am not putting these points by way of criticising, but in order to point to certain aspects of the present plan which I think will need a good deal more attention if the plan is to work in the way we all want, and if the transitional period is to be carried through in the way that everybody wants, in the same way that the transitional period between the Territorial Army and Army Volunteer Reserve is being carried through now. If the points which I have ventured to mention are attended to, if the emphasis by the Government Departments concerned is made more objective, and if more time is taken with singing the Civil Defence song in a major key instead of having very boring, perhaps sordid, arguments as to who shall bear the cost, I, for one, have great hopes for the future of Civil Defence.

7.34 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, the task that I have been given in replying to this debate is, for once, one which I find both attractive and comparatively easy, not because the problems which have been discussed have been simple, but because of the tone of the whole debate. With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, I do not think there was any hostility. I do not reproach the noble Lord at all for the tone of his remarks, and when I come to refer to his points I do not think he will find me ungrateful even for the way in which he found it necessary to state his point of view.

First, however, I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, how much we are in his debt, not only for persisting, through grave difficulties, in having this debate held at all, but also for the care with which he prepared his speech in opening, and for the ease, logic and kindness, if I may say so, with which he put it forward. It is a very great comfort to me, as a Scottish Minister, to know that if ever these disasters should arise while I have any responsibility at the Scottish Office (which I may say I do not anticipate), the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, is on my side. I would also pay particular tribute, as did my noble friend Lord Stonham, to the contribution from the former Home Secretary, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

In singling out the initiator of the debate and a succeeding speaker for special mention, I do not wish to suggest that the other speakers have made less than notable contributions. I do not think any of your Lordships have wasted one minute of the time of this House in the discussion we have had. I would pay particular tribute (I do not think that it is necessarily usual but it is well deserved on this occasion) to the speech of my noble friend Lord Stonham. Towards the end of what was, by your Lordships' standards, a very long speech he apologised for omitting something and explained that he felt he had already spoken over-long. I think the House reacted in the same way as I did: that his speech had not seemed one minute too long. He held the attention of the House throughout, and we enjoyed hearing what he was saying and enjoyed knowing, from the way he delivered it, that he was back to the place and in the form to which we have been accustomed for the past two years.

Perhaps I might touch now on some of the points with which my noble friend asked me to deal, and points which have arisen since he spoke. The question of finance was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. My noble friend Lord Stonham has already referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the substantial economics which have been made over the years in Civil Defence expenditure. They brought it to the figure of £18 million anticipated in 1967–68, leaving aside the addition of the T. and A.V.R. III.

Both the noble Lords to whom I have referred asked for some breakdown of the expenditure. I may say that the bulk of the further saving of £1½ million expected in the coming year will be found by the Home Departments. By the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps we expect that a saving of £1 million can be achieved in the cost of the Corps to the Exchequer. Since more than 80 per cent. of the Exchequer expenditure on the Corps goes in grant to the local authorities it follows that there will need to be a substantial reduction in their Civil Defence expenditure. Authorities have been asked to exercise severe restraint in expenditure, and they have been told that the aim over the country as a whole is to achieve a reduction of 20 per cent. in expenditure incurred by local authorities in 1965–66, which is the last year for which figures of actual expenditure are available.

I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I said 20 per cent. over the country as a whole. We recognise that the scope for economy will vary quite a bit, according to the local situation and the level of the current expenditure of the individual authority. Some could not reasonably be expected to reduce by as much as 20 per cent., but there are others who we hope and expect would be able to make a more substantial contribution. A good part of local authority Civil Defence expenditure, of course, goes on running costs. Major items of equipment, like communications, the radiac equipment and vehicles, are supplied by the central Government free on loan. The capital expenditure of the local authorities is therefore comparatively limited—in effect, to the cost of land and buildings—and we expect in the next year on this to pay grants of some £740,000. This compares with the estimated total grant payments of nearly £6 million on revenue expenditure.

Local authority expenditure on the Civil Defence Corps covers a wide variety of expenses, and the proportion spent on each naturally varies from one authority to another. About half the grant goes to the cost of administration and salaries of Civil Defence officers. Other substantial items are the cost of premises—nearly 20 per cent.; and of instruction and training, 15 per cent. In addition, there is the cost of such items as the storage and maintenance of equipment and vehicles, the provision of uniform, publicity recruitment and bounty. We believe that the reduction of numbers, and the simplification of organisation and training, resulting from the changes in the Corps will enable the substantial savings that we require to be achieved.

Clearly there will need to be critical examination of local authority estimates and claims for grant aid, and we are considering how our arrangements for these purposes can be approved. Similarly, the annual inspections carried out by Home Office Regional Directors, and—if I may at this point take up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie—the comparable activities of the Scottish Home and Health Department, will provide opportunities for careful consideration of the costs of each local authority's Civil Defence activities. We have been discussing these and other possibilities with the local authority associations with a view to working out together sensible arrangements for containing Civil Defence expenditure consistent with the need to maintain a viable system of Civil Defence. This brings me back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, that the objective should be to get 10s. value for 10s. spent.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, asked about communications. I know that he referred to what would take place after an attack; but could I perhaps go back a little earlier, because what is done if there is an imminent attack has some relation on what may take place afterwards. I can assure the noble Viscount and other noble Lords that in these circumstances the fullest use will be made of the existing communications of television and radio. Of course, we cannot expect that television and radio will remain intact in the situation which arises afterwards. They may be of no use to us at all. But one of the things which will be of use to us is something which many of us—my generation, at any rate, with young daughters at home with a multiplicity of transistor radios—have come to regard as the greatest plague in existence at the present time. These, however, may prove to be a blessing to us at that time, because we are going to rely on the battery operated radio receiver as the principal means of communication so far as we know at this time; and we are drawing attention in times of possible stress to the value that a properly functioning battery operated transistor radio will provide afterwards, and if people take heed of that at the time they will be in communication with the authorities afterwards.

I am glad to say that the point which the noble Viscount asked about has in fact been arranged for. The B.B.C. have completed the work for bringing into operation local emergency radio stations which in these circumstances would be the means of communication. These arrangements are ready now.

The question of local authority staffs was raised by more than one noble Lord. The local authorities will be under an explicit duty to train their staffs. This will be done by amendment of the Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations. The arrangements which should be made for this have yet to be discussed with the local authority associations and with the staff associations, and it would not he right at this stage for me to anticipate any details of these regulations. The local authority staffs will be trained for the particular appointment each is to fill. It is not envisaged that the organisation of this training will throw any considerable additional burden upon local authorities. I should say, however—and I cannot go beyond the wording which I have carefully written down—that that additional, identifiable expenditure in accordance with the regulations will rank for grant. As a former local authority man, I know that that is as much as you can ever expect any Minister to say. I have had it said to me so often in the past. I never thought I should have to say it to anybody in the future. Now it has happened.

On the question of local arrangements, I would touch on one other point which the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, raised. That was the question of the special constabulary. He asked whether they would receive Civil Defence training. The answer is, yes, they would, on the same lines as the regular Police, but in a shortened form.

It was a particular pleasure to me to hear the speech of the noble Baroness whom I cannot think of as the Baroness Swanborough, but as the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading. I cannot remember—and, having regard to what ladies are supposed to feel in these matters, I think it would be probably wrong of me to say—how long it is since I first met Lady Reading in connection with Civil Defence. Certainly it goes back to the time when I was an A.R.P. controller and she was actively engaged in the wartime organisation of Civil Defence, or A.R.P. as it then was. She paid a generous tribute to the welfare work which had been done by voluntary organisations, and in particular by the organisation which we have now got to try to remember with a new set of initials, W.R.V.S. I thought that she was generous in that tribute, but no more generous than the work involved. What she did not say, and what I wish to say, is that she would not have been able to pay that tribute to her organisation if it had not been for the work which she herself has put in so unstintingly, so wisely and so practically over all these years.

I may find myself in a little difficulty with my colleagues when I say that I thought that the proposals which she put forward—the indications of the lines upon which the W.R.V.S. are thinking to-day, and the way in which they are going to work—were so sound, so practical, and I enjoyed listening to every moment of them, and I hope that most of them will in fact come into operation. I have to say "most of them", because I had it whispered to me during the earlier ceremony that it was not absolutely certain that the Home Office and my Department in Scotland would necessarily back every one of them. But if the noble Baroness is to be actively engaged in argument and discussion about this (if this is not an improper thing for a Minister to say), my money would be on Lady Reading to win the argument!

I was also glad to hear that the other noble Baroness who took part was following along similar lines. I was particularly glad to hear what she had to say also about women's organisations, and to know that in the other fields we can expect from them the same degree of worthwhile and invaluable co-operation as we have had in the past. She asked one particular question about the National Hospital Service Reserve which I think I should answer specifically in these words. Plans for the establishment of a wartime hospital service have been drawn up by Regional Hospital Boards following guidance issued by the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Home and Health Department. These plans provide for the ex- pansion of acute hospital facilities in safer areas, for the reception of casualties and the provision of forward medical aid units which would receive casualties brought in by the ambulance service, give essential treatment, and send on patients suitable for admission to hospital. The staff of the hospital service would be increased by calling on the services of a number of doctors in general practice and by mobilising the National Hospital Service Reserve.

I would not necessarily accept what Lady Reading said, that if men would only listen to what women said and follow their advice there would be no problems. I will concede that if we listened to them more often there would be fewer problems, but I do not think that it has yet been given by God to either sex to find a solution to all problems, particularly this kind of problem.

The Bishop of Lichfield will forgive me if, as a Presbyterian, I have not his designation right—he should be referred to, I understand, as the right reverend Prelate. We do not take kindly to Bishops in my part of the world, but I have no hostility to the Bishop personally. But I did appreciate what he had to say, and I wish to assure him that the main point of his remarks about the maintenance of morale, and the part to be played in that process by the clergy, is one which I accept without reservation. I do not consider that all we are doing in all the other directions would have anything like its full value if morale went. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate when he says that nobody is in a better position to give that lead in morale than the clergymen and the ministers, whom the population know and trust, and to whom they are accustomed to turn in minor family troubles and always in periods of real strain.

On the question of the Report, the reason why it was not published is very simple. The Report became available just at the beginning of this very wide review which the Government undertook. The review took some two years. At the end of that period it would have been rather a waste of time and material to have published a report which, in some senses, had become out of date with the passage of time and changing decisions. What I can say to the right reverend Prelate is that the Report will not be wasted. There will be further discussions and the Report will provide the very useful foundation from which the new discussions can start.

The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, remarked upon the need for more publicity of a national nature. The Government are not in disagreement with that suggestion. But what we say is that, having regard to the new nature of the Corps and the extent to which it has to be related to local requirements, there is now no longer a need for a national recruiting publicity, and that the publicity which should take place should be of a different character altogether. Having made that qualification, I would agree with him that publicity of a national nature is necessary.

With regard to the particular point in Aberdeen, I had not seen the article to which the noble Lord referred until he handed it to me outside the Chamber. I am afraid the necessity for co-ordinating what I was going to say in reply to the debate generally prevented me from taking other than a most cursory glance at the article. I know that the thousand people to whom the Civil Defence officer referred is the present active strength of the Aberdeen Division of the Corps. I do not know about the calculation of the need for 3,000 people which was made, and not knowing the basis on which it was made, it would perhaps be unfair to the Civil Defence officer if I were to offer any comment at this stage. I will examine this matter and if it should prove to be a point which is of interest only to the noble Lord I will deal with it by letter. If it should be a point of general interest to your Lordships' House, I can perhaps arrange with the noble Lord to put down a Question so that your Lordships can all have the benefit of the answer. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that as a satisfactory way of dealing with it.

My noble friend Lord Leatherland was, I think, under one misapprehension about the reserve. He commented that it was rather wasteful to say to trained people, "You are now fully trained; we don't need you; you can go away". We are not saying that at all. It is because of the reserves, the value of which has been recognised before by more than one noble Lord, that we are able to get what we consider will be a better organisation than we have had before. There has been nothing more frustrating to Civil Defence workers than to come along year after year with apparently nothing new happening. How much more valuable it is that the time should be concentrated on giving training to the new people, with the people who are already trained going into reserve on the basis that they are there when needed, so that they will be willing to come back to have their knowledge refreshed or polished up, or to take part in the exercise which will take place from time to time.

I am reminded of what Lady Reading said, that the more trained people one had the better; that if a person had had training he never completely forgot it, and that this was a fund of knowledge and experience which could be called upon from time to time. Therefore there is no question of "sacking" 45,000 people. There will be considerable elasticity in this matter. On the question of "sacking" of Civil Defence officers (if I could use the rather brutal words used by my noble friend), it is inevitable in an operation of this kind that some people will find that their jobs no longer exist. But I am certain that my noble friend would not have it otherwise if the job is not there. It is no good, either nationally or locally, continuing a job which no longer exists, or to try to find a place for a man who is not needed. What I am certain is that neither Government nor local authorities will find themselves dealing ungenerously with men who have given good and loyal service to their local authority.

Finally, he raised a point which rang familiarly in my ears: why is the grant not 100 per cent.? The answer is, in the words of the song, "blowing in the wind". It has been "blowing in the wind" ever since I first heard it asked and the answer is the same: that the Government do not want to do it. In these times of changing local authority responsibility, local authorities have found in the past, only to their cost, that the first step towards the possible loss of responsibility for a service is to receive 100 per cent. grant in it. So long as the local authority have some contribution to make, they have some say in what is going to be done. I accept that the local authorities will always feel that their say is not so great as it ought to be. But it does work to a certain extent that when they pay they have some say; and the burden is not a large one. If this were the greatest of the local authorities' burdens, I doubt whether they would worry very much about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, had some points to make, one of which related to the question of the progress which had been made by education authorities as a result of the Ministry of Education circular in 1964 dealing with the earmarking of premises, and so on. We have ample evidence that local authorities are planning to make good use in an emergency of the resources of the local education services as provided for in that circular. But short of actually approaching the local authorities—and time has not allowed for this—I cannot give a detailed answer to the noble Lord's question. As the circular intimated, the school meals service and its staff have for long played a prominent part in the plans of emergency feeding authorities—county councils and county borough councils, to use only the English terms—for the emergency feeding of the civil population. The designation of school premises for this purpose was established by that circular.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that I mentioned the fact that it is three years since they were asked to do this? Would it not be a help to his Department (I am not criticising in any way) to know what has been achieved in those three years? I feel it is highly unlikely that in every part of the country everything will have been done 100 per cent. efficiently, and it might be important that pressure should be exerted.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I confess that I should be surprised if, even in three years, we had achieved 100 per cent, satisfactory results. It may be that the results are satisfactory. All I can say is that in the time at our disposal it has not been possible to find the answer, nor to furnish it to the noble Lord in this debate, although he was kind enough to give an indication in advance that he might be raising this point. I think it is important, however, that we should have an indication of the extent to which this is being done. If the noble Lord would be good enough to consider putting down a Question at some time after the Recess, my noble friend Lord Stonham, or one of my other colleagues, may well be in a position to give a report on the current state of play.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, both raised points in relation to the Territorial Army. I do not propose to deal with these points, because I do not think that a Civil Defence debate is the most suitable context in which to discuss the future organisation of T. and A.V.R.III. But the Government are satisfied—and this is as far as I propose to go—that the proposed equipment is suitable for the primary role of the new force; that is, the assistance of the police in the maintenance of law and order in war time.

I said that the only contribution which I thought was at all hostile was that of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It was in a way hostile, but understandably so. I have to take the assurance of my noble friend Lord Stonham for this, but I have no reason to doubt his word when he tells me that the Devon authority were, and are, one of the most enthusiastic authorities in the country for Civil Defence. It was natural, therefore, that when we heard of new proposals which appeared to have the intention of destroying a part of what had been accomplished, or at best cutting it down considerably, they should ask critical questions and that those critical questions should appear to be hostile questions.

If I may deal with one or two points raised, I would say that if we had not been prepared to make regular reviews of Civil Defence (both the previous Government and ourselves have followed a pattern of regular review) we should still be thinking in terms of A.R.P. The need for flexibility is inherent in any viable aspect of defence policy, and the reviews in 1955, 1960, 1965, and again in 1970, are a necessary part of maintaining the organisation at the best possible level of efficiency. While I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will not go away from this debate tonight with all his fears allayed, I am satisfied that, with the zeal which the Devon authority have for Civil Defence, they will find that in a year or two from now the worst of their fears were groundless, that even some of their minor fears were groundless, and that they will be given the opportunity of creating and maintaining as good an organisation as they have ever had in the past.

I should like to say that, good as were all the contributions, the debate would not have been so good without the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. We might in six months' time have looked on it rather as a gathering of members of a mutual admiration society, but he reminded us that while we in this House may see the particular merits of the Government's policy, there are some people outside who will have to have it proved to them. I think that in due course it will be proved to them.

Finally, there were the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He apologised to me and said that, because like me he is dependent on a timetable to get home, he would have to leave before I reached his remarks. But I should like to say that he was perhaps unnecessarily suspicious as to which was the chicken and which was the egg, in the need to save money and the need to have a reorganised Service. But his contributions to debates, either on Civil Defence or on Defence of any kind, are always so helpful, always being a mixture of criticism and advice, that it would be churlish of me in his absence to accept his contribution other than in the spirit which I am certain was intended; that is, as encouragement to the Government in the policy on which they are embarking, as advice which we will be glad to look at, and as criticism which we dare not ignore. Out of all of what he said, and out of all that has been said by all of your Lordships in this debate, I am certain that the Government will find value. I hope that the service which will emerge as a result of this reorganisation will be as good as the debate which your Lordships have had upon it.

8.6 p.m.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

My Lords, far be it from me to prolong the debate at this hour of the night. I feel that it has fulfilled the objects which we had in mind when we introduced it, and I think the mere fact that we have had it will be of encouragement to Civil Defence workers. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords and noble Ladies who have taken part in the debate, arid I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.