NUCLEAR TESTS CONFERENCE (Hansard, 15 February 1961)

§ 23. Mr. Donnelly
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement regarding the Nuclear Tests Conference.

§ 26. Mr. Mayhew
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the Nuclear Tests Conference.

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
The Conference went into recess on 5th December. We and the Soviet Government have since accepted the proposal of the United States Government that the Conference should resume on 21st March and not on the previously agreed date of 7th February.
The United States Government's purpose in asking for this postponement was in order to give them time to prepare 1394 the United States position carefully so that negotiations can proceed with all possible despatch when they are resumed.
I myself will be visiting Washington next week to discuss with the Americans all the outstanding problems in the Conference.
I am certain that if the Russians genuinely o desire to bring nuclear weapons tests to an end under a system of effective international control then it should be possible to reach rapid agreement. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we attach major importance to these negotiations and intend to work for the early conclusion of a treaty.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement suggests that the major responsibility for the failure of these negotiations so far rests with the Soviet Government, but that careful study shows that, on the contrary, though the Soviet Government have been obstructive sometimes, the main responsibility rests squarely on the outgoing American Administration? Will he make it quite plain to the new American Government that if this continues it will endanger our whole relationship with them?

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that we have worked very genuinely and very hard to get a treaty but, certainly in recent months, the Soviet Union have given us very little assistance. I only hope that, on this occasion, all concerned will wish to arrive at a treaty in the shortest possible time.

§ Mr. A. Henderson
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he goes back to Geneva that even though it is not possible to work out a completely foolproof system of control and inspection of tests, it may be very worth while for the world itself if a risk were taken and it was decided to agree to a ban subject to working out a future technical system of inspection?

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the treaty for which we are now working would ban all tests above ground. As regards underground tests, there would be a ban for all time on tests above a certain magnitude, and below that magnitude there would be a moratorium for a period of years on 1395 all such tests, during which time an intensive research programme would go forward to see whether these tests also cannot be made detectable.

§ Mr. Donnelly
If the Minister of State is so certain that the outgoing Eisenhower Administration were not responsible, what are the main points on which the agreement has been held up so far?

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
If I were to go through all the points on which there is still disagreement it would be seen that they are numerous, but the hold-up mainly relates to the research programme, to how long the moratorium should last, and to the quota of inspections that each side should be allowed.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one field of negotiation in which we feel that agreement should not be too difficult? Will he give an assurance that he will urge on the United States Government the necessity for a new initiative in this matter?

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
I do not know that we just want to urge on the United States Government a new initiative in this matter. I think that we should also urge it on the Soviet Government, who have been extremely obstructive in these negotiations in recent months.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
As I understood it, the Minister of State happens to be going to Washington next week, and not to Moscow. In those circumstances, does he not think it desirable to discuss with the United States Government certain new proposals that might be put forward? Is it not the case, in fact, that there is every expectation that they will put forward new proposals? Why not associate ourselves with them?

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
Of course we will associate ourselves with new proposals that are agreed between the United States and the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman might recognise that the United Kingdom Government have played a particularly constructive part throughout these negotiations.