§ Lord RentonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all the local authorities required to do so under the planned programme for implementation have submitted their plans under the Civil Defence Regulations 1983.
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, the PPI is a rolling three-year programme setting a series of monitoring targets for all the requirements of the 1983 regulations. The first target date in respect of plans is 1st October this year. All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unexpectedly encouraging reply. Is he aware that some local authorities, ignoring Chernobyl, persist in declaring themselves nuclear-free zones, are irresponsibly breaking the law and are failing to prepare the civil defence plans which they are required to prepare? What do the Government propose to do about such authorities?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, I am not aware that any of those so-called nuclear-free authorities are refusing to meet their statutory obligations. As I said, monitoring the planned programme for implementation will help to ensure that all local authorities fulfil their responsibilities.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the Minister aware that a local authority which makes it clear that there is no such thing as civil defence against nuclear war is merely telling the truth?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, if some of the policies of noble Lords opposite were followed, civil defence might be our only defence.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, will the noble Lord say what part the civil defence co-ordinator has played in this programme? He may recall that the co-ordinator was appointed in 1981. At that time he was said to be preparing a review. What progress has been made? Has the co-ordinator been visiting the local authorities?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, a report on local authorities' preparedness was made available last July. A copy is in the Library of your Lordships' House. It makes it clear that despite encouraging progress in many areas a great deal remains to be done.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, is it the case that the co-ordinator was responsible? Is he still in situ and doing his work? Will the Minister say what backup, assistance and staff he has?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, no. I think that is another main Question. I shall look into the matter and reply to the noble Lord.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, it is not another Question.
§ Viscount MerseyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are 173 nuclear-free zones, including places such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Southampton? In view of the recent local election results, would it not be an extremely good plan to remind those authorities now of the duties which will be required of them this coming October?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, officials have now held meetings with all county-level authorities in England and Wales. They have discussed their work for the coming year. We have been encouraged by their constructive approach. We believe that we have laid a more solid foundation for rapid and consistent progress in the future.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, in the light of these exchanges, can the noble Lord clear up some confusion about nuclear-free zones? Is it not true that a nuclear-free zone in the usually accepted sense of the phrase means an area in which there are no nuclear weapons stock-piled, stored or deployed? As that can scarcely be the business of local authorities, would it not be more accurate to say that they are zones free of protection against nuclear attack?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, yes. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, in the event of a nuclear weapon dropping in the middle of a large or small town in Great Britain, what are the instructions for civil defence?
§ Lord BeaverbrookMy Lords, the plans are those now being implemented with the local authorities.