§ 4.7 pm
§ Mr. John Loveridge (Upminster)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to examine the improvements that might be made in protecting citizens of the United Kingdom both from accidents and from the threat of war, including chemical dangers and radiation, and in providing medical services; and for conected purposes.The Proposed Bill pursues the purpose of my Naval Defence (Inquiry) Bill of 6 February 1978, and my Defence of the United Kingdom (Inquiry) Bill of 30 October 1979. It calls upon the Government to inquire how the British public can be brought to play a greater part in their own defence and security through voluntary action. We can get better value for money from voluntary services, yet we spend less than 2 per cent. of our defence budget on the reserves. Most of those reserves are committed to NATO in time of war or under threat of war. Our homes would be left an easy prey, open to invasion or attack. Civil defence volunteer groups should, therefore, be extended throughout the United Kingdom.I welcome the fresh steps that the Government have taken to increase the reserves and Territorial Army. I also welcome their honesty in publishing the simple but four-year-old, leaflet entitled "Protect and Survive". More knowledge and sound publicity need not cause undue public alarm. Our people can be trusted to face the facts more calmly if they are free from anxious thoughts that are based on ignorance.
I welcome reports that private enterprise firms are preparing radiation-proof clothing and shelters, and also the initiative of those people organising campaigns for civil defence in Devonshire and elsewhere.
It is important that the Government should institute a major inquiry to ensure that the British public are more fully aware of measures that might enable them to survive attacks, whether the weapons used are nuclear, chemical, gas, germ or conventional. We have failed in recent years to trust our own people. Last month in Switzerland I saw a respectable citizen placing his automatic rifle in the boot of his car. Are we afraid that more 1318 volunteers here cannot be trusted in the same way? In Switzerland and Sweden the Government have gone a long way towards ensuring that householders have shelters. The Swiss have as much as two months' food and water at home, supported by three years of further food stocks, stacked away in tunnels.
We read of experiments that show that 100 times as much protection from radiation is reasonably practicable if simple measures are taken once outside two or three miles radius from a nuclear explosion. It is said that over 15 million people might survive an all-out nuclear attack on these islands. That is two or three times the population in Shakespeare's day. Are they not worthy of protection? In any case, it is more likely that any nuclear exchange would be on a restricted scale—perhaps one or two cities would be involved whilst negotiations went on.
Equally, some accident might carry nuclear waste over our country. That might occur from action at sea or even an accident in another country. We hear reports from the United States that deaths from anthrax in the Soviet Union have been shown to be from airborne spores, which could only have come from the manufacture of this dread disease. When a disaster threatens, whether from accident or direct design, any British Government have a duty to ensure that whatever protection possible within our capacity is given to our people, and that large numbers of them are trained to survive and to give first aid to their fellow citizens. Under Government control, they should also be trained in Home Guard duties in case our Regular and Territorial forces are employed overseas. The need for a major inquiry is clear.
The responsibilities given to the Minister of State, Home Office are a step forward. We await with interest his early review. Any major inquiry should examine whether the regulations under which, subject to political control, local government officers are asked to take charge are adequate in the event of major troubles. Few of these, except the oldest, have had any experience or training for war. Probably the best solution would be for an entirely new home defence service to be established and built up alongside other services. The problems 1319 are complex and need expert consideration and training. I have no doubt that experts and others from every walk of life and with wide experience would answer a call to serve.
There are those who believe that we should do nothing for fear of encouraging a "warlike attitude". But there is no turning our backs on the steps that have been taken in the Soviet Union, which enable that nation to wage war against civilian populations, on a small or large scale, should their Government choose to do so.
The Planned improvements in our deterrent strength through the new cruise missiles are welcome. But we need more than deterrents. They can have no real meaning if there is no realistic effort to protect our own people from the ghastly fruits of war. If we are to encourage the "doves" in Moscow, we must show our deterrent to be a real force, and we must also show that we are determined to protect our own people from any attack, which God forbid.
Equally, is it fair to ask our Service men to enter situations abroad where there could be threats of nuclear, gas or chemical weapons being used if they feel that the British Government have made no provision even to try to protect their wives and children at home?
The Possibility of accident alone is enough to require the building of a properly trained service in this country. I hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind and set up an inquiry. I hope that they will not be deterred from supporting the Bill merely because they have their own immediate departmental review about to report. This is a long-term question, which needs the development of long-term and expert judgment. It would be folly to give a false impression of our determination by the Government's not supporting my call for an inquiry.
This inquiry should include the best means of educating the public in measures for their safety, the formation of local civil and home defence units, the organisation of command structures for these units, help for those who have to move their families, the role of the medical services, plans to control the spread of disease due to chemical or 1320 radioactive fall-out, ensuring that water is free from contamination, and that strategic food and material stores are available. The inquiry should also examine the design and production of protective equipment and shelters. Building regulations should be eased in order to make this possible. There is also a need for protection of ports, transport and supply routes.
I urge the Government to institute an inquiry, not only because it is important, but because it is urgently needed.
§ Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)I wish to oppose this Ten-Minute Bill because, as I intend to show, civil defence against nuclear weapons is futile—it is a deceit and a cruel confidence trick. It is also wrong because it aims at mentally conditioning the population to accept war and to believe that preparations for war are inevitable.
There is no defence against nuclear war except to prevent its being waged. There is little hope of an East-West war being fought with conventional weapons. I cannot see either America or Russia sitting on a pile of nuclear weapons and not using them at the earliest opportunity. They would both act fast—before the other side, they would hope.
Most civil defence workers, such as the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge), are sensible and public spirited people, but they have not thought through their case. There are now 20-megaton bombs—the equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT. That is 1,000 times as powerful as the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. That bomb caused 200,000 deaths and there are still some people dying today as a result of it.
A Home Office publication, entitled "Nuclear Weapons", states that a 20-megaton bomb would cause reddening of the skin for everyone within a 25-mile radius of the explosion, blistering of the skin for everyone within 20 miles, and charring of the skin for everyone within 16 miles. In the latter case that virtually means death.
A dozen megaton bombs on Britain would finish off our country. If that occurs, I hope that I, my wife and children are 1321 right under the first bomb, because then we will die instantly. If we were 50 or 100 miles away, we would still die days later in agony because the atmosphere, soil, water, food and everything else would be contaminated with radioactivity.
It is true that some Ministers, local government heads and police chiefs would be five storeys below the surface, and might survive, to start with. However, they would have to emerge sooner or later from their regional seats of government—the RSGs. The world into which they emerged would be a radioactive desert. The fire storms would create winds of up to 150 mph. At Hiroshima, after its little, immature bomb, the fire storm lasted for six hours.
I wish to quote from the Government circular to local authorities:
No part of the country could expect to avoid the effects of an attack.Lord Belstead, who is in charge of civil defence for the Government, has estimated—
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)It is not Lord Belstead now.
§ Mr. AllaunIt was until a few days ago, and unless his estimate is repudiated by his successor, his words stand firm. Lord Belstead estimated that 15 million out of 55 million British people would survive. That is to say, 40 million would be wiped out. If civil defence precautions are taken, 30 million may survive, and that is pure guesswork. Lord Belstead does not say how many would die later, or how many minutes' warning of a raid people would have. He does not know the size of the bombs.
What kind of civil defence would be provided? Lord Belstead said that a national system of special shelters would
cost billions and billions and billions of pounds".Therefore, that solution can apparently be ruled out. I am told that since the Cabinet decided on cruise missiles last December there has been a tremendous interest in buying home shelters at a cost of £5,000 each. I can see Salford workers easily affording that sum from their wages! What about the remainder of the population—those who cannot afford £5,000?I quote from the Home Office pamphlet "Protect and Survive", to which the hon. Member for Upminster 1322 referred. We are supposed to make a fall-out room to protect ourselves and our families against radioactivity. The pamphlet states:
Use a table and cover it with heavy furniture, boxes of sand, earth, books or clothing, and stay there for at least 48 hours.It contains drawings of the parents and children entering their self-made fall-out shelter. They are asked to have with them adhesive dressing and ointment, including Vaseline, toys and magazines. The pamphlet continues:Coat each window with light coloured emulsion paint.The Pamphlet is pathetic. It goes on:You must be prepared to live in it for 14 days. Store extra water in the bath.For a touch of realism, it acknowledges that there may be some deaths:Place the body in another room and cover it as securely as possibleI repeat that civil defence is not only a waste of effort; it is part of the war plan. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) who is the Minister of State, Home Office, said in The Times that it was essentialthat civil preparedness should be adequate it the credibility of the military deterrent strategy was to be maintained.He also said that military and civil preparedness was closely related. That is a point that I am making. I believe that the idea is that we can survive in a shelter and live to fight another day. As a speaker on a recent television programme said:We have to do it to show that we intend to fight.Conservative Members must understand that there are millions of people who do not want to fight a war against anybody. Surely a more hopeful way of survival is to get rid of the cruise missiles, which make Britain such an obvious target. Switzerland and Sweden were referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but he omitted to mention that they are non-nuclear and neutral, and therefore less likely to be attacked.Finally, I recommend hon. Members to read an excellent CND pamphlet entitled "Civil Defence" by Phil Bolsover.
For those reasons, I oppose the motion.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Com- 1323 mittees at commencement of public business):—
1324§ The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 133.
1325| Division No. 381] | AYES | 4.26 p.m. |
| Alexander, Richard | Gower, Sir Raymond | Pawsey, James |
| Alton, David | Greenway, Harry | Penhaligon, David |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Gummer, John Selwyn | Peyton, Rt Hon John |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston North) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Pollock, Alexander |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Porter, George |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Haselhurst, Alan | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Bell, Sir Ronald | Hastings, Stephen | Rathbone, Tim |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Heddle, John | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Best, Keith | Henderson, Barry | Renton, Tim |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hicks, Robert | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Blackburn, John | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L | Rost, Peter |
| Body, Richard | Hill, James | Sandelson, Neville |
| Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West) | Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hordern, Peter | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Bradley, Tom | Howells, Geraint | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Silvester, Fred |
| Brinton, Tim | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Sims, Roger |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Brotherton, Michael | Kimball, Marcus | Speller, Tony |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) | Lang, Ian | Spence, John |
| Buck, Antony | Latham, Michael | Squire, Robin |
| Budgen, Nick | Lawrence, Ivan | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Butcher, John | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Steen, Anthony |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo) | Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Loveridge, John | Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lyell, Nicholas | Stokes, John |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | McCrindle, Robert | Tapsell, Peter |
| Clark, Sir William (Croydon South) | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Cockeram, Eric | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Thompson, Donald |
| Colvin, Michael | McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Corrie, John | McQuarrie, Albert | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Costain, A. P. | Magee, Bryan | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Crouch, David | Major, John | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath) |
| Dean, Paul (North Somerset) | Marlow, Tony | Trippier, David |
| Dover, Denshore | Mawby, Ray | Trotter, Neville |
| Durant, Tony | Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Viggers, Peter |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Eggar, Timothy | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Elliott, Sir William | Mills, Iain (Merlden) | Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) |
| Emery, Peter | Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
| English, Michael | Moate, Roger | Wall, Patrick |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Montgomery, Fergus | Warren, Kenneth |
| Farr, John | Morgan, Geraint | Watson, John |
| Fell, Anthony | Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Murphy, Christopher | Whitney, Raymond |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Myles, David | Wickenden, Keith |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Needham, Richard | Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery) |
| Forman, Nigel | Nelson, Anthony | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Neubert, Michael | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham | |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Goodhew, Victor | Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and, Mr. Robert Adley. |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Patten, John (Oxford) | |
| Gow, Ian | ||
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Cowans, Harry | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Adams, Allen | Crowther, J. S. | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Allaun, Frank | Cryer, Bob | Foster, Derek |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Cunliffe, Lawrence | Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven) | Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Ashton, Joe | Dalyell, Tam | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) | Davidson, Arthur | Graham, Ted |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central) | Haynes, Frank |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Deakins, Eric | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Dewar, Donald | Home Robertson, John |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith) | Dixon, Donald | Homewood, William |
| Buchan, Norman | Dobson, Frank | Hooley, Frank |
| Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P) | Dormand, Jack | Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Dubs, Alfred | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Eastham, Ken | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Ennals, Rt Hon David | John, Brynmor |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Evans, John (Newton) | Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Field, Frank | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Coleman, Donald | Flannery, Martin | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Lambie, David | Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Soley, Clive |
| Lamond, James | Morton, George | Sprlggs, Leslie |
| Lelghton, Ronald | Newens, Stanley | Stallard, A. W. |
| Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Stoddart, David |
| Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West) | O'Neill, Martin | Stott, Roger |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Straw, Jack |
| Litherland, Robert | Park, George | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Parry, Robert | Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen) |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Pendry, Tom | Torney, Tom |
| McCartney, Hugh | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| McDonald, Or Oonagh | Prescott, John | Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster) |
| McKay, Allen (Penlstone) | Race, Reg | Weetch, Ken |
| McNamara, Kevin | Richardson, Jo | Welsh, Michael |
| McTaggart, Robert | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North) | White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe) |
| McWilllam, John | Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock) | Whitlock, William |
| Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Sheltles'n) | Rooker, J. W. | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) | Winnlck, David |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester South) | Rowlands, Ted | Wright, Sheila |
| Maxton, John | Sheerman, Barry | Young, David (Bolton East) |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Short, Mrs Renée | |
| Mikardo, Ian | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) | Silverman, Julius | Mr. Stan Thorne and |
| Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Skinner, Dennis | Mr. Allan Roberts. |
| Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Julian Amery, Sir John Eden, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Philip Holland, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and Mr. Patrick Wall.