§ Mr. Gaitskell(by private notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the explosion of a nuclear device which took place on Friday, 31st May.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. An explosion of a nuclear device took place on Friday, 31st May, in the Central Pacific at a high altitude. Preliminary reports are that the operation proceeded as planned, and that the fall-out was insignificant.
§ Mr. GaitskellHas the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the newspapers that 2,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition asking for international agreement to stop the tests? Does this not show the very real concern felt in informed quarters about the danger of the continuation of these tests? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government will support the proposals which are said to be coming from the United States for an international agreement, at any rate, to limit such tests?
§ The Prime MinisterI have, of course. seen references in newspapers to this appeal by these scientists. The reports do not show that this is supported by any new evidence.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already made our proposals for a method by which these tests could be limited or controlled, and we are ready and anxious to discuss from the most favourable point of view any other proposals which may develop in the course of the deliberations of the Disarmament Sub-Committee.
§ Mr. GaitskellAre we to understand that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to negotiate an agreement concerning tests, alone if necessary, and without regard to a more general disarmament agreement?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have already put our memorandum of our proposals to the Disarmament Sub-Committee and we hold by that.
§ Mr. E. JohnsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a great 1081 deal of satisfaction in this country at the fact that we have been able to develop a bomb which combines the maximum amount of power with the minimum amount of fall-out? Will not the possession of this bomb greatly strengthen our hands in international negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterWhatever divergent views there may be in the House, I think that the actual technical work done by our scientists marks a quite remarkable feat.
§ Mr. BevanIs it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government's proposals concern themselves with registration of tests and not with the cessation of tests? As it is now universally agreed that, however many deaths may be caused by these tests, some deaths will be caused, and, indeed, an increasing number of deaths—no one in any part of the House can deny that—is it not, therefore, desirable—[Interruption.] Do not be so bloodthirsty, for heaven's sake. Is it not, therefore, desirable that there should be agreement to stop any further tests before any other nation starts making tests, which will make it very much more difficult? How many more by-elections is the party opposite going to lose before it realises how strong is the feeling in the country?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has raised rather complicated issues which I am not prepared to discuss in detail by question and answer. We have put forward our proposals and we shall, of course, take into consideration the proposals that are made.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's interjection, which I deeply resent, I hope he will remember that the burden which lies upon us in this country is to see that there is a sufficient defence against aggression to prevent two wars coming again.
§ Mr. BevanWill the Prime Minister answer the question? If proposals are made by other nations to Her Majesty's Government for a cessation of tests, after we have now had our tests, in view of the extent to which we are exposed in this country to the consequences of hydrogen bombs, will Her Majesty's Government agree to accept the cessation of tests?
§ The Prime MinisterThat depends largely upon the conditions.
§ Mr. A. HendersonIn view of the fact that the proposals to which the Prime Minister has referred have not been accepted by the other Governments in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, would he not consider suspending the remaining British tests, at least for a time, in order to make a contribution to the ending of the present deadlock?
§ The Prime MinisterThe programme for our tests has, of course, always been of a flexible character and one in which I must rely upon the advice of the scientists and experts who conduct the tests. It has always been our purpose to restrict them to the minimum in order to obtain the results which we believe to be necessary and for which, indeed, they were set in motion. It is perfectly true that the reports of the first two explosions are now being carefully considered, and the future programme will be determined in the light of this study.
§ Mr. BevanMay I beg the Prime Minister to try to answer the question which I put? Is it not a fact that Governments have expressed the fear that, before this series of tests is concluded, other nations might start making tests? Is it not, therefore, now in the interests of the whole world that there should be agreement that no more nuclear tests are made? If the Government are asked, will they not agree?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman will reflect a little, I think he will see that the first part of that question, suggesting that a new country will be in a position to conduct these tests before ours are concluded, seems to be a very unlikely hypothesis.
§ The Prime MinisterI would say from the knowledge that we have that it is an impossible hypothesis. The right hon. Gentleman says that I am running away. I shall not run away from my duty—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members must conduct this matter with calm and order.
§ The Prime Minister—nor do I intend to put this country in a position of inferiority at the very moment when it is about to complete tests which give it a very good position. At the same time, as both I and the Government have said, it is our hope and intention to see that disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, can be embarked upon; and we shall do everything we can to bring about disarmament, but not in such a way as to leave the free countries, including our own, in a hopeless position.
§ Sir I. FraserDoes not my right hon. Friend feel that it would be conducive to good sense and the better direction of the public mind if we were to approach this matter from the point of view of a balance between the broad general interests of preserving this deterrent, which many people believe to be a deterrent, and making sure that it is a deterrent which really works, rather than rely upon electioneering motives and vain posturings from the Front Bench opposite?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, every hon. Member has to consider his position in a very grave issue. I said, as I have said before in debate, that it is our duty to complete these tests. Equally, I feel that we should do everything we possibly can to obtain, either by stages or by partial arrangements or, if we can, by complete arrangements, the maximum degree of disarmament which will bring real security to the world.
§ Mr. StracheyIn his original statement, the Prime Minister said that the appeal of the American scientists was supported by no new evidence. Is he really telling us that new evidence is necessary before we even support the all-round abolition of tests by all countries?
§ The Prime MinisterI was asked whether I had read newspaper reports. I said that I had, but the reports did not show that it was supported by new evidence. I think that new evidence is 1084 necessary before I altogether overthrow the evidence given to me by the greatest experts in the country, who serve all Governments in turn.