HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS (Hansard, 5 March 1957)

§ 47. Mr. Warbey
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of newly-published evidence that the amount of strontium-90 and other radio-active particles released by hydrogen bomb explosions has already reached a potentially dangerous level, he will immediately invite President Eisenhower and Marshal Bulganin to discuss with him means of halting all further tests.

§ 49. Mr. Allaun
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the cumulative danger of nuclear explosions to this and future generations, he will consider postponing the hydrogen bomb explosion over Christmas Island for six months, during which period Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative in seeking international agreement to stop all future tests.

§ The Prime Minister
I understand that the Medical Research Council have no evidence that the amount of strontium-90 and other radioactive particles released by hydrogen bomb explosions which may become sources of internal radiation has reached a potentially dangerous level. The present and foreseeable hazards, including genetic effects, from external radiation due to fall-out from the test explosions of nuclear weapons, fired at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds, are considered to be negligible.
Accordingly I am not prepared to postpone the forthcoming test in the Pacific. So far, however, as long-term policy is concerned, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been clearly defined on 22nd January. I would add that various proposals on nuclear and conventional disarmament will be considered when the Disarmament Sub-Committee, of which Her Majesty's Government is a member, meets on 18th March.

§ Mr. Warbey
When did the Medical Research Council give the Prime Minister this information? Did the Council take into account the new evidence produced by Dr. Libby, the American Atomic Energy Commissioner, which, 179 according to a report in The Times, shows that the level of strontium-90 in the bones of Americans will reach, by 1970, a level which will already be as dangerous as that laid down in the standards of the Medical Research Council? In view of the great importance of this matter to human beings now living, including children, and to the future of the human race, will the Prime Minister look into this matter again?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. The Medical Research Council's Report was, of course, published last June, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows. The Council is in continuous touch with this matter. All I can say is that the information which I have given is that which is supplied to me. I would point out that the banning of tests is quite a different question from that of their possible limitation. All these matters Her Majesty's Government are always ready to consider. What I am not prepared to do is to postpone the tests which we are about to make and which put us as a nation in the position in which we have a right and a duty to be.

§ Mr. Allaun
Since the new American evidence shows that we are in real danger of visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, not only to the third and fourth generations but far beyond that, will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the proposal of postponement?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, we keep all these matters under consideration, but when I am told that the dangers are negligible, as at present, it is not a reason why we, of all countries, should deprive ourselves of a weapon necessary for our safety.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The Prime Minister will recall that Sir Anthony Eden gave us an undertaking that the Government were prepared to try to bring about a separate agreement on H-bomb tests. May I ask the Prime Minister, therefore, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, when the Disarmament Sub-Committee meets on 18th March next, to put forward definite proposals for abolishing these tests, independently of any other disarmament agreement?

§ The Prime Minister
That is a question we would certainly consider. The banning of the tests is one thing and their limita- 180 tion is another. What I am not prepared to do, and I do not think the country or the House would wish, is that we alone should deprive ourselves of the tests at this particular moment, thus leaving ourselves in a position of inferiority to others.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Will Her Majesty's Government put forward separate proposals, at any rate for limiting, with a view to their eventual abolition, such tests, independently of any general disarmament agreement?

§ The Prime Minister
The answer is this: we would rather have a comprehensive agreement dealing with the reduction of armaments both in the unconventional and the conventional fields. That is what we would like and what we have been working for. Short of that, if we cannot get that, we should be anxious to get any limitation-of-tests agreement.

§ Mr. Fort
Is the Prime Minister aware that scientific evidence is extremely conflicting in this field? Will he, therefore, pursue a general disarmament policy rather than confine himself to something put forward by the Opposition?

§ The Prime Minister
That is what I was saying; we should like a broad disarmament agreement in the conventional as well as in the unconventional fields. My hon. Friend will realise the importance to us of keeping these two working parallel together. Failing that, we would certainly like an agreement for the limitation of tests, but I am not prepared to deprive ourselves of the work that we have done and of the position we ought to have.

§ Mr. Bevan
Is the Prime Minister aware of any other country which is proposing to start upon nuclear tests? If the other countries take the same view as he is now taking about Britain, when are they likely to stop?

§ The Prime Minister
I would refer to the statement I have made. I believe it commands general assent that we should go at first for a wide measure of disarmament both on the conventional and on the unconventional levels, and that we should, failing that, be willing to work for the limitation of these tests. That would be an advantage to us all. But I do not think we ought to put ourselves unilaterally in a weaker position than we are entitled to be.

§ Mr. Bevan
Would the Prime Minister answer my first question? Is he aware of any other country which is now proposing to embark upon nuclear tests? If those other countries took the same view as the Prime Minister is now taking, when should we be likely to stop?

§ The Prime Minister
I know of two countries but the answer, if the right hon. Gentleman means countries other than Russia and the United States, is "No, Sir."

§ Dr. Summerskill
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has just made is considered out-of-date by authorities, and that it cannot be reconciled with the statement which was made within the precincts of this House last week by Professor Haddow, who is regarded as the greatest authority in this country on this subject?

§ The Prime Minister
Governments can only rely upon the best authorities that they can find. The best authorities available to Her Majesty's Government are the authorities which we normally consult and whose opinion I have quoted. These are not individual experts here and there, but the Medical Research Council which, I think the right hon. Lady will admit, comprises the best organised and the most efficient research on this matter that can be found.

§ Mr. P. Noel-Baker
Is the Prime Minister aware that, by a recent answer, he committed the Government to a proposal which is to be discussed on Monday week at Lancaster House for the total abolition of new production of all nuclear weapons? Since this is so, is it not simply common sense to suspend the test while these discussions go on?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. I should have thought it was common sense to put ourselves in the position that we have been working for so long to attain, that we should not be in a weaker position that those other two great Powers.