HL Deb 11 November 1959 vol 219 cc497-500

2.59 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can indicate the policy to be advocated at the United Nations in respect of the atomic tests in the Sahara and the choice of a member of the Security Council, and whether they adhere to the understanding arrived at some years ago as to the geographical distribution to be observed.]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, as regards nuclear tests, our policy has been outlined in a speech by the Minister of State at the General Assembly yesterday, and in the draft resolution which the United Kingdom and Italian delegations have tabled. This expresses the hope that France will associate herself with the agreement being negotiated at Geneva for the ending of nuclear tests and requests her to take full account of the views expressed in the debate.

As regards the second part of the Question, one of the main considerations that underlay the gentlemen's agreements of 1946 with regard to the Security Council was the achievement of a fair balance of geographical representation in the six non-permanent seats. Since the pattern was agreed in 1946, however, the number of eligible countries has increased from 46 to 77—an increase of two-thirds. Europe outside the Soviet bloc is now under-represented, and the gentlemen's agreements of 1946 made no provision at all for Asian representation. Yet the Soviet bloc continues to oppose any expansion of the Security Council. Her Majesty's Government believe that informal agreements can be valuable in promoting orderly elections, but that such agreements must be realistic. The understanding of 1946 is not now realistic because of the two-thirds increase in the number of countries eligible for membership of the Security Council. It is the Soviet bloc countries which bear responsibility for this situation. While it lasts these countries cannot, therefore, justify a claim to occupy automatically one of the non-permanent seats.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lengthy reply. As regards the first question, do the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government think, in the light of the interview with General de Gaulle reported in the Press to-day, that there is the least use, even with the assistance of the Italians, in pursuing this resolution that they have put down? And as regards Poland, does the noble Earl's Answer amount to this: that inasmuch as the proportion of European members of the United Nations is smaller now, that justifies the substitution of one European nation—namely, Turkey—for another European nation, namely Poland, and satisfies the Charter of the United Nations and the understanding of 1946?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, as to the first of the noble Viscount's supplementary questions, I should not like to comment on General de Gaulle's statement of yesterday until I have seen it in full. So far we have had only the Press accounts. But our objective, as the noble Viscount realises—and I believe the House would support this—is to stop all tests by all countries: and that is what we want to concentrate on at the present time.

So far as the second supplementary question is concerned, on the question of a vote as between Turkey and Poland, I cannot say how this will be resolved, but I feel that until there is agreement to enlarge the membership of the Security Council we are always in danger of getting these wrangles as between one country and another.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

But the Agreement was made long ago and the point of the noble Earl's answer is really this: that the Russians will not accept an alteration to the Charter until China is admitted to the United Nations—and in that they are perfectly right.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, that is extending the scope of the Question.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, could the noble Earl say, with respect to one matter which has recently been before the United Nations, what is the evidence that Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain which leads them to express the view that the tests in the Sahara will not be of any serious injury to the nations which are protesting?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, there are two things: first of all, there is the account which was given at the United Nations by M. Moch, which I believe went a long way to reassuring people that this test would be made as safe as is conceivably possible. Secondly, there is a wide amount of experience available to us now as a result of our own tests and tests undertaken by the Americans, some of which, for instance, have taken place under 100 miles from populated areas.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, leaving aside what is a subsidiary question—the question of fall-out—does the noble Earl, who must have read the lengthy account in The Times to-day of what was said by General de Gaulle, not think that we are making ourselves very foolish in proposing a resolution to which he will not agree?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I should make myself very foolish if I commented on General de Gaulle's statement without having seen it in full.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Noble Lords say "Hear, hear!", but they have not read it.