HC Deb 23 May 1957 vol 570 cc1392-4
45. Dr. Stross

asked the Prime Minister how often the signatories to Command Paper No. 9780, on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, have met in order to consider further evidence made available since June, 1956.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), on 25th March, 1957.

Dr. Stross

Would not the Prime Minister consider asking them not merely to meet for a few minutes or for half an hour, as I understand they have done, but to meet in order to consider whether a further report is not now needed, in view of the evidence which they now have which they did not have before them at the time they last reported?

The Prime Minister

Yes, of course, I will consider that, but I think that I ought to make clear again what I tried to make clear in answer to a supplementary question a few days ago, namely, that the work of the Medical Research Council is not something which is done and finished with. It is a permanent inquiry, and there is a standing committee of the Council for this purpose. It has its own research units, and there is what one might call a continuing progress of research.

Mr. Gaitskell

Does not the fact that it is a body continuously at work constitute an argument in favour of inviting the Council to produce a further report?

The Prime Minister

Yes, I will certainly consider that from time to time. As in all these investigations, there is, I think, a moment when there may, perhaps, be enough new material to justify a new report.

Mr. Gaitskell

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is some time since the last Report was produced, and here has, since then, been a great conflict of opinion on this matter, between, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and many other scientists? Would the Prime Minister not agree that it would the desirable to have the Medical Research Council's views on the matter?

The Prime Minister

I do not think hat there is really a very great conflict of opinion, but I will certainly consider whether a supplementary report should, IOW or at some near date, be produced.

Dr. Summerskill

In view of what the 'rime Minister has said, may I ask him whether he has read the letter by Professor Haddow, a member of that Committee, published in The Times today, refuting the statement made in another place last week on this subject? In view of that, would the Prime Minister now reconsider convening the committee?

The Prime Minister

It is not a question of reconvening the committee. The main body is a permanent body. There is a sub-committee, with various research units, and it is simply a question of what are the convenient intervals for making up-to-date reports.