Defence Secretariats 17 and 19 (Hansard, 24 March 1983)

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

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, Defence Secretariat 17, which has been in existence for several years, provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with advice on nuclear policy, arms control and disarmament. If the noble Lord is referring to Defence Secretariat 19, then this is a small division which my right honourable friend has recently set up to advise him on how best to explain to the public the facts 1227 about the Government's policy on deterrence and multilateral disarmament. This does not represent a new publicity policy.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it the case that Defence Secretariat 19 has been added to Defence Secretariat 17 to work in conjunction with it, and is that a sign that the Government are mobilising publicity and propaganda against the rising tide of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? If so, is that not the use of public money in present circumstances—and I stress "in present circumstances"—for promoting party propaganda in view of the fact that the Opposition has gone on record as being opposed to nuclear arms?

§ Lord Belstead
No, my Lords. DS 17 has not been added to DS 19. So far as the second question which the noble Lord asked me is concerned, there is no question of this unit purveying a party political message. It is the duty of the Government, as of all their predecessors, to explain their defence policy to the electorate. In no area is this more important than the part played by nuclear weapons in NATO's strategy of deterrence, and the work of DS 19 will be confined to departmental information work.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, does Defence Secretariat 17 advise the Secretary of State on the comparative dangers of conventional and nuclear attack upon this country? Does it also advise upon the need for civil defence preparation against conventional as well as nuclear attack?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think that I shall need to write to my noble friend on these detailed questions. The beginning of my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, set out in general terms what are the responsibilities of Defence Secretariat 17, and I repeat them: advice on nuclear policy, arms control and disarmament to my right honourable friend. But if I may I should like to give more detail of that in a letter to my noble friend. The reason why I am not quite so ready to answer my noble friend Lord Renton on that point is that I felt—and I think rightly—that the Question was really related to DS 19.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the additional information about DS 19. Can he say how many are employed in this new unit, whether it is proposed to appoint an advertising agency, how much the new unit costs and what are the precise duties of DS 19? I apologise for not giving notice, but it was the noble Lord who raised the question of DS 19, and I am sure that the House will be interested to know.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the numbers employed are eight and they have been transferred from other parts of the Ministry of Defence so that they are not extra positions, except for that of an assistant secretary. Perhaps it is right just to set that against the fact that since April, 1979, the Ministry of Defence has shed 14,640 Civil Service posts of a non-industrial nature in London. The costs of this unit will be confined to the salaries of those eight posts and 1228 administrative costs. In addition, DS 19 will make use, as necessary, of the services of the Ministry of Defence's public relations staff and the Central Office of Information also provides assistance and services in the publicity field. So far as the duties are concerned, it will be assisting in the preparation of speeches and articles, advising on leaflets and publications and advising on press aspects of the nuclear debate.
My answer to the noble Lord's question on advertising is, no. A decision has not yet been reached on whether to undertake a public information programme involving advertising. In forming a view on this, we are naturally considering past precedents, including the advertising campaign carried out by the Labour Government in 1969 to promote British and NATO defence policies, including the possession of nuclear weapons.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain rather more precisely the distinction which he draws between political propaganda and explaining Government policy? I understood the Minister to say that it is the duty of the Government to explain their policy to the people. I believe he also said that there is nothing political in doing so. Can the Minister make that distinction clearer? Surely he would agree that in explaining the Government's policy one is explaining the policy of the party which the Government represent.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the unit is concerned with making available information which is pro-deterrence, pro-membership of NATO and pro-multilateral disarmament. I should have thought that this was something with which everybody in this country would agree.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that all Governments in all parts of the world disseminate information about their policies, the Soviet Union to the exclusion of anything else?

§ Lord Belstead
Yes my Lords.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether this new secretariat will advise the public as to whether we should insist upon having a second key to the cruise missile? If it is so advising the public, how can the noble Lord say that that is not a direct inter-party political issue?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have twice answered questions on dual key within the last few days. Although I realise that there are differing views about dual key, I do not think that they are entirely confined to inter-party views. Members of your Lordships' House consult their own consciences on the very difficult question of dual key.

Lord Paget of Northampton
But here it is advising.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the answer to the second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton is, yes, if it happens to fall within the scope of the answer which I gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that sometimes it is rather hard to draw the line between legitimate Government explanation of their policies and party political propaganda? Will the noble Lord agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to make sure that that line is not breached? Will he further agree that some of the films which are being issued under the aegis of this department are highly contentious, and that to this side of the House they feel like party political propaganda? And if the noble Lord were on the other side, they would feel like that to him.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, no. Therefore, the rest of the noble Lord's supplementary question falls.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, has the noble Lord had the opportunity to read my exchanges with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House (I gave her notice that I was going to raise this matter) on 8th December 1982, in which I asserted that the Government had been sending unsolicited material to schools and that two of these pieces of material, The Balanced View and Peace and Disarmament, which the noble Baroness mentioned, had been sent to the Cleveland authority without any request from it? If the noble Lord has read them, is he aware that since then I have checked the facts and that the view I put forward is totally supported: that this material was sent from the Government without any request and, further, that the NUT, which the noble Baroness mentioned, have a totally different interpretation of their talks with the Government about this material from the one which she gave to the House on that afternoon?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am sorry that after this period of time the noble Lord feels like that. I am aware of his Question. I am also aware that my noble friend the Leader of the House then sent a letter to the noble Lord dated 14th December in which my noble friend the Leader of the House acknowledged that on the occasion of the noble Lord's Parliamentary Question the noble Lord and my noble friend clearly disagreed on the facts at issue, but my noble friend went out of her way in her letter to say that she was in no way suggesting that the noble Lord had misled the House.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, is it part of the duties of DS 19 to explain to a rather sceptical public the advantages of the Trident programme?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, once again, if what the noble Lord is asking me falls within the scope of the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, then the answer would be, yes.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not send unsolicited material to schools?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not know that I can answer that question, apart from saying that on this occasion, as set out with great care in the letter dated 1230 14th December by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that was not what was done.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, does every department have one or more of these secretariats? For instance, does the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have one?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that I do not know, but I believe I am right in saying that the Ministry of Defence has 20.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords—

§ Lord Annan
Is it not a fact—

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we have now spent 15 minutes on two Questions. Because this is beginning to sound almost like a debate, I wonder whether it would be the wish of the House that we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and then move on to the next Question?

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, is it not a fact that on several occasions during Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, as is his right, has drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to the existence of the peace studies unit at the University of Bradford and has advocated that such studies should be extended in our schools? Is it not also a fact that those engaged in promoting peace studies are paid from public funds?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for making that information available to the House.