HC Deb 12 November 1962 vol 667 cc14-7
7. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Nuclear Test Conference.

Mr. Smithers

The United States Government and Her Majesty's Government tabled important new proposals in the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee at Geneva on 27th August in the form of two draft treaties. Unfortunately the Soviet Government still refuse to allow the minimum degree of on-site inspection, which is necessary to determine that certain seismic signals are due to natural causes and are not the result of secret underground nuclear explosions. They therefore reject, at present, our proposals for a comprehensive treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in all environments. They have also rejected our alternative proposals for a treaty banning tests in the atmosphere, outer space and under water, without on-site inspection. They do so because, they allege, this would legalise underground testing. There have been seventeen meetings of the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee while the Disarmament Conference has been in recess and the next meeting is fixed for tomorrow.

Mr. Henderson

In view of the Moscow broadcast today, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government will not jeopardise the conclusion of the nuclear test ban treaty by embarking on their own tests? May I also ask the Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to support the proposals which emanated from the recent Pugwash Conference in favour of establishing national atomic control stations as an alternative to on-site inspections in relation to underground explosions?

Mr. Smithers

The proposals of the Pugwash Conference were not formal proposals. It is not suggested that the proposals in question would entirely eliminate the need for on-site inspection in order to determine the character of underground seismic events. Regarding atomic tests, that is a matter for the Minister of Defence who will be answering a Written Question which is on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Henderson

Surely this is a matter of international importance and the Minister is representing the Foreign Office? Does not he realise that it would be a fatal thing, the American-Soviet series of tests having just concluded, if the Government were to embark on their own series?

Mr. Smithers

No, Sir. It is not for me to comment on a matter which is the responsibility of the Minister of Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—who will be answering a Question on that subject today.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Is it not an extraordinary doctrine that Ministerial Departments are not collectively responsible? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Defence is going to answer this Written Question verbally or in writing?—[Laughter.] It is a very important Question. Is not it perfectly possible for the Minister to ask the permission of Mr. Speaker to answer the Question verbally. That is common where a very important Question is involved.

Mr. Smithers

That is not a matter for me.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

Is the Minister aware that there will be great indignation in the country if the Government imperil the chance of getting a test ban by going forward with tests which we believe could do no good at all?

Mr. Smithers

We have repeatedly and emphatically made clear in the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee that we are most anxious to conclude a test ban.

Mr. Reynolds

Does not the Minister agree that the carrying out of any tests at the present time by any country in the atmosphere, outside the atmosphere, or underground, may well jeopardise what appear to be further chances of getting agreement? Cannot he tell us—even though the actual carrying out of future tests may not be his responsibility—what representations he has made to stave off any danger which may be caused by other Ministeries in the present situation?

Mr. Smithers

We are anxious to secure the cessation of tests in all elements. I cannot comment further on the matter.

11. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, at the resumed Geneva nuclear test conference, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the United States Government that they should make a joint declaration binding the two countries never to be the first to carry out nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, under water or in outer space after a given date early next year.

Mr. Smithers

The United Kingdom and United States have offered to the Russians a draft treaty banning tests in these environments. It is our aim to proceed by agreement rather than by unilateral declaration. Negotiations for this purpose are still continuing.

Mr. Allaun

Since America and Russia have both, regrettably, held a big series of tests, would not such action cut the vicious circle and produce a counter-reciprocal offer? Would not what we gather is coming in a few minutes' time reverse all this and have exactly the opposite effect?

Mr. Smithers

The Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee is negotiating with the expressed hope of arriving at agreement by 1st January. I do not think it would help negotiations if we started discussing now alternative forms of action and assumed that the negotiations will have failed.

Forward to