§ Mr. Grimond(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he would make a further statement on the arrangements to carry out an underground nuclear test; and why it is necessary for the test to be held in the near future.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)An underground nuclear test in connection with the British nuclear deterrent took place in Nevada by the courtesy of the American authorities last March. We have for some months been planning another test which is necessary to develop the results of the scientific experiment in March. Owing to the heavy pressure upon the facilities at Nevada we have not been able to arrange this as I had hoped in the early months of the autumn. It will, however, take place in the next few weeks.
As the Minister of Defence pointed out, this is in no sense of the word the beginning of a new series. The House will recall that, together with the American Administration, we observed a voluntary nuclear moratorium for a period of nearly three years. The Russians resumed testing in the autumn of 1961 and, after careful discussion with the President during my visit to Bermuda, I agreed both that the American tests were necessary to defend the strength of the free world and that we would put Christmas Island at their disposal.
The Russians have announced that they will end their series of atmospheric tests on 20th November. The President of the United States announced on 4th November that the present series of atmospheric tests in the Pacific were ended, but that underground nuclear tests free from fall-out were continuing in Nevada.
198 During the whole of this period we have made one underground test and we propose to make one more in Nevada, both in connection with our deterrent. I am only too anxious, as is the President of the United States, to enter into an agreement either for the banning of atmospheric, underwater and outerspace tests, or, still better, for a complete banning of tests, including underground tests, under effective international control and verification.
§ Mr. GrimondIs not this a quite inadequate explanation of an untimely and irresponsible decision'? Does not the Prime Minister agree that this test can make very little, if any, difference to the deterrent power of the West— [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a quite serious matter—and that the main rôle that this country can play is to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and not to make a test ban more difficult? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his failure to postpone this test, which he could easily have done, or to cancel it, will make negotiations any easier?
§ The Prime MinisterI say quite seriously that I do not think anybody in my position, except those who wish not only to abolish the British deterrent but to make it ineffective, could have failed to be convinced of the need for this test following on the one in March.
We are told that the Russian atmospheric tests will be completed by 20th November, and probably all by the end of the year. If there was any question of a new series, it takes, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, very long preparation. This test of ours is necessary. It should have taken place before. I regret that it was not possible to do so, but I think that it is necessary now to complete it.
If, of course, it were possible to make a complete ban immediately, and sign all that up in a few days, that would make it necessary for us to reconsider our position. But I believe, from such knowledge as we have and on what we are advised, that the Russians will decide whether or not to go in for a complete ban not on the basis of this incident, but on the great questions of what suits their requirements and their needs.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerDoes not the Prime Minister realise that this was timed in the most stupid way at a time when the world is sighing with relief that these great sets of tests are coming to an end? Does not it create the impression that the Government just want to get a quick one in before Russia and America—it looks very much like this—come to an agreement? The right hon. Gentleman said that no one in his position could have failed to agree to this test in order to preserve the independent British nuclear deterrent. But does he really think that there is in any true sense of the word an independent British nuclear deterrent?
§ The Prime MinisterThere might be an argument for abolishing the whole bomber force and the whole deterrent, but, having reached this point, it would be very wrong not to make this test, which is necessary to make it effective.
With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman says about our getting in a quick one, I have explained that it was planned that this test should have taken place before. I am sorry that it was not possible to finish it, as I had hoped, during the end of the summer or early autumn. It will now be completed. But I do not honestly think, and I do not believe that anyone in the House can think, that it will be on this incident that will depend whether we are able, with the Russians and Americans, to make a comprehensive test ban.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs not the maintenance of an efficient, up-to-date British nuclear deterrent——
§ Mr. G. BrownWe have not got it.
§ Mr. Biggs-Davison—both helpful to world peace and necessary to the independent foreign policy for which the Opposition voted the other night?
§ The Prime MinisterThose are all considerations of the greatest importance, but I do not believe that anybody could have resisted—and I certainly did not resist—making this test in March. I only regret that it was not possible to finish the second test arising out of it earlier than now.
§ Mr. ReynoldsCould the Prime Minister explain the discrepancy between his statement on 8th February and what he 200 has just told the House? On 8th February, he referred to the testing of "one particular British nuclear device." He referred to "this test", to "the British test" and to "the underground test". Today, he has given the impression that we intend to carry out several tests, yet he assured us in February that there would be only one. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the statement in February was intended to cover this one as well this sort of excuse about its being part of a long series can be carried on throughout the years by more than one Government?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. First, there is no reason to suppose that as things are now either the Americans or Russians will cease underground tests. They have ceased atmospheric tests of which we have made none during this period. Secondly, this test was made in March, and it is necessary, in order to perfect the knowledge that we have, to hold the second one arising out of what we have learned from the first.
§ Mr. A. HendersonAre we to understand that the Government have decided that after this test in no circumstances will they resume testing of any kind?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have never made any pledges. What we have hoped to do is to get a test ban. The President of the United States and I made an offer, and repeated it several times, to agree to a ban on atmospheric, underwater and outer space tests. That has not been accepted. Then we suggested—and we are working at it—the possibility of so perfecting these scientific instruments as to get, with the minimum of inspection and verification, a complete ban. That takes a considerable amount of extra discussion and work, which is going on. If that is successful, we shall get a complete ban. All that I am saying is that I do not believe that great issues will be settled by this second test.
§ Mr. W. YatesIs the Prime Minister telling the country that for national security this test must be conducted and that the information could not have been obtained from the United States, or that the United States has not carried out identical tests? If so, it is nothing but a squib in a bucket.
§ The Prime MinisterI think that that is a quotation from an article in a newspaper this morning. All I can say is that it is necessary under the terms of our agreement on the amendment of the McMahon Act.
§ Mrs. CastleIs it not a fact that the Americans have already made it clear that they think that the British nuclear deterrent is ineffective? Is this decision to press ahead with the test part of a plan to turn the British nuclear deterrent into a European H-bomb as part of the deal for getting Britain into the Common Market?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot enter into the fantasies of the hon. Lady's thought. There are great arguments whether we should have started the A-bomb under Lord Attlee and whether we should have continued it; all that can be argued. All I can say is that, with the particular instruments we have, it is necessary to make this additional test.
§ Mr. GaitskellIf this test is so unimportant that the Russians do not bother about it, will the Prime Minister explain why it is sufficiently significant to be made at all by us? Can he also explain whether it is relevant and in what way it is relevant to the defence of the West?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is important to us to finish this experiment. All I was saying was that considering the enormous size of the experiments on both sides in the last year, I do not believe that the ultimate decision whether we can get a complete ban will rest upon this matter.
§ Several Hon. Members rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerI beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to proceed in the near future with the testing of a British nuclear device, thus endangering the prospects of an early international agreement to ban nuclear tests.202 The Government have announced their intention to carry out this test in the near future, and as there is great public disquiet about whether this would endanger an international agreement, and the test might occur tomorrow or before the House has any other opportunity of raising the matter, this is the reason of urgency why I am seeking leave to move the Motion.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to proceed in the near future with the testing of a British nuclear device, thus endangering the prospects of an early international agreement to ban nuclear tests.The House knows that my course is governed by precedents. This is like an occasion we had in, I think, February, and my decision must depend upon the timetable. If I rightly heard the Prime Minister's words just now they were that it was designed that this test should take place within the next few weeks. On the face of those words—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow?"]—I will ascertain the accuracy of what I am saying. If I heard the Prime Minister's words aright, they were "within the next few weeks". If that means at a distance from today of not less than eight days, for instance, then, for obvious reasons, I could not find this application to be within the Standing Order.I therefore want clarification from the Government, if they will be kind enough, as to the—[Interruption.] I hope that I may discharge my duty in relative peace. I want to find out what "within the next few weeks" means in terms of minimum time from today.
§ The Prime MinisterI used the phrase which you have quoted precisely, Mr. Speaker——
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. As your actions, Mr. Speaker, are governed by precedent, would you be good enough to tell the House on what precedent, you have the right to cross-question the Prime Minister before, coming a decision?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not the remotest idea, but I must Worm Myself of facts, 203 which I do not know because they have not been stated to the House. The only way I can get them is by asking Ministers in the presence of the House.
§ The Prime MinisterI used the phrase "within the next few weeks" as you, Mr. Speaker, have rightly stated. I cannot give a precise date, but I am informed that it would not be possible to arrange this, at any rate, within the next ten days.
§ Mr. M. FootFurther to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). To make the matter absolutely clear and since, Mr. Speaker, you have already asked the Prime Minister one question, could you not ask him another? Could you not ask whether he would give a guarantee that there will be a promise that no nuclear explosions will be conducted by Her Majesty's Government until there has been a full debate in the House of Commons?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot do that, but as we proceed further we may learn. The point is that in connection with the Standing Order I must have regard to the fact of whether or no there would be an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter should it so please, because if that were so it would remove the necessity of debating it today. On the answer that I have so far been given, I cannot see the need to debate the matter today, because there would be time for the House to discuss it, if hon. Members so wished, before anything could happen.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanUnless the Prime Minister is prepared to say that this experiment will not be carried out unless it has been previously announced to the House that it is about to be carried out, is not this the last opportunity that the House can hope to have before the carrying out of the test? On that view of the matter, is it not immediately urgent? Of course, if the Prime Minister will say that that the Government will not allow the test to be carried out until a further statement has been made to the House, that might alter that matter. As, however, we have had no such assurance, is it not urgent that the House should consider the matter since the Government have said that they intend 204 to carry out this experiment in the near future without any further statement to the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) knows all about these things. He must be persuaded that in the face of a minimum of eight days of opportunity I could not, without defiance of precedent, say that the matter came within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. M. FootFurther to that point of order. Is not the matter now before the House an attempt by you, Mr. Speaker, to elucidate from the Government the exact position about the possibility of the explosion of this bomb? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was not the whole discussion governed by the question which you put to the Prime Minister? Is it not possible, therefore, for other hon. Members to suggest that the answer given by the Prime Minister to you, although it goes some way to elucidate the matter, does not go far enough?
Is it not perfectly proper for us in this House, or for you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister, so that you may reach your decision about the Motion which it is sought to move for the Adjournment of the House, whether he can go further and give a clear assurance that this matter is not urgent in the Parliamentary sense, in the sense that nothing will happen before the House has an opportunity of debating the matter? Surely, that is the precise issue raised by the Motion which it has been sought to move from the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not know that I can assist about that. I can only assess the fact of eight days and I cannot help knowing that if the House wants to discuss something within eight days, it can. That is our way.
§ Mr. BrockwayIs it not clear that the Government have already made a decision to proceed with this bomb test? Even if it is not to take place for eight days, will not decisive preparations have to be made immediately for the test? In these circumstances, have we not the right to debate the matter immediately?
§ Mr. SpeakerI considered—does the Leader of the Opposition wish to add something?
§ Mr. GaitskellIn view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that we shall put a Motion on the Order Paper so that the House can deal with this matter within ten days.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. Will you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House whether your Ruling today is an entirely new one? Would it not be as well to amend Standing Order No. 9 to make quite clear that future Speakers of the House—which, naturally, excludes you—will be limited to the decision of eight days on all matters of this kind?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. These decisions must rest upon the precise circumstances of each particular case. They always have done and I would not deviate from that. Suspecting, however, merely from the words "within the next few weeks" that we might be able to limit the period to eight days, which would appear to be sufficient, I have thought it right in this context to ascertain that fact.