HL Deb 30 October 1996 vol 575 cc318-20

3.8 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with President Clinton that the signatures of the declared nuclear powers to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty mean that testing is, in effect, already banned, even though the treaty does not formally come into force without the signatures of 44 potential nuclear states.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 127 states, including the five declared nuclear-weapon states, has established a strong political norm against nuclear testing. However, for the treaty to be fully effective, it must become universal. We therefore urge all states to sign and ratify as soon as possible.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. May I remind her that on Monday, because of the prospect of a successful conclusion to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked whether the Government would urgently take into consideration the recommendations of the Canberra Commission? It was not possible for the Minister to give him an answer in the wide-ranging debate on that occasion. Can the noble Baroness now say that the noble and gallant Lord will receive a comprehensive answer on the urgent matter that he raised and that the Government are taking into consideration the recommendations of the Canberra Commission?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Howe said in his reply to that debate, we shall indeed write to all noble Lords who raised detailed questions. Perhaps I may say briefly now that there are some ideas in the Canberra Commission report with which the UK strongly agrees: to name two, support for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and the continuation of the US/Russian START process. We welcome the recognition that nuclear arms control measures can only be negotiated between the nuclear weapons states themselves. But, quite honestly, the submission in the Canberra Commission report that the role of deterrence has disappeared is quite amazing because the Canberra Commission seems to be against deterrence as a concept. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with the reality of war and indeed defending this country knows that deterrence is more than just a concept.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, will the Minister kindly identify any other areas of disagreement which the Government have with the Canberra document?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, this is not a suitable occasion for going into the detail of the Canberra Commission report. We have worked hard and consistently for the treaty to ban nuclear weapon testing. That is the right way to go. We are sad that India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because we believe that it is in India's interests and in the interests of international security so to do. So we hope that India will soon feel able to sign. It is noteworthy that all but three of the signatories have already decided to ratify.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, what action is being taken to try to induce the Indian Government to sign, after which certainly Pakistan will sign and the treaty can come into force? However, it cannot come into force until that happens. We understand that a Bill is on the way to ratify the treaty. We on these Benches shall certainly support it. But that means ratifying the treaty before there is any verification regime, and presumably inviting inspectors here from overseas, while the Indians can test without any verification regime in place.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the treaty is supported by almost all the international community, which includes seven out of the eight countries which have a capacity to test but which are not already prohibited from doing so by virtue of being parties to an existing international agreement. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety, but I believe that our continued urging upon India to sign the CTBT and that of so many other nations—more than 40 now—will eventually persuade India to sign. We believe that it is certainly in India's interests. We know that India has a domestic problem, but we have made sacrifices in accepting the treaty, just as every other signatory to the treaty has done. The Bill named in the gracious Speech will soon come before both Houses of Parliament. I am glad to have the noble Lord's confirmation that his party will support the Government in the ratification of the treaty.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, the whole House will appreciate the Minister's comprehensive answers, in which she has done her best to compensate for the fact that there has been no recent general statement of the Government's policy on these matters. Will she see what can be done to encourage the Government to produce a general statement of their position which, as we move on into this question, will become more and more urgent?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I know that the long Recess sometimes dulls the memory. But even my addled memory tells me that I have already told your Lordships on a number of occasions the clear situation. It has not changed.