HC Deb 20 March 1963 vol 674 cc365-8
12. Mr. A. Henderson

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

29. Mr. Frank Allann

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on developments in the talks on ending nuclear test explosions, and on the initiative being taken by Her Majesty's Government.

36. Mr. Milian

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have now put forward at the disarmament negotiations in Geneva on the number of on-site inspections to be permitted in the Soviet Union as part of a test-ban treaty.

38. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has made of the present proposals of the eight neutral countries, made at Geneva, aimed at ending the deadlock between the nuclear powers in regard to underground tests; and if he will make a statement on them.

Mr. Godber

I regret that no further progress has been made in the latest dis- cussions a Geneva on a nuclear test ban treaty. The major point of difficulty is in the field of on-site inspections, where the West feel that seven such inspections on Soviet territory are necessary annually and the Soviet Government is willing to concede only three. There are of course a number of other substantive matters to be agreed on, but so far, as my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the Russians have refused to discuss them unless their offer of three on-site inspections is first accepted. Although there have been reports that the eight non-aligned delegations intend to put forward new proposals, they have not so far done so.

Mr. Henderson

In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that no progress is likely to be made by entering into a public auction on numbers of on-site inspections, and as there does exist a wide measure of agreement, is it not time that the three Foreign Ministers returned to Geneva and themselves took over the responsibility for these negotiations?

Mr. Godber

My noble Friend has been taking a very close interest in all this, and I am sure that if he felt that it would help he would be very ready to go. At the moment, we are in a real difficulty in relation to these numbers, but I will take note of that point.

Mr. Allaun

In supporting my right hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether the Minister of State is aware that many people are completely disgusted and hopeless about the four years of failure of the U.S., U.S.S.R. and U.K. Governments to reach agreement because of mutual suspicion'? Would not the best solution be for Britain to declare forthwith that she will end all her tests and invite inspection, and ask the other two countries to follow her initiative?

Mr. Godber

I can understand that there is a feeling of disappointment that we have not been able to make further progress, but I do not think that suggestions such as that would really help us towards agreement.

Mr. Milian

When the gap between the Russian proposals of three on-site inspections and the Western proposal of seven inspections is so small, is it not completely indefensible that the negotiations should seem to be foundering on this point? Why cannot the British Government put forward a compromise proposal of, say, five on-site inspections? Have the Government done this?

Mr. Godber

I have tried to make it plain on a number of occasions that although the numbers are fairly close together, the bases on which they are arrived at are entirely different. The Soviet Union have all along said that they have put forward this number only for purely political reasons; they do not see the need for any on-site inspections. We have said that we base ourselves on the best scientific advice available to us. If the Soviet Union have better scientific advice, we ask them to bring it forward. If they do not do so, we can only presume that they do not possess it.

Mr. Rankin

As even the neutral nations seem unable to provide any proposals that will induce general agreement, does not that give the noble Lord the Secretary of State a still greater opportunity to achieve a compromise? Apart altogether from the scientific knowledge behind each of the proposals, would not the Secretary of State consider a compromise such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) as a basis of negotiation?

Mr. Godber

It is all very well to propose compromise, but unless we can have some confidence that the other side will also be willing to compromise, there is little prospect of making progress there. Of course, one can make informal contacts in relation to this, and I am sure that my noble Friend will be glad to do anything he can to get agreement, but it is no good ignoring these basic facts, and the fact is that to get a treaty which one had no confidence would be carried out would be a mockery.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Is it not important that the British Government—while, of course, remaining in the Western Alliance—should take the initiative in the matter? Is it really not possible to work on the lines of fewer on-site inspections and a corresponding increase in the "black box" technique? After all, it is on a combination of these two things that we shall finally have agreement.

Mr. Godber

It is the combination of these with other matters as well, and we have asked the Soviet Union to go into detail in relation to the other matters. That is to enable us to see whether any compromise can be reached. So far, they have refused to go into the question of the additional number of "black boxes" or other modalities. We have urged them many times—I have done so myself recently—to discuss these matters with us. If they would, there might be some prospect of making progress.

Mr. Allaun

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies we have had, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.