Q1. Mr. Frank Allunasked the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev to seek agreement on the proposed five years' moratorium on all nuclear test explosions; and if, as a contribution to the success of the discussions, he will undertake to end unconditionally and henceforth British test explosions at Nevada or elsewhere.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)I should be glad to meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev if at any time this seemed the best way to advance the tripartite negotiations on a comprehensive test ban.
Any decision to halt nuclear testing while the negotiations are proceeding should be taken by all the participants. A unilateral decision by this country would not improve the prospects of achieving our objective of a permanent treaty banning all nuclear explosions.
§ Mr. AllaunWhat possible advantage can there be to Britain in further tests if the Government do not intend a new generation of nuclear weapons, which they have already renounced? Would not this move help to meet our legal and moral obligations under the non-proliferation treaty?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer is "No" to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. There are technical reasons for continuing the tests—as the United States and the Soviet Union both obviously feel, because they conduct far more tests than we do. Our moral position is certainly in line with that of other countries and I have often repeated to my hon. Friend—although he never accepts it—that Britain's influence in talks is far greater if we are there, because we are involved in the matter, than it would be if we had unilaterally decided to opt out.
§ Mr. PattieWill the Prime Minister confirm that it is still Government policy to take all effective measures necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, that is the reason for carrying out tests.
§ Mr. George RodgersDoes my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in testing a weapon unless we are prepared to use it in some circumstances? Will he explain in what circumstances we would be prepared to use it?
§ The Prime MinisterIf one wishes to have a deterrent, it is clearly necessary that it should be known to deter.
§ Mr. AmeryWill the Prime Minister reinforce the statement made by Chancellor Schmidt to the Institute of Strategic Studies that if the West were to give up 260 its nuclear weapons it would be in an extremely weak position, in view of the overwhelming conventional forces of the Soviet Union?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is no doubt that the Soviet Union is increasing its conventional forces, and strategic studies show that it is doing so to a much greater extent than is the West. In relation to strategic nuclear weapons, there is probably a balance of terror on both sides, and for that reason I believe that we can look forward to a period of detente.