CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (Hansard, 7 February 1968)

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, the substantial financial savings which we are forced to seek cannot be achieved without disbanding the Civil Defence Corps; and, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place on January 16, it is our intention to do this. It follows that the services of the Corps will cease to be available. The Government fully appreciate the services which the Corps, and other voluntary organisations, have rendered in peace-time disasters, but they consider that in the present international situation and in our present financial circumstances we are not justified in continuing to maintain Civil Defence preparations at their present level. We are, however, preserving the operational physical assets, and a core of knowledge and expertise which would if necessary enable us again to raise the level of our preparations.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, while thanking the Minister of State for the courtesy of his Answer, and joining with him in his tribute to the Civil Defence Services, may I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Jenkins, then Home Secretary and now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in another place on December 14, 1966—and his Statement was repeated here by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles: 1130 The Government believe that by carrying out the measures…indicated they will retain on the most economical basis a pattern of civil defence…which, if there were a nuclear attack on this country, would enable many millions of lives to be saved".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/12/66, col. 1673.] As the Government are now turning down the patriotic services of some 100,000 volunteers, and cutting Civil Defence below what they have already said is the lowest economical basis, can it mean that they are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives? Or has there been some change in the international situation in the last fourteen months which renders a nuclear attack on this country less probable?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, certainly the statement which the Prime Minister made does not mean that the Government are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives. What it does mean is that, in the present economic circumstances, the Government no longer feel able to afford Civil Defence at the level announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkins in December, 1966.

§ LORD WADE
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some very well equipped and, I imagine, expensive Civil Defence centres have been built as part of the Civil Defence programme? The noble Lord will recollect opening one in Yorkshire not long ago. What precisely will be the effect on these centres of putting Civil Defence on a care-and-maintenance basis? Will all the activities intended to be carried on be discontinued; and, if so, will that not be rather a wasteful decision?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, retention on a care-and-maintenance basis means retaining controls, which of course would include the centre at Huddersfield, to which the noble Lord referred; and it means retaining communications and operational equipment, and one training school. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is receiving a deputation from the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the metropolitan boroughs tomorrow, when consideration will be given to the practical application of the policy of care and maintenance. Then on February 14, at official level, my Department will be meeting members of local authorities to discuss this particular problem, and many others, in detail.

§ LORD SHAWCROSS
My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that without the existing system of Civil Defence under the plans laid down by the Government, following the Home Defence Review of 18 months ago, I think, in the (I hope) most unlikely event of a nuclear attack millions of people who survived the first onslaught would certainly perish?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, that question is hypothetical, in the sense that it is impossible to say, in the event of the attack which the noble Lord hypothecated, how long notice the Government of the day would have. As the noble Lord will be aware, we are retaining the Early Warning System, the Royal Observer Corps and these others matters, so far as warnings are concerned. I do not pretend that it will be possible to reconstitute the Civil Defence Corps in its present form, or other voluntary organisations such as the A.F.S., in less than months. Therefore, if an attack came with only two days' notice what he suggested would doubtless occur. But we are retaining the 1948 Civil Defence Act—that is not being repealed—and the Civil Defence Corps and other voluntary organisations could be reconstituted by regulation. Whether that should be done or not would be a decision for the Government of the day.

§ LORD SHAWCROSS
If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, as I have the highest personal respect and regard for him, I have no doubt he remembers that the language of my question was the exact language that he himself used on another occasion less than a year ago, when he said it was most unlikely that we should have long warning of such an attack.

§ LORD STONHAM
Again, my Lords, the noble Lord is not quite accurate. What I said was that we were basing our plans on the assumption that the Government of the day would decide when an emergency had arisen, and from that point we should not have long warning of attack. That is not quite the same thing. Certainly it would be open to the Government of the day, having regard to the international situation generally, to decide whether or not the Civil Defence forces should be reconsti- 1132 tuted, either on the present basis or on some other basis. But I would say to the noble Lord, while thanking him for his expressions to me personally, that nothing that I have said with regard to Civil Defence in the last three years do I retract or go away from.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lord, does the Minister say that anything has occurred since the then Home Secretary made the statement that has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor to make a nuclear attack less likely than it was then?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I have not said that; and it is general knowledge that there has been no major change in the international situation in that regard. What I have said is that the Government have decided that this, among many others, is an economy that we are obliged to make because of the economic situation.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I think that this is such an important subject that the House may wish to debate it before long. In view of what the noble Lord has just said, does he recollect saying as recently as March 22 last year that an efficient Civil Defence service is of vital necessity under present conditions? We should want to know whether the Government's present plans are going to give us an efficient Civil Defence service, and, if not, how conditions have changed.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, it would be for the noble Lord and his colleagues to take action with regard to a debate. So far as I am concerned, I say frankly that I should welcome the opportunity not only to discuss the basic arguments but also to discuss in greater detail the plans the Government have in mind. But as the noble Lord will appreciate, we shall know much more about that when the discussions have taken place with the local authorities and when we have decided finally on the detailed matters in the light of those discussions.

§ LORD SHAWCROSS
My Lords, may I ask a question, just to clear up an ambiguity, if the noble Lord will allow me? I apprehend that when the noble Lord said that he did not withdraw from anything he has said in the past 1133 year or two in regard to Civil Defence, he was not including the statement that: If a viable Civil Defence Corps had not been maintained I would not remain a Minister. Together we have ensured the future of Civil Defence. That is the important thing.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I do not run away from that one either. I was aware of the statement. The noble Lord was kind enough to remind me of it in his letter to The Times. On this particular issue, which is a matter of conscience, I am a firm believer in this cause and in the people who serve it, and I thought it better to stay than to scuttle.