§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, I rise to a point of order. Is it in order for the noble Lord to preface his Question with the words "I rise"? I understood that Questions were asked by permission of the House.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is not the case—and I have had consultation about this—that to ask Questions is a right of the House and does not require the leave of the House? I have had the highest and most authoritative consultations in this matter, and I am assured that this is a right and that one does not need to ask for leave.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, as was the case with the questions of the noble Earl, this is rather a "fast one"' at this particular stage. But, speaking from a few years of experience, I would say to my noble friend that clearly we have a right to speak and to ask Questions within the order of the House. But there is a custom, bearing in mind that, unlike another place, we have no Speaker, that we do so within the permission and the understanding of the House. This is one of the courtesies that, I think I may say to my noble friend, really makes this House work.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who has just spoken whether it is not the case that in this House the Table has no authority to stop a Question; and, as Questions are not supposed to insinuate motives and other things—they are supposed to be plain Questions, seeking information—the rule, from time immemorial, has been that Questions are asked by permission of the House? Further, is it not the case that 778 if a Question is put down with insinuating motives, or in any other way is an improper Question attacking the Administration, this House has a perfect right, as it has done in my memory on more that one occasion, to refuse the questioner the right to ask that Question?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord may be right. I personally should prefer to stand on the basis of courtesy and by permission of the House as being the vehicle on which we are able to proceed with our business in a friendly and businesslike way.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I want to combine both courtesy and rights. May I therefore ask my Question? I beg leave of the House to put—as is my right—the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose at the Geneva Disarmament Conference that aircraft carrying nuclear bombs shall not fly over the territory of other nations.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)No, my Lords. Proposals on these lines have already been put forward from time to time both in Geneva and at the United Nations. It has not been possible to reach agreement on them and no useful purpose would be served by such an initiative from Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend two separate questions, the first regarding the effect of carrying these weapons generally? Is it not the case that the series of American accidents, culminating at North Star Bay, Greenland, shows the danger of carrying these weapons even when they are unarmed? It; it not the case that the Americans have the colossal task of melting 90,000 cubic feet of radioactive ice and snow in Greenland in order to extract plutonium which has been dropped from these hydrogen bombs? And is it not the case that this is dangerous not only to the inhabitants of Thule in the neighbourhood, as well as other Greenland towns, but also to Scandinavia, Canada, and even, through the Gulf Stream,, to our own country?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I appreciate, of course, that there is concern about these flights; but I think it should be generally understood that as my noble friend has indicated the nuclear weapons concerned are not armed—that is to say, if there were, unfortunately, to be a crash over the territory of another country there would be no risk whatsoever of a nuclear explosion. I think it is right to make that clear first. In spite of what my noble friend has said about the ice of Greenland, the risk of radiation would be small and contamination of the ground, if any, would be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the crash. If indeed an accident were to occur in this country, Royal Air Force special safety teams, working with the civil authority, would be on the spot quickly to deal with any such incident.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend my second question? It refers to this country particularly. There have been Questions in another place, and the Answers were rather indefinite. How far are operational flights bearing nuclear weapons still permitted in this country? Is it not the case that the 1958 Agreement with America was concluded at a time when the United States had strategic air commands in this country? Is it not the case now that such flights are limited to those from the East Anglian bases and the Polaris base in Scotland? Is it the case that training operational flights are still allowed over our territory with nuclear bombs? And, despite what my noble friend has said, if there were an accident over a densely populated area, might that not be disastrous to large numbers of our population?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I should say first of all that if, unfortunately, there were a crash of this kind my information is, and my answer remains, that the risks would be small. There would be no risk of an explosion and but little risk of radiation. So far as the rest of my noble friend's question is concerned, as my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary explained in another place recently, there are procedures agreed with the Government of the United States—they have been in existence now for some eight or nine years—by which flights of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons take place over this 780 country. As my noble friend has suggested, they include flights from bases in the United Kingdom. I regret that I am not prepared to give details of those flights.