Nuclear War: Bunker Accommodation (Hansard, 28 July 1981)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, a small number of those performing essential war-time operational duties would 651 be located in protected accommodation. The main groups of operational staff would be: the United Kingdom warning and monitoring system organisation, amounting to 4,600 personnel approximately; the staff of the war-time regional government structure, amounting to 3,500 personnel altogether, and some armed forces personnel.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the informative nature of that reply. Further, can he say whether any provision is made for the families of people who are provided with bunker accommodation? Can he also say what, in the event of a nuclear war, is to happen to the rest of the population?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, I do not think that it would be proper for me to anticipate the reply regarding families to the noble Lord's four Questions for Written Answer which are set down in the Minutes of Proceedings. On the other part of the question, I think that the answer will also arise in the replies to those Questions for Written Answer.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is not the problem of nuclear war not how to get into a bunker, but how to survive having got out of one?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is speculating on a situation and that the House can share with him some similar view.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, is it not a fact that a great deal of public money is being spent in answering these successive Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, on a wholly hypothetical event which it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to avoid? Is not the repetition of these Questions an abuse of the privileges of this House, and can they have any effect but to bring aid and comfort to our prospective enemies?

§ Lord Peart
My Lords, may I say that I believe—

Several noble Lords
Order, Order!

§ Lord Peart
My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that such a question is really distasteful?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, may I say that it is never the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prevent any of your Lordships from putting down Questions, should your Lordships wish to do so. On the point about repetition, I think that this is a matter of judgment for the noble Lord who is putting down the Question and a matter for consideration by the Table Office.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, can the Minister clarify present plans for civil defence, which are now in confusion? Has the recommendation that we should all stay at home been withdrawn? Is it now accompanied by three proposals: deep shelters for the administrative staff, less deep shelters under large buildings, and shelters in gardens to protect against fall-out?

§ Lord Sandys
No, my Lords; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, should read again the Statement repeated in your Lordships' House on 7th August last year, which was a civil defence Statement. If he reads it carefully I think he will come to another conclusion. As regards the immediate arrangements, I can assure the noble Lord that a very careful study is being undertaken by the Home Office Working Group on Shelters, which deals with the matter on an inter-departmental basis. The examination is being done in conjunction with the Property Services Agency and local authorities. This is an extremely detailed survey of buildings, structures, underground tunnels, underground car parks, et cetera. This is thought to be by far the most cost-effective way of making use of our existing resources—by spending money on planning and carrying out a survey.

§ Lord Stewart of Fulham
My Lords, is it not the fact that the only country that has ever suffered from a nuclear attack is one that had no nuclear arms and no nuclear allies? Must we not hope that this country never gets itself into that position?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, that is quite correct.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that although we might differ in the conclusions that we draw from the information, by the comprehensiveness of his answers he shows that he at least agrees with me that the information should be made available?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, so far as I know, I do not think that it has ever been the policy of the Home Office to conceal information. In fact, the reply given to a Question in another place was that much of this information is not secret.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament would cause far greater risk to the safety of the people of this country than any of the risks which are set out in the Question which has been tabled today?

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said. The policy of adopting the nuclear deterrent is one of first importance.