HC Deb 13 February 1962 vol 653 cc1120-3
Q5. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consult with President Kennedy with a view to ensuring that no atmospheric tests will be carried out prior to the proposed Foreign Ministers meeting in connection with the eighteen-Power disarmament conference on 14th March in Geneva.

The Prime Minister

I told the House on 8th February that preparations for testing on Christmas Island had not yet begun. These preparations would take some time. The tests could certainly not be conducted before 14th March.

Mr. Henderson

Does the Prime Minister agree that nothing should be done to jeopardise the achievement of the initial measures of disarmament to which he referred in his recent letter to Mr. Khrushchev? Will he not, therefore, consult President Kennedy with a view to seeking an agreement not to carry out any tests for at least a period of three months from now?

The Prime Minister

That is another matter, but in point of fact I do not think that these preparations can be made very rapidly. Therefore, I do not think that the anxieties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman need be very great.

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of what the Prime Minister has said, would it not be worth while to make it plain that no decision will be taken as to any tests at Christmas Island until after the Geneva talks have at least had a chance of getting under way and achieving some results? Further, is he aware that, on reading the full text of his and President Kennedy's message to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Khrushchev's reply, it seems absurd to many of us that it should not be possible for the three major nuclear Powers to agree on a very high level meeting on this vital issue? In particular, we hope that the proposal of Mr. Khrushchev will not be rejected out of hand, but that a real attempt will be made to come together with the Soviet Union on this matter.

The Prime Minister

Yes. We welcome the broad spirit of Mr. Khrushchev's letter to us, which, as he explained quite frankly, was drafted, I think, separately from our own initiative. The problem is how to marry the practical proposals, which we are very anxious to make practical, with the more general ideas which the Chairman of the Soviet Union has in mind. We are considering our reply.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Mr. Khrushchev made it plain in his letter that he was not proposing another Summit Conference, but simply that the Heads of State would be associated with these vitally important negotiations? Is not this fundamentally very much the same idea as President Kennedy and the Prime Minister himself proposed in their letter to Mr. Khrushchev?

The Prime Minister

There are, of course, similarities; but we do feel that, although a formal meeting of eighteen Prime Ministers—to make, no doubt, eighteen speeches, which would take quite a time—may be valuable, what is important in our proposal is the practical meeting of the three nuclear Powers, which have rather special responsibilities. Our problem is how to try to make a workable plan which will get the best of both, and we are considering our reply.

Mr. W. Yates

In any case, will not my right hon. Friend agree that we might postpone our own tests, as it is known that radioactive dust from tests in Nevada has been shown in Shropshire and elsewhere to be higher than when there have been explosions in the upper atmosphere? Should not we show our own initiative by delaying at least our underground tests in the meantime?

The Prime Minister

That is another matter. The Question refers to atmospheric tests.

Mr. Frank Allaun

When the last tests were held at Christmas Island four years ago, were there not protests from neighbouring countries which may have been affected by fall-out? Have these countries been consulted on this occasion?

The Prime Minister

Of course, they have been informed but we have to take the broad question as a whole. I have no doubt that the House will at some time wish to express its views. I was gratified by the feeling—I hope I do not over-estimate it—that there was a broad understanding in the House when I spoke last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or in a great part of the House, as to the problem which presented itself to us and some considerable degree of agreement with the solution I had proposed.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Manuel

With a view to getting the best possible atmosphere for the Geneva Conference, will the Prime Minister consider using his influence with President Kennedy so as to remove completely any reference to tests from the present arrangements? Will he agree that this should be done, with a view to getting on with disarmament at Geneva? If this were done, it would be much better and the Prime Minister would have very large support in the country for that point of view, rather than confusing the two issues.

The Prime Minister

We must remember that this is exactly what we did for three years.

Mr. Gaitskell

Would the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely important not to widen the differences between Mr. Khrushchev's approach and that of himself and President Kennedy? Is it not the case that, whereas President Kennedy and the Prime Minister suggested that the Foreign Ministers of the other countries in the eighteen-member committee would naturally wish or might wish to be associated, Mr. Khrushchev for his part suggested that not all the Heads of State of the eighteen nations would wish to be associated? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that he will do his utmost to see if a compromise between the two proposals can be reached so that a meeting at any rate of those effectively in control of their Governments can take place?

The Prime Minister

I said that we are considering our reply. What I am anxious about is that we should have practical results. The President and I discussed this at some length from Bermuda onwards. We thought that the proposal that there should be a meeting first before the opening of the conference of the nuclear Powers was a practical contribution, and I very much hope that this suggestion can be preserved in whatever is ultimately arranged.

Mr. Brockway

The Prime Minister referred to America, Russia and Britain as having a special responsibility. Is that not a responsibility to the world, and would it not, therefore, be desirable that there should be representatives of other nations, and particularly of the uncommitted nations, to express their views on the matter?

The Prime Minister

That is exactly why the eighteen-Power committee was arranged.