Civil Defence (Hansard, 24 June 1981)

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained in another place on 19th May the nature of the studies now being undertaken. They do not cover civil defence measures. The estimated cost of these measures to central Government this year is £34 million; they were reviewed separately last year, and on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary I informed your Lordships' House of the outcome on 7th August.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has noticed the substance of my Question which so far he has completely ignored? What I have asked is whether the review, which we expect to hear about probably tomorrow or on some other future date, will include the subject of civil defence? To that question I have so far received no answer, and I should like an answer to that to begin with.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the respect and affection which the whole House, and not least myself, have for the noble Lord prevented me from giving the real answer to his Question, which of course is, no.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, may I now ask the question that I intended to ask and would have asked but for the unnecessary interruption? I want to ask the Minister whether he agrees that adequate civil defence is just as important as, if not more important than, either conventional or nuclear defence? Is he also aware that there is some reason to believe that a potential aggressor, if he has not made adequate arrangements for civil defence, has at least gone a long way in that direction? Finally, I want to ask the noble Lord whether, speaking as he does for a particular Ministry, he really believes that that Ministry has already prepared effective and adequate plans which could be readily implemented, in order to ensure that we can provide some measure of protection for the civilian population?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary question, and my answer to the first part of it is a resounding, yes. The Government most certainly agree with the noble Lord in his assessment of the importance at all times to this country of civil defence measures. The noble Lord asked me whether we are in a position to put into effect civil defence measures and I should like to refer him to Circular No. ES 1/1981, issued at the beginning of this year by the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. A copy of the circular is in the Library. Both the measures that we have taken in the circular and the additional money in Government grant that we are making available mean that our posture for civil defence is now very definitely improving.

§ Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
My Lords, it is generally accepted that home civil defence is part and parcel of defence as a whole. Would not the Government reconsider the position of the Home Office in this respect? Has the Minister noticed, for example, that it seems that NALGO has been "got at" by the unilateralists? If some of the resolutions that have been put down are carried, they would successfully stymie the operation of civil defence in the localities. Furthermore, is the Minister satisfied that the number of civil servants employed in F6, which I believe is 17, is adequate for the job, especially if one compares this figure with, say, that of Canada, which has between 60 and 70 people in a similar department?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, talks about stymieing plans for civil defence. Of course the noble Lord knows that the primary responsibility for planning for civil defence rests with county authorities under the Civil Defence Planning Regulations 1974. The responsibilities range from those relating to the due functioning of public utilities in time of emergency to care for the individual. I find it difficult to believe that authorities would simply neglect these duties.

§ Lord Duncan-Sandys
My Lords, while I fully support the decision to introduce the Trident missile, I should like to ask whether the Government recognise that the credibility of our nuclear deterrent would be greatly strengthened if it can be seen that we are making very substantial efforts in regard to civil defence?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the Government believe that a firm adherence to both peace and adequate defence reduces the anxieties of war. That is one of the reasons why in the circular which was issued earlier this year (and to which I referred a few moments ago) the Government made clear that considerable additional funds were being made available so far as they were concerned, so that within the next three years expenditure on civil defence could be doubled.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the occasion of his second reply to my noble friend Lord Shinwell was the first time in many years during my experience in this House that I have heard a Member of the Government Front Bench say, for whatever reason, that the answer that he had given to a noble Lord was not the true answer, but that the true answer was the opposite one? This gives rise to some disquiet about the answers that the Government are giving.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am very sorry, but the noble Baroness has left me not only behind but a long way behind. If she would care to explain exactly what her question means, I shall answer it.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, the noble Lord said that because of the affection and respect that the House has for my noble friend Lord Shinwell, he had given him one answer, whereas the real answer was, no. Could not my noble friend have been given that answer in the first place?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, put into many more words what in fact was the effect of the answer. The effect of my answer to the noble Lord was, no. But because the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked was an important one, of considerable interest and concern to the House, the Answer that I gave was elaborated upon; but the effect of it was the single word, no.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our civil defence arrangements in the United Kingdom are far behind those of most European countries, especially Russia? Is he also aware that our own arrangements will not be adequate until all local authorities play their part? What steps will Her Majesty's Government take in order to ensure that all local authorities play their essential part in this vital matter?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about the need to make improvements in our civil defence capacity. However, I think it is fair for me to say that the answer to my noble friend's question is contained within the circular to which I have already referred.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his own estimate given on BBC radio last year of the effect of civil defence measures was that, in the event of the kind of nuclear attack that he expects, the number of survivors might rise from 15 million to 30 million?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not think that I would wish to comment upon what has been said in the media.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
But, my Lords, it was the noble Lord's own statement. Will he not confirm in this House what he is willing to say outside?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not think that I can improve upon what I have just said. I shall answer any questions put to me in your Lordships' House, but I would not wish to comment upon what is either said or written in the media.