§ Q3. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the representation, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Barking, containing the views expressed by Sir Robert Watson-Watt on the joint resumption of nuclear testing by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterI have considered the hon. Member's representation, and I give to the scientific views of Sir Robert Watson-Watt the respect which is due to the opinions of so eminent a scientist. 1532 But on the question of the possible resumption of nuclear tests I must take the advice of those scientists who alone have access to all the relevant information, much of which must inevitably be secret.
§ Mr. DribergWould the Prime Minister agree that radar is highly relevant to the whole nuclear complex, and particularly to the tracking, plotting and identification of missiles? When these grave decisions are being taken, are the arguments for and against weighed up very thoroughly and carefully? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman say what estimate he was provided with, in that grim balance-sheet, of the number of new cases of leukaemia, bone cancer, and genetic damage likely to result from the Christmas Island tests?
§ The Prime MinisterAll these matters are most carefully weighed and balanced at very considerable length, and I have every confidence in the Government's scientific advisers.
§ Mr. GaitskellWould the Prime Minister not agree that it really is desirable that the Geneva talks should have some chance of success before a final decision is taken by the United States Government on the resumption of atmospheric tests?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is quite another matter. I am asked in this Question whether I will listen to the views of Sir Robert Watson-Watt.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyIs my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Robert Watson-Watt has been given full credit for what he did for Britain in the war, but that his team of assistants, who helped him greatly, have never been given that credit and are still living in this country?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWould the Prime Minister at least agree that Sir Robert Watson-Watt has provided some evidence to show that a campaign against nuclear strategy is not necessarily prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is his view.
§ Mr. GaitskellWould the Prime Minister not agree, since the Question is about Sir Robert Watson-Watt's views on the resumption of nuclear tests, that relevant to that issue is the question of 1533 whether there should not first of all be talks at Geneva before a decision is taken?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I understood Sir Robert Watson-Watt's view to say that they were quite unnecessary at any time.
§ Q4. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he has now discussed further with the President of the United States the possible resumption of nuclear testing by Britain and America; what further communications he has received from other Powers capable now, or in the near future, of conducting such tests; and if he will now state when it is intended that British or American testing shall again take place.
§ The Prime MinisterI am in constant touch with the President of the United States, but, of course, my communications with him are confidential.
As to the second part of the Question, the only Powers other than ourselves and the United States known to be capable of conducting nuclear tests are France and the Soviet Union. The House will be aware of the communications I have exchanged with Mr. Khrushchev, since they have been published. We have naturally been in touch with our French allies over this question.
As to the third part of the Question, I referred in my statement of 8th February to the proposed testing of a British nuclear device underground in Nevada. I am advised that the preparations for this test are virtually complete. The Americans have already been conducting a series of underground tests. On atmospheric tests, I can add nothing to my statement of 8th February.
§ Mr. DribergEven though these communications are confidential, have not the people of this country and of the world some right to know the answer to the latter part of my previous supplementary question, which the Prime Minister did not answer: what sort of human damage may result from this new series of tests? Is not there any information about that? If not, how can the Prime Minister contradict the views of these eminent scientists, and how does he dare go ahead and impose this new suffering on the human race in the mad 1534 race towards a probably mythical ultimate weapon?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, very complete information exists, and I think that the British Medical Council's Report has been circulated and read by most hon. Members. It was published after the last Russian tests.
§ Mr. GaitskellDoes the Prime Minister not agree that the only possibly satisfactory answer to this problem is a multilateral agreement to ban nuclear tests everywhere—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanBan the weapon.
§ Mr. Gaitskell—as a first step towards a more general disarmament agreement? That being so, would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my earlier question as to whether the Geneva talks should take place first, without a final decision being taken concerning the resumption of atmospheric tests?
§ The Prime MinisterAt the moment, I have nothing to add to my statement.
§ Mr. GoodhewWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while everyone is as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite that nuclear tests should stop as soon as possible, the vast majority of people still look to Her Majesty's Government for protection and do not expect to see this country allowed to fall behind?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, the balance of power is one of the vital points in this problem.
§ Mr. ShinwellCan the Prime Minister say when the British tests at Nevada will actually begin and whether they will be prolonged?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. I have nothing to add to what I just said; that the position is that we are to do this test and it will be done very shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
§ Mr. MendelsonDoes the Prime Minister not recall that when the Russians conducted their tests there was virtually unanimous agreement in the House and in the country in condemnation of them? Would it not be in our best interests to see to it that the Geneva Conference has a fair start and has a 1535 chance of succeeding, without the tests being imminent when the Conference begins its work, so that we may have public opinion on our side in the pursuance of a peaceful policy?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, these are very relevant considerations.