§ 2.42 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will (a) transfer from the Ministry of Defence to the Medical Research Council responsibility for research into chemical and biological agents; and (b) initiate a proposal for international inspection and control of such research.]
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's Question, the research to which he refers is 1222 primarily a defence matter, although important civil benefits are derived from it. The suggestion that the responsibility for it should be transferred from the Ministry of Defence to a body such as the Medical Research Council has been considered more than once but the change has been judged inappropriate. Her Majesty's Government see no reason to alter that view. On the second part of the noble Lord's Question Her Majesty's Government would like to see action taken to deal with biological and chemical weapons in the arms control and disarmament context. Proposals to deal with these weapons were included in the Western plan for general and complete disarmament tabled at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee in 1962. We are now carefully considering the whole question of what particular arms control objectives we should pursue at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee after the conclusion of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that full reply, may I ask him first whether he is aware of the growing concern of people that means of destruction are now being created which may be even more terrible than nuclear weapons? In relation to the first of the questions which I put, is not 75 per cent. of the work which is done at these research establishments medical arid remedial rather than defence? If so, why should not these places be transferred from the Ministry of Defence? In relation to the second question, one welcomes the fact of the disarmament proposals of 1962, but it is now 1968. Are Her Majesty's Government going to renew these disarmament proposals before a Geneva Conference?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, it is difficult to say which are the more terrible weapons, whether they are biological or nuclear. I am sure we should all agree that in certain circumstances both can be indeed terrible. On the point about the extent to which the work is civilian, it is certainly true that there has been an increasing amount of civilian work, and some of the work, especially in the microbiological department has a civil application, but the fact remains that it is defence against the use of such weapons with which this establishment is primarily concerned. I think we 1223 must face the reality that it would be most unwise just to ignore the threat and not take precautions and prepare oneself against such threats. This is a subject which, understandably, arouses deep emotion and a sense of horror, and I agree that it is most desirable to get agreement. But there are also other aspects of disarmament upon which we should like to see agreement.
§ LORD RITCHIE-CALDERMy Lords, does my noble friend realise, in relation to his reply pointing out that a great deal of the work of the Microbiological Institute is in fact concerned with civilian risks, that it is rather a matter of hypocrisy that this should still be kept under the Ministry of Defence, when in point of fact what is being dreamed up is weapons of destruction which are not disclosed, cannot be discussed and of which the public has at the moment no awareness at all? If the noble Lord really thinks that the activities of Porton, both in terms of chemical and biological matter, are in fact defence, then I suggest, quite seriously—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I can only say, with all the seriousness I can bring to bear, that this is concerned with defence, and it is defence for which we have to take responsibility.
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, may I ask whether in relation to the first part of the Question, the Medical Research Council has been consulted, and whether indeed it would even be willing to take over this work, which I should have thought might be extremely harmful to the image of the Council?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, as I understand, it is true that there is a natural reluctance on the part of the Medical Research Council to be associated in this way. Of course, a number of distinguished medical scientists are concerned with some of the most constructive work that is being done there which has civilian application.