Nuclear Attack (Casualties) (Hansard, 20 November 1986)

§ 1. Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion he has had with the British Medical Association about the likely number of casualties following a nuclear attack on Britain; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
Discussions last took place in 1982 and 1983 in connection with the BMA inquiry into the medical effects of nuclear war.

§ Mr. Strang
Does the Minister accept that the review of blast casualty rules applicable to United Kingdom houses, published by his Department a few weeks ago, fully vindicates the claims of the BMA and other organisations that the casualty rates used by the Home Office at the time of the publication of "Protect and Survive," which were repeatedly stated, were hopelessly unrealistic? Will he now admit to the House that in any likely level or pattern of nuclear attack on Britain the survivors will envy the dead?

§ Mr. Hogg
The hon. Gentleman does not do himself credit. He knows perfectly well that it is not the practice of Governments to quantity potential casualties in precise terms. That is because actual casualties that may arise would depend entirely upon assumptions that are in the control of our enemies, not in the control of our friends.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
Does my hon. Friend agree that radiation casualties in this country might result from nuclear explosions or accidents elsewhere in the world? Therefore, will he urge doctors to participate in civil defence planning and to drop the silly objection that this will somehow condone nuclear war?

§ Mr. Hogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The point he made is important and adds force to the all-hazards approach now adopted by the Government.

Mr. John Mark Taylor
Does my hon. Friend think that casualties would be any fewer in nuclear-free zones?

§ Mr. Hogg
No. I think that the Labour party's policy in all these matters is nonsense.

§ Mr. Heffer
Is it not clear that, in the event of a nuclear war, there will be no victors and that everybody will be 676 losers? Is it not high time that the Government faced that reality? Instead of the Prime Minister going to see President Reagan and telling him to retain nuclear weapons, should she not have gone to Washington and told the Americans to get them out this country?

§ Mr. Hogg
The hon. Gentleman's remark is singularly foolish. We have managed to secure the peace for over 40 years by a policy of deterrence. The Labour party's policy will destroy the system of alliances that has kept the peace.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the book "London under Attack", which is a detailed study of the likely impact on London of a nuclear attack? If the Minister has read this book, he will realise that London will be completely destroyed in a nuclear war. When will the Government tell the people the truth, which is that there is no defence against nuclear attack?

§ Mr. Hogg
This country expects Governments to give greatly improved civil protection. That is what they are getting from this Government, and that is precisely what they would not get from the Labour party.