HC Deb 29 May 1962 vol 660 cc1153-4
Q2. Mr. Driberg

asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the statement on disarmament by the international department of the British Council of Churches, approved on 4th April at a full meeting of the Council, and the resolution urging Her Majesty's Government not to be a party to the renewal of nuclear tests, passed nemine contradicente at the same meeting, copies of which have been sent to him;and what reply he has made to these representations.

The Prime Minister

I have considered both these documents which are, of course, sincere and thoughtful contributions to the discussion of these difficult problems.

Mr. Driberg

Will the Prime Minister say whether he has in fact considered the three specific proposals made at the end of the longer of these documents? Also, does he recall that on 8th May he promised he would do what he could to ensure that Sir Bernard Lovell would have facilities to meet the American scientists engaged in the coming high-altitude tests? As it is now announced that these tests are to begin in three days' time, has the right hon. Gentleman been able to do anything about it?

The Prime Minister

Perhaps the second part of the supplementary question could be put on the Order Paper as it is a separate question. Regarding the Resolution of the British Council of Churches, as I say I have considered it and know how sincere they are in their feelings. I do not altogether accept the hon. Gentleman's summary of the resolution. The resolution urged Her Majesty's Government to press for no more than the minimum detection machinery necessary to give reasonable assurance that an agreement will be observed. That is exactly the point on which we have been engaged all these months at Geneva. It goes on to say: Her Majesty's Government should not be a party to a final decision to renew tests without ensuring that the value of an agreement on atmospheric tests alone is explored. That is the offer which we made and which was rejected—it has been over and over again rejected—by the Soviet Government. While I fully recognise the sincerity of the document, I do not think—I am sure it is by misadventure —it is quite accurately summed up in the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Driberg

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the specific paragraphs to which I drew his attention. Does he agree, for instance, that there should be a declaration by Her Majesty's Government that Britain will not be the first to use strategic nuclear weapons, which is demanded there? When he says that my other question does not arise, or is a separate question, is it not the case that there is also the demand for the ending of testing referred to in my Question on the Order Paper, and that these are the next tests?

The Prime Minister

Again, the last part of the supplementary question relates to tests but the Question related to the renewal of nuclear tests. The question of the strategic use of weapons is wholly different.

Mr. G. Brown

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the problem with all these statements is that anybody may take a sentence out of context and prove with it almost anything they like? Is it not the fact that what we are most concerned with is getting an agreement which will end this beastly business of testing, especially in the atmosphere, and that for the moment it is Russia which is holding it up?

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has very accurately summarised the position. But, as I said, knowing the sincerity with which these views are held, I thought it right to recognise that, although pointing out that the actual points made to me were exactly the ones that, with the general support of the House, we have been. pressing forward.