§ 7. Mr. Robert Banksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Geneva negotiations on the abolition of chemical weapons.
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). The latest British proposal on verification is further evidence of our determination to achieve the total abolition of these weapons. That would constitute an important step in practical arms control.
§ Mr. BanksDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that chemical weapons are every bit as devastating as nuclear weapons? Is it not a sanguine reflection that Britain's renunciation of chemical weapons some 25 years ago, which set an example, has been received by an opposite reaction from the Soviet Union? Does he agree that the time has arrived when, at the long drawn-out negotiations in Geneva, we expect some positive response to come from the Soviet Union if an arms race in chemical weapons is to be avoided?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI entirely agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure the whole House will. We renounced weapons of this kind many years ago. The United States 809 ceased producing chemical weapons as long ago as 1969. The stock of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union is estimated at about 300,000 tons. This is an area where it should be possible to make progress and we hope that the Soviet delegation will adopt a forthcoming approach on all aspects of the negotiations along the lines that we have already discussed.
§ Mr. Tom ClarkeIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that agreement on these matters is not solely the prerogative of the Soviet Union? Did he have time this morning to read in The Times that the Soviet Union has expressed grave reservations about the sincerity of the West in trying to reach agreement? Do the Government accept that this is a major priority and is of the utmost concern?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweThe entire House is agreed about the importance and priority of this question. The United Kingdom has put forward a series of initiatives, starting in 1976, with the latest, as I said, last week. The United States has indicated its intention to put forward a further proposal later next month. It is important to make progress in this matter and we trust that in the course of further discussions we shall persuade the Soviet Union that the kind of proposals that we have introduced, including those for challenge inspection, are an essential complement to routine inspection arrangements.
§ Mr. KeyDoes my right hon. and learned Friend accept that were it not for the professionalism and dedication of the work force and public servants at Porton Down this country would not now be in a position to have a real and lasting effect on the future use of chemical weapons? Does he agree that it is time that there was some support from the Opposition Benches for the work of that establishment?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweMy hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It would not be possible for us either to make provision for defence against weapons of this kind or to formulate proposals with the skill and tenacity of those that we are putting forward were it not for the contribution made by research work of that kind.
§ Mr. AndersonThe reported progress on the permanent verification committee is to be welcomed. but how significant can it be if there is no move at all on the challenge procedures and particularly on the right of a state to refuse inspection?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweThe hon. Gentleman underlines the point that I have been making, that of drawing attention to the importance of challenge inspection. Clearly, there are still some difficulties to be resolved on that. The first thing is to accept the basic framework of the proposals which we put forward last week on that subject.