HL Deb 20 June 1991 vol 530 cc266-7

3.22 p.m.

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the NATO Defence Ministers have discussed the US Administration's proposal for global protection against limited nuclear strikes, and if so what is Her Majesty's Government's opinion of it.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, the communiqué of the meeting of NATO's Defence Planning Committee and Nuclear Planning Group in Brussels on 28th and 29th May recorded that Ministers welcomed a briefing by the United States concerning its concept for global protection against limited ballistic missile strikes. The Government's approach to these issues remains as set out in my noble friend's Answer to the noble Lord on 20th May.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, will the noble Earl turn his mind to the part of the programme called the Arrow Continuation Experiments—ACEs for short—which takes place in Israel and is 80 per cent. funded by the United States? What is the Government's reaction to the news that Mr. David Martin, the director of the strategic defence initiative office in Washington, has virtually admitted that this work is being done in Israel in order to circumvent the ABM treaty? The noble Earl's opinion on that matter will be valuable. In the same context, can he yet again reaffirm the four points agreed by Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan at Camp David in 1984?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I must first reiterate what my noble friend Lord Caithness said in this House on 10th June. Her Majesty's Government are not a signatory to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Its future and interpretation are essentially a matter for the United States and the Soviet Union. The answer to the noble Lord's second point is, yes.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, even though the Government are not a party to the ABM treaty, they must surely have an opinion. Have they no opinion on whether this latest action seems to subvert the ABM treaty and to place the United States in the position of contravening undertakings that we have actually given? Are the Government unconcerned about this?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, the ABM treaty has been valuable so far but all questions about change to the treaty are at this stage hypothetical. As I have said, it is not yet clear what the final shape or scope of the GPALS system might be and how it might or might not affect the treaty.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does not the noble Earl recall that on many occasions the British Government have affirmed their strong belief in the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Therefore, whether or not it is amended is a matter of considerable concern to this country and a matter on which the Government should have a view.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said. The Government's position is summarised in the so-called Camp David six points. These make clear that the Government fully back SDI research, while deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, have the Government discussed this development with NATO allies other than the United States; and, if so, what has been their reaction? Can he confirm that the United Kingdom has no intention whatever to contribute to this system?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the NATO allies met in Brussels on 28th and 29th May. The noble Lord asked whether the United Kingdom contributes to GPALS. My noble friend Lord Arran has already replied to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in a Written Answer; the answer is, no, in financial terms, though we participate in SDI research.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the noble Earl referred just now to six points. If I remember correctly, there were at the time only four points. Can he check that two more have not been added?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, there are indeed six points.