§ Q8. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise the Lord President of the Council, on his visit to Moscow, to propose that the nuclear test ban treaty should include a ban on underground tests, with no monitoring except by black boxes, and allowing any contracting party to denounce the treaty on six months' notice, failing agreement on how to identify a seismic disturbance alleged to be due to an underground test.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 9th July.
§ Mr. ZilliacusAs this particular proposal did not come up in those Answers, may I ask the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of trying to get a better compromise than merely a ban on all tests except underground tests? Would not the arrangement proposed in this Question make it possible to ban all tests with, as a safety-valve, the possibility—if there were a violation, which I regard as unlikely—of renouncing the treaty? This would be a sanction to secure observation of the treaty. Would it not in fact always prove possible to reach agreement on how to verify the nature of any unidentifiable seismic disturbance, and would it not be worth exploring this line of country?
§ The Prime MinisterMr. Harriman and my noble Friend are in a day or two to start on this mission. They will be working out and putting forward all sorts 1416 of possible solutions. We hope that one or other of them may be successful to the full. I do not think it would be wise—I think the House shares the view—to recommend this, or turn down that, or make some definition of one or other method. What we are hoping is that, by wide and generous discussion, which I am sure will take place on both sides, some solution will be found.