HL Deb 10 July 1985 vol 466 cc189-91

2.53 p.m.

Lord Molloy

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made any provision, for instance through Civil Defence and related services, to deal with the situation in which a nuclear weapon is set off in the United Kingdom by accident or mistake.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no prospect of an atomic bomb-type explosion occurring by accident or mistake. Even the possibility of the release of the radioactive component of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances is extremely remote. Nevertheless, it is clearly prudent that there should be contingency plans for dealing with any such accident, however unlikely, and detailed arrangements exist for this purpose.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I am grateful for the latter part of the noble Lord's Answer: that such plans exist. Can he tell the House whether the top levels of all our medical services and our scientific services have been involved in the awful peradventure of an accident? He assured the House that no such thing can happen; but would he care to consider that statement? If that is really so, there is no need for any action to be taken in the peradventure that an accident might take place.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than the main Answer I gave in answer to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. However, in answer to the first part of his question, I can assure him that we engage the very best expertise available in these matters and that is why I can give him the reassuring answer that I do.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can be reminded of the organisation that I have already suggested should receive his support. I refer to the initiative shown by the National Council for Civil Defence. The president is the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is at present in his place. That organisation is strongly advocating the depoliticising of Civil Defence. Is the Minister interested in building bridges among those authorities and councils who hitherto have spurned the efforts of the Government on what I would call the traditional Civil Defence line to take account of the kind of accident or hazard that can occur? If the Minister is anxious to make friends, I believe that this speech is a very good one.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, with repect to the noble Lord, our Civil Defence arrangements do not arise directly from this Question, which specifically relates to the movement of nuclear weapons. I do not think I can go further than the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about the general desirability of Civil Defence.

Lord Renton

My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, also could cover the possibility of terrorists setting off a nuclear weapon, albeit of a smaller kind? If that happened, would it not be the responsibility of the Government and local authorities, within the ambit of the all-hazards approach to dealing with emergencies in peace and war, to be prepared to handle such a situation?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, there are important security considerations which have to be taken into account in preparing our plans for the circumstance to which my noble friend refers. I can assure him that we have all those considerations in mind.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in the event of a single, perhaps accidental, explosion a well-organised Civil Defence could do a great deal to limit death and injury on the fringes of the explosion? Would he not agree that councillors and peace campaigners who obstruct the development of Civil Defence would carry a heavy responsibility for avoidable suffering?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that those in some local governments who oppose our arrangements in this area might have a heavy burden to bear if the worst were to happen. I can do no more than repeat what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the prospect of an accidental discharge of a nuclear weapon is very remote indeed.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when we asked for assurances some 20 years ago—I beg the House to listen to this—in connection with the then remote possibility of the production of nuclear power we were informed that this was an impossibility? We know that those top scientists were devastatingly wrong. Will the Minister also acknowledge that the deliberate setting off and the testing of missiles has resulted in serious damage to human beings? Will he be prepared to accept that, despite the remote possibility of such a thing happening, nevertheless our country ought to be fully prepared for the terrible peradventure becoming a reality?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think that I can almost agree with the noble Lord. I have said that the prospects of an accidental discharge are so remote as to be almost capable of being ignored, but we do not ignore them. We make detailed arrangements to ensure that it does not happen and I can do no more than underline the Answer that I originally gave to the noble Lord.

Forward to