HC Deb 28 January 1958 vol 581 cc206-8
50. Mr. Zilliacus

asked the Prime Minister whether, since it is now known that the crash of an hydrogen or atomic bomb-carrying aeroplane, followed by fire, could result in infecting an area of 100 square miles or more with deadly, long-lived radioactivity from plutonium, he will now forbid the carrying of nuclear weapons by aeroplanes in training or on patrol.

57. Mr. de Freitas

asked the Prime Minister what special instructions in the rendering safe of fused airborne nuclear weapons have been given to the appropriate service and civilian first-aid and civil defence units in areas of the country which are regularly flown over by Royal Air Force and United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I have been asked to reply.

The Question asked by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) is based on assumptions which do not accord with the scientific advice given to the Government on this subject. As I informed the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on 23rd January, nuclear weapons are at all times in a safe condition while they are being carried over this country. There is therefore no risk of a nuclear explosion and the question of special instructions about fused weapons does not arise.

I should add that in the event of a crash of an aircraft carrying one of these weapons, the danger from radiation, in view of the strict precautions taken, is regarded as slight. It has not therefore hitherto been considered necessary to include, in the standard instructions to Service and civil authorities on action to be taken in relation to crashed aircraft, any special instructions relating to aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. As I explained to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 23rd January, these standard instructions are kept continually under review and should it be necessary they will be added to and amended.

Mr. Zilliacus

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in a recent number of the New Scientist the picture given of the damage caused by a crash followed by a fire with a nuclear weapon containing plutonium is very serious and shows that such an incident would be very dangerous to a large area? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's advice on this matter erring on the side of optimism and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who carry or test hydrogen bombs at great risk to the lives of our people and our children?

Mr. Butler

There are two observations which I must make about that. The first is that if the hon. Member will send me any information in his possession, I will certainly have it critically examined. The second is that I must say, for the sake of greater accuracy, that these bombs are very rarely carried on flights over this country.

Mr. de Freitas

If they are not fused when they are carried, what is the reason for carrying them unfused, because there is a danger—even if it is a remote danger—to the public in the areas over which the aircraft fly? Should not the acting Prime Minister deal with that point?

Mr. Butler

I think that that point has been dealt with in numerous supplementary answers by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister—that is to say, there are occasions when such bombs are carried, in what is loosely or broadly described as an unarmed condition, in transit, but those occasions, fortunately, are not very frequent.

Mr. Bevan

The Prime Minister told us when last answering me on this subject that these bombs were carried for training purposes. We want to understand—and I am sure that this wish is shared by those on the opposite side of the House—how it comes about that a bomb which cannot be exploded, because it is not in a condition to be exploded, is of any use for training purposes in the air. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Butler

There are limits to which I can give answers, because of strategic considerations, but there are undoubtedly occasions when aircraft coming into a Service station or airport have to carry these bombs, and on those occasions they are carried in what I describe loosely—because the term is not a term of art—as an unarmed condition.

Mr. Bevan

May I press the point, because there is general interest in this matter? We can all understand that when bombs are being carried into this country, into what might be called depots, they must be carried in such a way that they cannot be detonated. What we want to know is the reason for carrying such bombs in such a state for training purposes—on patrol. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Butler

I am afraid that I cannot go further than the answers given by my right hon. Friend. As I have said, the occasions are rare and I cannot, for strategic reasons, say anything further about the other occasions when they may have to be carried.

Mr. Gaitskell

Does the acting Prime Minister realise that these contradictory answers from the Treasury Bench are simply adding to the confusion and anxiety in the country about this matter? Will he please consider making a clear statement as to the circumstances and conditions in which hydrogen bombs are carried in United States or R.A.F. aircraft and what kind of control over the carrying of these bombs is exercised by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler

Yes, Sir. If it would help, I will certainly consider that and I do not think that it will be found that anything I have said is inconsistent with the observations made by my right hon. Friend.