HL Deb 05 July 1973 vol 344 cc472-95

7.32 p.m.

LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of our close ties with the nations in the South Eastern Pacific region, they will now join with those nations in a united protest to the French Government and in making representations to the United Nations, about the continuation of the nuclear tests in the Pacific, with the aim of securing the end of all such tests. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. If I were writing a television script about this issue I think I might give it the title of Unwilling Target, but in these circumstances I am afraid it is not fiction, but fact. In introducing this Question I should like to deal with three issues: first of all, the background to the French nuclear tests; secondly, the health hazards and the moral issue, and finally I should like to say something about the attitude—if that is the word—of the British Government in this matter. May I make clear that throughout what I am going to say I shall use the word "Australia" as a kind of shorthand for all the nations of the South-East Pacific area, to avoid reading out what is rather a lengthy list.

My Lords, the French justify these tests on two grounds, and they have been quite frank about this. First, they say that they need a nuclear arm for their defence, and secondly, that they need a nuclear arm to ensure for them a place at the top table. These are familiar arguments; in fact they are rather hoary arguments. They put us in this country at rather a disadvantage, since we invented them. But the one thing that this makes clear is that these tests are not being conducted in the interests of humanity, they are not being conducted in order to extend the frontiers of human knowledge, they are not being conducted in order to improve the health or wealth, or anything else, of mankind; they are being pursued for sheer military purposes.

The background is that the French began nuclear tests in the Sahara, but abandoned the site after 1963 when a highly radioactive cloud crossed the Mediterranean and caused a dramatic fall-out in Portugal and other parts of Europe, Subsequent tests showed that radiation had affected thyroids in sheep and human beings in those areas. So, very hastily, the French shut their shop and took the whole dirty business 12,000 miles away from their homeland to the South-East Pacific region, despite protests from that area. In fact, until recently, the French maintained an attitude of lofty and arrogant silence to all protests, and it is only recently, when a stronger Australian Government came into power, that they began to answer. The morality of inflicting these deadly experiments on people who live thousands of miles from the French metropolitan area, of invading and polluting the atmosphere of other nations and infringing their sovereignty, does not seem to have occurred to the French Government. One of their Deputies, the representative of French Polynesia, said this: "They slam the door on your nose; France treats us like guinea pigs, dropping nuclear bombs for the greater glory of France".

The French did break their silence recently and argued, in response to the rising volume of protests, that the tests were safe and that the rise in the level of radioactivity in the region would be at an acceptable level, to which, quite naturally—and I do not blame them—the Australians replied, "Well, why do you not hold them in France? Why did you leave the Sahara if these tests are safe? Why come into our area?" Are they safe? Can it be said that any nuclear tests are safe? The truth is that scientists, like some politicians, differ and seem unable to make up their own minds about any particular issue. But certain facts are clear.

My Lords, after the last series of French tests, New Zealand dairies registered an increase of 300 per cent. in the radioactivity of milk and foodstuffs. In 1970 freak radioactive rainfalls showered Western Samoa and iodine 131 in the milk rose to three times the acceptable limit. Certain foods and animals maintained radioactivity for a long time; for example, coconut crabs on Bikini Atoll are still not fit to eat 15 years after the last United States H-bomb test in that area. So the French tests may well have unpredictable results. The Australian scientists have estimated that as a result of the past French tests there will be at least 26 cases of thyroid cancer and 14 cases of leukaemia and other cancers during the next generation. Compared to floods in Bangladesh and other natural disasters, that does not sound an enormous total, except that we are referring only to Australia, and for the whole of the South-East Pacific region we might have to multiply that figure by 30. But the fact is, as President Kennedy said, has anybody the right to kill one citizen or cause one baby to be born malformed in the interests of such tests? Have they the right to risk that killing, assuming the other scientists are right who say there is some risk, remembering that in future victims are not Frenchmen and they will not die from natural causes?

I have been astonished at the tenderness with which we in this country have received the news of these French tests, and the pussy-footing about the right name to put to it. To me it seems that it is at best an arrogant policy that is laden with risks, and at worst a cynical policy of calculated bloody murder. The last nail in the coffin of those who claim that there is no danger and that the tests are safe was driven home by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, where it said quite plainly that there is insufficient knowledge on this subject, that there is no wholly safe dose of radiation and that the only safe policy is to assume that even a slight increase could be harmful—that from a distinguished international body. And that means really no tests. So on scientific, moral, human and political grounds the French nuclear tests ought to be stopped.

Why then has the British Government been so coy in this matter? When approached by the Australian Government and asked to join in a protest, they received that approach with all the enthusiasm of a nun who has been asked to join in an armed raid on the Bank of England. It was received politely, but all our Government promised to do was gently to remind the French of the Australian view and of certain United Nations resolutions. It seems that Australia has now assumed the role that Czechoslovakia had in 1938, a far away country of which we know little and care less. We have even gone so far as to give support to the idea that there is no danger. But I want to emphasise the point very strongly that scientists differ and the weight of evidence suggests that there is no safe dose, that there is a grave risk, and therefore such tests should not be held, whether in Australia or in China—and I was delighted to read the other day that Mr. Whitlam, the Prime Minster of Australia, had registered the strongest protests about the Chinese tests. If we condemn the Chinese tests, at least we can say one thing: that they did it in their own homeland and did not dirty somebody else's doorstep.

I was in Australia recently, and I cannot find the words to explain to your Lordships the feeling on this matter, the extent of the concern. There is tremendous concern on this matter. What, ask the Australians, with some justification, has happened to all the marvellous talk that took place in this country last October and November over the passport issue, when everybody was talking about our kith and kin and complaining of the fact that Australians might have to stand in queues when they came to this country? That issue was trivial, they say; but here is an issue which threatens the health of every Australian and everybody in the South-East Pacific region, and all they can get from the British Government is a rather quiet assent and a promise that they will register the views with the French Government.

My Lords, it is not too late to make a stand. It is not enough to shelter behind generalities and it is not enough to quote from treaties or United Nations Resolutions of the past. This is a question which affects the British people. It affects us in our attitudes in international relations. If we do not make a positive protest now, the public will only conclude that it is because of political expediency, and thousands of young people already becoming cynical about politics and politicians will be driven further down that despairing road of disillusion.

I want to stress the fact that I am not anti-French in this matter, any more than I am anti-China. I just object to these tests, which I believe are an insult to humanity. France is our friend, and precisely because she is our friend we should have the courage of true friendship and tell the French that what they are doing is dirty, what they are doing is wrong and that they should cancel the tests immediately. You do not condone arson or murder because the perpetrator happens to be a neighbour or partner. You speak up frankly. In this issue I believe it is time the British Government put itself very strongly on the side of morality and said very strongly internationally, "We condemn these tests, we condemn all such tests, and we beg the French to cancel them immediately."

7.45 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I ought probably to make a declaration of interest on this question before speaking. The nearest people for whom the British Government and we in this Parliament are responsible, the nearest people to the forthcoming French tests, are the Pitcairn Islanders, and I think a rather high proportion of them are my cousins, since one of the men put off there at the time of the mutiny on the "Bounty" was a close relative of my ancestors. It may be that I feel more strongly about the matter than I should if I did not have cousins in the Pitcairn Islands. I will try to be moderate in my words all the same.

This is a nuclear weapon test in the atmosphere. It is like all the others, in that it is perfectly certain that there will be radioactive fall-out. It will come from two sources, as it always does with a hydrogen bomb test: first, from the fission trigger, which gives rise to all the familiar litany of horrible elements, strontium 90, caesium 137, iodine 131, all producing cancer in different parts of the body, especially in infants; and it will come also from the fusion explosion itself by the irradiation of surrounding matter, either the coral or even only the seawater, the irradiation by neutrons from the fusion explosion. There is no escaping that. The background radiation in that part of the world and throughout the Southern hemisphere will increase, and that increase will kill people and make people ill. It will cause people who would not otherwise have had cancer to get cancer, and it will cause genetic defects in babies to be born, indefinitely in the future, who would not otherwise have had such genetic defects.

It is true that scientists differ, but what they differ about is how many people will be affected by a given level; they do not differ that people will be affected. And it is, of course, the bitter, tragic and horrible aspect of this matter that nobody knows who the people are; it is just an increase of x per cent. of the number of people with cancer and people with hereditary deformity. You cannot say that this one was caused by the test and this one would have happened anyway. It means, therefore, that any family which suffers one of these horrors will not know whether that was due to the test or to something else. So much is true of the French tests, of the Chinese tests which continue, and of the American, Russian and British tests that have taken place in the past.

I want to draw your Lordships' particular attention to one matter which I think has been neglected—it was mentioned in the House of Commons—in the public debate in the Press around the world, and that is the question of the closure of the high seas round the Atoll of Mururoa. I have seen it said, and I should like to ask the Government whether it is right, that the French intend to close off a circle of the high seas extending 120 miles out from the test site: that is, a circle of diameter of 240 miles. This is a bit of the high seas closed to all navigation, closed to all legitimate use.

We know how extremely cross the British Government were when Iceland closed a bit of the high seas for fishery purposes the other day. We know how extremely cross the British Government of the day were in the Corfu Channel case 25 years ago, and in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries dispute of some decades back. In all these cases the matter was referred to the International Court, which said exactly what you would expect; namely, that it was illegal to close the high seas; and all right-minded nations applauded that judgment and did what they could to protest against the international law-breakers who had closed the high seas. The case is exactly the same to-day. Australia and New Zealand have referred the French tests to the International Court. They have got their interim judgment, which has declared in round terms that this is an action which must be desisted from, in exactly the same terms as they declared Iceland must desist from extension of the fishery control zone into what we, rightly in law, hold to be the high seas.

I know that we, the Labour Government of 1964–70, protested against some Chinese tests and some French tests but not against all of them, and I am not claiming that in urging the Government to do what I think they should do in this case I am only urging them to be as good as we were; I am urging them to be a little better and why not? Why do not the Government go so far as specifically and publicly to protest to France against its flouting of the International Court judgment? The argument was advanced by the Attorney General in the House of Commons that it was nothing to do with us, and that if we were to protest every time anybody flouted an International Court judgment which did not affect our own interests, then we should never cease from protesting, and this would be a waste of time and a lot of fluff.

I do not think that we can accept that. It is something to do with us, if only because of Pitcairn Island. Those islanders are a direct, legal responsibility of this Parliament. They are as much our responsibility as every British subject in the street outside this building. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend has said about the traditional, historical and sentimental links with the great countries of Australia and New Zealand, and I deeply regret that their protests should go unsupported by any matching protest of ours.

Having said that, may I for a moment put the subject in its broader proportions. French disarmament policy and Chinese disarmament policy, which are the same, are not illogical. These two highly civilised countries say, "We are interested in real disarmament. Any time the world shows itself capable of commencing a valid negotiation on genuine multilateral disarmament by all countries, we shall be there. But in the meantime we are not going to waste our time, our money and our diplomatic manpower on fiddling around with little conferences to achieve this or that marginal improvement, or marginal check, on the rate of growth of danger in the arms race". This is why they have not signed the Test Ban Treaty.

It is worth recalling, in passing, that the French Left alliance, which so nearly came to power in the recent French elections, is committed, when it comes to power, to signing instantly the Test Ban, to turning up instantly at the Geneva World Disarmament Talks, and so on. I commend that, and I think that it is right to risk wasting time, money, and diplomatic manpower to take every possibility to get some disarmament which would make all these horrible tests unnecessary. But I also have to admit that there is a certain arrogant, if you like ruthless, consistency in the French and Chinese statements that when it looks like working on disarmament they will be there, but in the meantime they will continue with their tests.

We must condemn them, but in condemning them we must not be led to think that their basic position is a contemptible one, or one without reality. There has been no discussion in the last ten years anywhere in the world by any group of Governments about disarmament. That is still the case. The SALT talks between America and Russia are not about disarmament; they are about checking the increase of arms. The Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions have not begun, and secondly, when they do, it does not appear that they are going to talk about disarmament. The word "reductions" does not mean demobilisation or disbandment, it means withdrawal. So far as we can see. there is no talk about disarmament. There is no proposal from this country that there should be discussion about disarmament. The people who asked for real talks on disarmament were the French, with their characteristic, arrogant logic. We must blame them for the tests, but not for their overall position.

I hope that the Government will be able belatedly to tell us this evening—and I do not flatter myself that this hope will be realised—that they are prepared to go further than the Attorney General said in the House of Commons that they would. I am not claiming that they have any legal duty to blame France because of the International Court decision or for any other reason; it is just as a matter of common, political, human sympathy that I should like our silence to be broken, and I hope that the Government will agree to do so.

7.55 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Willis that I was not here during his opening speech. I was on the premises and it was due to some breakdown in communication, for which I was probably more responsible than the Officials of the two Houses of Parliament, for whose work I have great respect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, knows, I have raised this question on a number of occasions, and I have given the warning that the protest against the French nuclear tests in the Pacific would become serious on an international scale. I remember that when I first suggested that, there was actual scoffing on the Government Benches, but it has now been proved true. We have had not only the appeal to the International Court at the Hague, with its recommendation that there should be some suspension of action; we have had not only the action of the Australian and New Zealand Governments in sending their boats into the area near to the possible explosion as a protest; we have had this quite extraordinary movement among the workers of the world in their trade union organisations in deciding to strike against France for engaging in this nuclear test. It is sometimes suggested that strike action by workers should not take place on political issues. I would suggest to this House that when it is an issue of the test of a weapon which can destroy life on the earth, one can do nothing other than commend trade unions which, because of their realisation of the significance of what is happening, say that they will not touch French goods while this danger remains.

I always try to see things in a broader way than through mere partisanship, and I want to recognise at once that the French Government has something on its side when it claims that it has the right to carry out these tests. It can retort that the Government of America, the Government of the Soviet Union, and the Government of this country hiding behind the Government of America, have already carried out these tests which enable them to have nuclear might. The French Government can say, "It is all very well for America, the Soviet Union, and Her Majesty's Government in this country, to say to France, 'You shall not carry out these tests' after they themselves have carried out similar tests and reached their conclusions." I believe that the French Government has some arguments on its side when it puts that forward. Before I conclude, I shall try to suggest how we should meet that argument.

Secondly, I want to say this. I think it quite possible that my noble friend Lord Willis will have dealt with this point in his opening speech, and if so I am sorry that I missed it. It is sometimes suggested that those of us who criticise France for its nuclear tests in the Pacific are ignoring the fact that China is carrying out its nuclear tests on its own territory. I want to say to the House that I, and others associated in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, have protested against the Chinese tests as strongly as we have protested against the French tests, and that we are showing no partiality in that respect.

I want to refer, again in a constructive way, to the fact that China is now carrying out these tests. We have to face the basic fact that the United States of America, the Soviet Union and our country—in what I regard as a rather pathetic imitation—have these nuclear powers which are so great to-day that they can wipe out life on the face of the earth. We often forget this fact, but it is the background to all human existence at this moment. The stockpiles in America and in the Soviet Union are a comparatively small contribution towards this worldwide instrument of human suicide.

Then France comes in and says, "As a matter of our sovereignty and human equality, we must have this weapon as well". Then China comes in and says, "We are now a Power; we have our conflict with the Soviet Union and we must have this power of destruction as well". Furthermore, beyond those definite actions in producing the nuclear weapon, are any number of nations with the power to create nuclear energy which, over a weekend, could be changed from peaceful civil purposes to war purposes. For example, there is Israel, Egypt, India —and I have seen its capacity to produce nuclear energy in that marvellous plant near Bombay—and Japan. Here is this terrific power in the background of our lives the whole time, which could destroy the whole of human life. This seems to me to be a most important element when we are considering further tests to develop nuclear weapons.

I turn to the second ground for opposition. In Australia, in New Zealand, among all the newly independent Governments of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, in South-East Asia and everywhere, the fear is expressed that radioactive elements may be dangerous to the lives of their peoples. On this issue, scientists are divided and I have no knowledge whatsoever to enable me to give an answer as to which group of scientists is correct when they say that there really is a danger or that there is no danger at all.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to suggest to him as he goes on his way that there is no group of scientists who say there is no danger to human beings from radioactivity? All scientists agree that there is. The difference is in how much.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. The trouble with me is that I am always so moderate when I am expressing opinions, and I give more to the other side than I should do. I accept at once the view that scientists are divided, not as to whether there is no danger but as to the degree of danger. What I am saying to the House is that that degree of doubt among scientists should make all of us pause about whether we should give any support, or should definitely and vigorously oppose, any more tests which may bring about this possible danger.

The last point that I make—and, though it is not often recognised, I always try to be constructive in my last point—is that France felt that it was shut out when America, the Soviet Union and this country, in the background, had made their tests and were objecting to France's claim of sovereignty in pursuing such tests. As I said, China, becoming a great Power in the world, with its conflict with the Soviet Union and perhaps with a little fear of a new détente between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., and feeling as a matter of national pride and sovereignty that it must have its nuclear weapon like other Governments —particularly the Soviet Union and America—have theirs, felt that it must develop its nuclear weapon.

I want to put this suggestion to the noble Baroness. I am quite sure that she is just as much moved by the dangers to the human race as any of us here, but I ask her in this broad situation to remember this fact. Both the French Government and the Chinese Government have said that they would be willing to give up the preparation of nuclear weapons and the pursuance of their tests if there were an international agreement to end nuclear weapons altogether. They have said that in the most definite terms, and I am asking the noble Baroness this question. Cannot we begin to-day to get out of the old limitations of diplomacies and gradualism, disarmament, progressive over years and years? And is there not one Government in the world to-day, particularly a Government which has some authority such as our Government have —which can go to the Security Council or to the General Assembly of the United Nations and say, "We wish to initiate, through the disarmament conference or other means, an international conference which will seek not the limitation of nuclear weapons here and there but, because of their danger to the continued existence of all mankind, will propose that nuclear weapons should be ended altogether, that stocks should be destroyed, that future experiments of nuclear weapons for war should be ruled out"? If any Government made that appeal in the world to-day, I believe it would have universal response. I believe that peoples all over the earth would acclaim such a Government and would see in the policy of such a Government a hope which has been darkened for so many years and which might become a light for the future of mankind.

8.11 p.m.

LORD PORRITT

My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships long at this time of night but I feel I must declare an interest having, as you all know, lived in New Zealand for so long. I think we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing this subject, and it is a sad thought that it has come at such a time of day when the House has not more people to take part in the debate. I am interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about his family, because probably not very many Members of this noble House have visited or actually landed on Pitcairn—but I must talk to him about his family in due course.

I feel I must say a few words to-night, as on this day last year I set out on my last official cruise of the South Pacific at a time when the same sort of troubles were existing in the South Pacific as exist at this moment, to let your Lordships know the very real and genuine concern of New Zealand about these matters. When I say New Zealand, I naturally include the bigger island a little way away. There is no doubt that radioactive fall-out levels rose very considerably last year after the tests in Mururoa, and that radioactive elements were discovered in milk and shellfish. They were stated not to be dangerous, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, have said, what is a danger level of radioactive fall-out? This is a positive happening in this part of the world. The reaction this year has been much more definite and much more flamboyant, if one likes to put it that way. The frigate that has gone into the area is a nuclear protected frigate and so is in no particular danger; but there are other small boats, and last year I met the crew of one of those boats and they were worried, to say the least. I wish I knew what happened, but one can never tell how long the after-effects will take to occur. However flamboyant you may feel the local efforts have been in protest, two things have happened which are perfectly in order. One has already been mentioned—namely, the application of Australia and New Zealand to the International Court where they got a favourable verdict. Nevertheless, completely unilateral action was taken by France and the result of the court case has made no effect whatsoever.

The other effect which I should like to mention, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway spoke of, is the quite unexpected and quite voluntary reaction of some of the workers of this country to the tests that are taking place 12,000 miles away. One cannot help feeling that there is apathy in this our home country towards these tests, that they are a bit too far away for us to pay much attention to. This is the great sadness, and this is what is felt by the people in the South Pacific. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned, highly tactfully, the fact that if you were in a glasshouse you did not throw stones. This is very true, but I have a firm belief that this Government could at least throw a sufficient number of pebbles and make a very nice noise without damaging the glasshouse—a noise that would be heard in the South Pacific, and, I can assure this House, would do a great deal to bring new warmth to the relationships between this, which they still call the "Mother Country", and the peoples of the South Pacific.

8.17 p.m.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in this very important debate because he was Governor-General of New Zealand at the time when my wife and I were there two years ago. He had a very distinguished stewardship of service, and I certainly echo his views that this very important topic has come at a time when we have a very thin House. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has done a valuable service in introducing this debate, and we have had some very notable speeches. My Lords, I think any nuclear tests are reprehensible; their results may well be felt in years to come, not so much by our generation but by future generations. My principal reason for intervening in this debate is certainly not on any Party issue because I think it is common ground among the principal Parties that the sooner we can end these tests the better, and I would hope that the very important meeting of Foreign Ministers in that lovely city of Helsinki will engender just this kind of subject.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, could I remind the noble Lord that nothing within a thousand miles of that subject is on that agenda—unfortunately.

LORD AUCKLAND

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his intervention. Certainly it is a subject which Foreign Ministers throughout the world should be devoting very much time to. I think what we really want to know—and if my noble friend could enlighten us it would help the House— is how much inspection there is in these tests. We know that New Zealand sent a frigate with a Cabinet Minister on board; and if I may say so the way the New Zealand Government have handled this matter is highly creditable. They have done it in a responsible manner without any kind of "eye for an eye" attitude, which is certainly something which the French themselves should recognise.

Obviously, we cannot know for certain the inherent medical dangers that these tests may bring. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, previous tests of this kind have increased the incidence of lukaemia and other types of cancerous illness. In the other place my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has put the legal position of this country in, I think, succinct terms, although no doubt there will be many people on all sides who will have concern as to whether we are going far enough in this direction. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that there was evidence that the incidence of danger from radiation in these tests would be a good deal less than in the case of other tests. I think I have paraphrased his words correctly. I do not know what evidence there is for this, and perhaps my noble friend can enlighten the House on this particular matter.

What is important, I think, is the effect on life in the area around Mururoa. I took the opportunity to look up Mururoa on the map a short time ago, and I had some difficulty finding it. It seems to be situated in a relatively uninhabited area; but I think we would be grateful for assurances from my noble friend that there is, as far as possible, the minimum danger, that the French have gone into this problem very carefully—and presumably there has been consultation on this among scientists and others—and that this area has been chosen primarily because it is an area where the least possible damage could be done. Of course, my Lords, if one were to explode one of these devices over the mainland of China, heaven knows what kind of holocaust would take place.

I want to say one word on a subject which is perhaps a little more controversial, the boycott on French goods. One can understand the feelings among some people towards the French for initiating these tests, but I have always believed, whether it be against Rhodesia or against any other country, that a boycott on goods does not really have the desired effect on nations which initiate this kind of thing; and I hope that we in this country do not indulge in too much of it. I understand that New Zealand certainly are not doing this, and that is to their credit. Having said that, my Lords, it is right that we in this House should show concern at the implications of these tests, whether they emanate from France, from China or from elsewhere; and even if in Helsinki, at the vital Foreign Office talks at the present time, this subject is not on the agenda, I think the sooner the Foreign Ministers and the senior Ministers of the world get together, the better. It may be an idealistic hope, but let us hope that this happens in the lifetime of some of us and that these nuclear tests will no longer be desirable, and certainly not necessary.

8.25 p.m.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, I think that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having raised this subject in your Lordships' House, and for the care and concern which, if I may say so, has been shown by all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Question before us this evening is in two parts. It asks us, first of all, whether we will join the nations in the South Pacific in a united protest to France on nuclear tests in the atmosphere; and, secondly, whether we will make representations to the United Nations. My Lords, as the House knows, Her Majesty's Government are strongly opposed to nuclear testing in the atmosphere. The previous Conservative Administration took a leading part in negotiations which eventually led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which of course prohibits nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. The present British Government—just as much, if I may say so, as noble Lords opposite when they were in Government—believe that all nations should accept the prohibitions on atmospheric testing that are accepted by those who have signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

The first part of the noble Lord's Question asks Her Majesty's Government to join in a united protest to the French, and therefore we have to consider this evening whether we can usefully do more than we have already done to bring home our views to the French. At the time of the 1963 Treaty, Her Majesty's Government, as well as the United States Government, urged the French Government to take part and to sign that Treaty; and we still wish that the French Government will do so, which would therefore mean that they would cease testing in the atmosphere. The French Government are very well aware of this because they know, first, of our public action in repeated statements in this House and in another place; and, secondly, because of our actions in the United Nations, to which I should like to come back in a moment. The French Government are also aware of our views because we have repeatedly made them known in personal contacts throughout the period of their last testing, and since. They are also aware of what we think because of the action we took on behalf of the South Pacific nations.

When the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, called on my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, on April 24, he drew attention to the communiqué issued by certain Commonwealth countries after the meeting of the South Pacific Forum; and I was so glad, in particular, to hear my noble friend Lord Porritt and my noble friend Lord Auckland from that part of the world. The relevant passage in the South Pacific Forum's communiqué reads as follows: The Forum also resolved to raise with the British Government the possibility of associating in an appropriate manner British dependent territories in the South Pacific with the Forum's efforts to bring about a cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing by France in the region. The Forum expressed its concern for the welfare of all their neighbours. The Forum noted the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to London and requested him to discuss the matter with the British Government. That meeting between the two leaders of their countries took place, as the House knows, and Mr. Whitlam said that he hoped that the British Government would pass on the terms of this part of the communiqué, which I have read to noble Lords, to the French Government. This was done in Paris. Therefore, because the French Government know very well the views of Her Majesty's Government, we do not believe that anything would be gained by any further approach to the French.

The second part of the noble Lord's Question asks the Government to join in—

LORD KENNET

My Lords, would the noble Baroness permit me to interrupt her? What she is telling us is extremely interesting. When the British Government forwarded the communiqué from the South Pacific Forum to the French Government, did they express any views of their own, or were they simply acting as a letterbox for the onward transmission of the Australian and New Zealand views?

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, I would not say that we ever act as a letterbox to the French Government. Her Majesty's Government, as I have already tried to show, have by certain public action and by certain private action made their views very well known, and, therefore, in passing over the communiqué from the South Pacific Forum, it could hardly be said that it was the first time that the British Government had expressed their views.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness. This is a very important point. As I understood from her speech, she said that we had forwarded to the French Government the resolutions adopted by the Forum in the Pacific. She did not then say that we did more than that and whether, in forwarding it, we had indicated to the French Government that it also expressed our point of view. That is the real issue.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELRELVIE

My Lords, the French Government were well aware of our point of view from a very much earlier point in time, right through that previous testing period, apart from this proposed test. This was not a new point. We did not register—if this is in the noble Lord's mind—a formal protest at that time. We did not do that because our views have been known over a very long period of years.

I should like now to turn to the second part of the noble Lord's Question which asked the Government to join in representations at the United Nations. This also we did a long time ago. At last Autumn's General Assembly of the United Nations, the British delegation supported a resolution which was tabled on the initiative, among others, of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November. It expressed concern that the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere has continued in some parts of the world, including the Pacific area, in disregard of the spirit of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. The resolution urged that all States that have not done so should adhere without further delay to the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere and meanwhile to refrain from testing in the environments covered by that Treaty. Again, last year at the World Health Organisation, the United Kingdom delegation supported a Motion which deplored the continuation of nuclear testing which released radiation into the atmosphere—and I should like to support here those noble Lords who have referred to China and to say that this also applies to China; and in particular what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.

I should like to turn briefly, not being a scientist myself, to some of the well-known factors on the scientific side. As noble Lords will know, the time of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 marked the end of a period of widespread and intensive testing in the atmosphere by the United States, the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, Britain, during which no fewer than 351 tests yielding a total of 200 megatonnes were carried out. If testing continued at that rate, scientists foresaw a real risk of background radiation in the atmosphere rising to levels that could he dangerous to man. After the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Union, the United States and ourselves agreed that tests should be underground; which is allowed. as noble Lords know, by this Treaty. Only France and China have continued testing in the atmosphere, but on a much lower scale. They have conducted altogether some 43 tests of about 30 megatonnes over 9 years. Therefore the facts are that the fall-out from French and Chinese tests carried out during the period since the Partial Test Ban Treaty has been signed, are a small fraction of that which occurred before it was signed.

My noble friend Lord Auckland asked whether one could say something on this particular scientific matter. I am advised that the total accumulated active debris is now declining slightly because decay and removal processes are more rapid than annual additions from current testing. I understand that the annual radiation doses from all fall-out are small compared with the natural background radiation to which we are all exposed and have been through all time. The variations in natural background between differing areas far exceed the addition from tests. For example, I am informed that there is a wide difference between those who live in limestone areas and those who live in granite areas. I come from the granite city of Aberdeen and I assume that I am far more radioactive, therefore, than most of my noble friends on the Front Bench hare.

Nevertheless, so far as the long-term genetic effects are concerned, I share the concern which has been expressed from all sides of the House. But as the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Kennet, have said, the statistics which are involved and sometimes widely quoted are based on assumptions which are the subject of continued scientific controversy; but I would say that scientists not only differ about how many people in future will suffer from these tests in the nuclear atmosphere; I understand there is controversy about whether at the very low levels in question there will be or will not be any genetic effects. This I do not feel able or equipped to comment on.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this is of such intense importance that perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. I have listened with great interest to her on this difficult subject, difficult to us all. Earlier on in this section she said that before the test ban scientists were worried that the background radiation levels might rise to a level which would be dangerous to mankind. Is it not the case that all radiation is, and always has been, not only dangerous but lethal to mankind, to a very small num- ber of mankind, long before anybody invented nuclear weapons? When we talk of levels which might be dangerous, are we not distorting the truth, which is that it is lethal? When she says that there are scientists who dispute that people will die and become ill as a result of each single test, could she refer the House to them? I have never seen that in any of the literature.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to the effects of radiation as a whole. The figures that I gave point to the differences between natural radiation and radiation caused by nuclear tests in the Pacific. The argument is whether the low doses in question in the atmospheric tests are going to have genetic effects in comparison with the natural effects to which we are all ourselves always subject.

So far as the French nuclear tests are concerned one should, to be fair, quote the Australian Academy of Sciences. They concluded, for example in April of this year, that … the average levels of radiation due to French explosions are unlikely to make a statistically detectable increase in the cancer or genetic effect in Australia.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, now the noble Baroness is getting it right. It may not be a statistically detectable increase; but we are certain that babies will die— just a few.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, this is why we are concerned—the scientists disagree because they do not really know to what extent radiation really affects people either naturally or from nuclear tests in the atmosphere. This is why we signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, and this is why we in this country have urged the French—and now urge China—to accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Why I am quoting the Australian Academy of Sciences is to try to get the matter into some kind of perspective. I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that the most distinguished scientists themselves disagree on the level and the effects of natural or nuclear fall-out.

My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of Pitcairn Island and to say how interested I was to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had a cousin in Pitcairn. I have had the pleasure of visiting Pitcairn on the way to New Zealand where my mother and father were horn. I have cousins there and also in Australia. Therefore, I realise the very isolated position of the Pitcairns. This is very important in our context—because we have special responsibilities for Pitcairn as a British colony with about 90 inhabitants now. It lies about 600 miles from the test area with the beautiful name —I think I can pronounce it rightly—Mururoa. It lies 150 miles outside the danger zone around it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether it was true that the French had cut off about 120 miles of the high seas round the test area. They did announce in a Notice to Mariners in January, 1973, that they would do this; they have not yet done it. I understand that in these circumstances it would be established practice. Of course, this particular area is within 4,000 miles of Australia, and one has to remember, as I understand, that the debris which goes into the upper atmosphere would travel from West to East round the earth, and that the particular test area is not in the expected downwind line of the debris, which would be over the sea. The nearest land, as I have said, would be 4,000 miles away.

Past experience has given us no reason to doubt that French safety precautions taken in connection with their tests are such that there is little possibility of any danger to the Pitcairn Islanders, which is what we are concerned with to-day. However, my Lords, we wish to reassure ourselves and the inhabitants, and therefore we have this year, as in past years when French tests have taken place, made arrangements to conduct radiological monitoring in the area and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale" is on station at sea and two R.A.F. technicians established on Pitcairn Island itself. I am glad to say in the context of this debate that during previous test series similar monitoring has never recorded levels of radioactivity which were any danger to health or to any environmental aspect of Pitcairn Island.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, referred to the International Court of Justice and the interim measure Orders. Her Majesty's Government, with all countries, have a duty to observe the Orders of the International Court of Justice in so far as such Orders apply to them. These Orders are addressed to the French Government and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and not to the British Government. Therefore the question of whether they are observed is a matter for the Court and for those three Governments.

I do not wish to keep the House too long, but I should like to return to an interesting point made by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Brockway, on the whole question of disarmament. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is true that the United Kingdom has had her atmospheric tests; we have got over that particular period. The noble Lord asked whether we should not propose a conference to consider the abolition of nuclear weapons. The Government feel that because of the disparity of armaments of all sorts between States, nuclear disarmament would be only rightly discussed as part of the programme of disarmament as a whole. I think it interesting to recall that at the time after the last war international concern did not single out nuclear testing from the general problem of control of nuclear weapons. If the Baruch Plan of 1946 had been adopted, there would automatically have been an end of nuclear tests, because the development of nuclear energy as a whole would have come under international control, and nuclear weapons would have been abolished in the process. As noble Lords will know, at that time the Plan was rejected by the Soviet Union.

We are not to-day considering the right of the French Government to possess or to manufacture nuclear arms which they deem necessary for their defence. Whether they wish to acquire their knowledge in another way which does involve atmospheric tests must be their decision; it is possible to do so. The Partial Test Ban Treaty does not prohibit testing underground, and we must hope that France, together with China, will look to their defences in the future in such a manner that they no longer will need to cause so many people such deep-held concern. So far as this debate is concerned, I suggest that the actions proposed in the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, have already been taken, and I am sure that the views expressed here will be most carefully noted by France and, I hope, by China too.