§ Mr. Gaitskell(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the explosion of a British nuclear device which took place over the Central Pacific yesterday.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply announced last night, a British nuclear device was successfully exploded, at a high altitude, over the Central Pacific yesterday. Scientific measurements are being collected for accurate evaluation. Early indications are that the fall-out will be negligible. All that I can add to this statement is that the test was in the megaton range.
§ Mr. GaitskellMay I ask the Prime Minister whether this is an isolated test, or the beginning of a new series of test explosions? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is really necessary to proceed further with tests before the summit talks? Is it not a fact that agreement on the suspension of tests is one of the best hopes for a lead into general disarmament, of which he himself has spoken so hopefully, and would not the continuation of tests involve the real risk of the Soviet Union resuming their tests and all hope of multilateral agreement on these being abandoned?
Finally, would not the Prime Minister agree that, however advantageous a further test may appear to be from the point of our own nuclear knowledge, what really matters here is the balance of nuclear power, and that if the Soviet Union continues with tests that may be very gravely to our military disadvantage?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are a number of questions which I will do my best to answer. This test is one of a series of tests which is not yet completed. I am not prepared at present to make any further statement than that.
With regard to the timing of the test, it has not escaped the House that the Soviet Government made the announcement of their proposal to suspend tests immediately after the completion of one of the largest series of tests in the history of—[An HON. MEMBER: "And before."]—and I would have thought, and still think, that the proper method, and, I hope, the method by which this matter may be settled, is by agreement between the three Governments concerned.
The value of the test, is, of course, of importance to us—and, indeed, I would have thought it of importance to the right hon. Gentleman because, as I understand the position of, at any rate, a section of his party, it is that we ought to have the bomb and not abandon it, but use it as an instrument of negotiation, so it is just as well we should have had this last test.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Prime Minister aware that, since we have the bomb already, that last argument is entirely irrelevant? Is he further aware that though it is, of course, perfectly true that the Soviet Union concluded a series 195 of tests before announcing their suspension, nevertheless they had, prior to that, made an offer for the all-round suspension of tests which was not accepted by the Western Powers? Does he realise that if, following the continuation of this series of tests by the United Kingdom, all hope of an agreement on this comes to be abandoned, a very grave responsibility will rest on Her Majesty's Government?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that the holding of these tests will make the slightest difference to the possibility of negotiating an agreement on a satisfactory basis with the Soviet Government. On the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have the bomb. If he had accepted my invitation to discuss these matters a little more intimately he would have spoken with a greater degree of responsibility. What I would say is that I certainly would not have taken the responsibility, either last year when he asked me or this year, to have refused my consent to the holding of this test.