HC Deb 11 November 1959 vol 613 cc398-402
31. Mr. Swingler

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government concerning a mutual agreement for the suspension of nuclear tests whilst negotiations for an international agreement to stop tests are going on, and pending the calling of a Summit Conference.

Mr. R. Allan

None, Sir. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are now engaged with the Soviet and United States Governments in negotiating an agreement for stopping nuclear tests under effective controls. As we have already said, we hope that after such an agreement is concluded, other countries will accede to it.

Mr. Swingler

If Her Majesty's Government have declared in favour of the universal cessation of nuclear tests, what on earth are they doing to encourage the French to go ahead with atomic tests in the Sahara? What is the meaning of this policy? Should not the Government be doing everything possible to dissuade the French from carrying out these tests, thereby incurring hostility, and trying to press on for a universal agreement?

Mr. Allan

The Government are doing everything in their power to obtain an agreement to which other countries can accede.

Mr. Bevan

Everybody is very anxious that there should be an agreement between Russia, Great Britain and the United States about the cessation of hydrogen bomb tests, but have the Government no proposals to make concerning the recent statement of President de Gaulle that even if such an agreement is reached France will go ahead with the tests?

Mr. Allan

That is a hypothetical question, because we have not yet got an agreement. If the agreement were there we would expect other countries, including France, to accede to it.

Mr. Bevan

Will the Minister please answer the question? France has said, through the mouth of President de Gaulle, that even if an agreement is reached at Geneva France will insist upon going ahead with her tests and providing herself with hydrogen weapons. That is not hypothetical; it is a statement of policy. What policy have the Government concerning it?

Mr. Allan

I was not aware of that statement of President de Gaulle. I was aware that the French Government had stated that they would not stop their tests until the three nuclear Powers renounced their armaments.

Mr. Bevan

No, that is not the situation. Is the Foreign Office living in complete isolation? Does it not know what is happening? Is it not a fact that President de Gaulle said, at a Press interview yesterday—reports of which were published in all the responsible newspapers this morning—that, even in the event of an agreement being reached at Geneva, France would insist on providing herself with her own hydrogen bomb weapons?

Mr. Allan

On the contrary—I thought he was saying that if there was proper control he would unhesitatingly accept it.

Mr. Bevan

No.

Mr. Osborne

Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we were to try publicly to rebuke President de Gaulle for what he is trying to do we would only make him more obstinate and determined to do it?

32. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will encourage the Geneva talks and discourage further nuclear weapon preparations elsewhere by giving a lead and stopping all British nuclear tests unilaterally and forthwith.

Mr. R. Allan

The hon. Gentleman's Question implies that we are still testing. We have carried out no nuclear tests for over a year, and we have stated that we will not resume tests so long as useful discussions go on at Geneva. That is still our position.

Mr. Allaun

Since the talks are now in their second year and are still without results, does not the Minister feel that if one nation had the courage and the sanity to say, "We are stopping these tests indefinitely", other nations would follow?

Mr. Allan

What the hon. Member wants can only follw an agreement between the nuclear Powers now meeting at Geneva. If we renounced tests unilaterally now our influence in these discussions would be less, and not more.

35. Mr. Wade

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the latest proposals put forward by the representative of the Soviet Government at the conference at Geneva on the discontinuance of nuclear weapon tests.

Mr. R. Allan

These proposals are now under discussion at the Conference. It would be premature to make further comment at this stage.

Mr. Wade

For the benefit of the nation, can the Minister say, in as simple language as possible, what stage these negotiations have reached? Does he see any hope of progress? Secondly, would it not be practicable to achieve some firm agreement about overground tests while continuing with the discussions on underground tests, since this is a matter of considerable urgency, having regard lo the probable explosion in the Sahara?

Mr. Allan

Being a layman myself I have some sympathy with the hon. Member. Briefly and simply, the position we have reached is that a control post may find a squiggle on its machine. It would report that to headquarters. At headquarters one group might say, "This is clearly a nuclear explosion," while another might say, "Nonsense; it is quite obviously an earthquake." Our present purpose is to arrive at some method of reaching agreement as to the definition of these squiggles. This demands discussions involving questions like seismic data, criteria, instrumentation techniques and so on. It is the technical jargon which is confusing the hon. Member. The aim is "quite clear. As for the second part of the supplementary question, we still want to reach a comprehensive agreement rather than make limited agreements at the moment.

Mr. Bevan

Is the hon. Member aware that there is general gratitude in the House for the clarity of his reply?

Mr. Bellenger

Would you, Mr. Speaker, do your best to discourage Ministers from giving simple explanations?

Mr. Speaker

I have enough on my plate without trying to do that.