HL Deb 15 December 1980 vol 415 cc871-3

2.47 p.m.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the press reports that the report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, presented by Dr. Waldheim to the United Nations General Assembly, estimates that 150,000 people have been killed or will die from radioactive fallout of nuclear tests.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal)

My Lords, the report recently presented by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the General Assembly was that of a group of experts. The International Commission on Radiological Protection was not involved. The Secretary-General's report noted that estimates of the effects on health of radiation from nuclear weapon tests were based on data which are themselves a matter of scientific controversy, and that there was no way of identifying radiation-induced cases among the many millions of other cancer deaths during the same period.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that very full reply, may I ask him whether this number of 150,000 is not twice as much as the Japanese official figure in respect of the bomb which fell on Hiroshima? Is it the case that these instances arise from atmospheric tests, and that China is still continuing these tests? In view of its more conciliatory attitude towards the West, cannot influence be exerted to get China also to end atmospheric tests?

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I cannot comment on the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question because I do not have before me the official estimates of the number of people who perished in the Hiroshima case. So far as the general thrust of the second part of his supplementary question is concerned, I think this gets fairly technical. In the first place, the background radiation which exists is something like 25 times as high as the radiation which has been caused by the accumulation of all the tests in the atmosphere in recent years. The answer to the third part of his supplementary question is yes, the Government of China are well aware of our view that it would be desirable for all states to adhere to the 1963 treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, of which this Government is a depository.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, may I ask him how strongly we in this country are, through the United Nations and the Disarmament Commission, pressing this very vital point with the People's Republic of China? The comprehensive test ban treaty was signed by all the major nuclear countries of the world, including the Soviet Union and this country, as far back as 1963, and a very great deal of it, in fact most of it, was due to the initiative of the then Foreign Secretary the noble Lord, Lord Home. It is now 17 years hence and still a major power, and potentially a very important nuclear power, is not a signatory, and from all accounts is to some extent at least exploding in the atmosphere.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I am sure that the Government are exercising all the influence they can on the Government of China to proceed in the way I described in my last supplementary answer.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, although these cases are the result of atmospheric tests, is there not now evidence also that nuclear tests underground are causing very many deaths? Is there not evidence that they are related to the volcanic eruptions that have recently taken place and earthquakes—as the disaster in Italy has shown? Will the Government seek an investigation of that problem as well as putting pressure upon China?

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I have the feeling that the noble Lord is asking us to intercede in areas which perhaps might apply to other Members of this House rather better than to the Government. If we start talking about the effects of natural occurrences, then, no doubt, they do have an effect. But what I have been trying to say to the noble Lord is that the effect of testing is insignificant in relation to the background radiation which exists. The difficulty about these figures is that the calculations were derived from information about the effect on man of a very high level of radiation—something like one thousand times the dose from fallout. Therefore, it is very difficult to extrapolate backwards and draw the conclusions that are being suggested.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether there is any way of distinguishing the deaths from cancer caused by radiation and the deaths from cancer caused by smoking? That is something that we should very much like to know. In view of the fact that smoking is still increasing in the world and is causing far more deaths from cancer than even radiation is causing, would not the curtailment of smoking be a better or more immediate way of lowering the figure for cancer deaths?

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, however much I might agree with the noble Viscount, I must say to him that that question is rather far from the original Question and it is making the situation even more complicated.