Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Hansard, 18 December 1985)

§ 16. Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with experts in the field of seismology on the verification of a nuclear test ban treaty.

§ Mr. Renton
The United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the conference on disarmament on the verification of a nuclear test ban treaty draws upon advice from seismologists employed by the Ministry of Defence. In addition, officials are regularly in touch with seismologists outside the Government services; for example, United Kingdom experts have participated in the ad hoc group of scientific experts under the auspices of the 299 conference on disarmament, which includes representatives from a variety of countries, including the USA and the USSR.

§ Mr. Strang
Will the Minister have the honesty to admit that the technology is now available to detect nuclear explosions down to the militarily significant level of one kiloton? Is it not a fact that before the breakdown of the last comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations the Soviet Union agreed to the placement of seismic stations on its territory?

§ Mr. Renton
It is a question not of honesty, but of a great number of scientologists—[Interruption.]—sorry, seismologists. As the House will know, the headquarters of scientology is in my constituency. The opinion of many seismologists—some employed by the Government but many not, some British and many international—is that the question of verification is not yet solved. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to claim that the 1977 to 1980 trilateral negotiations, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were near completion. There were many practical aspects, including verification, on which agreement had not been achieved at the time the negotiations ceased.

§ Mr. Forman
Is my hon. Friend aware that many laymen who support the objective of a comprehensive test ban treaty are beginning to feel that the scientific community in more than one country is merely putting up obstacles to the reasonable proposals made recently. Will he seek to give the idea a greater political push?

§ Mr. Renton
I listened to what my hon. Friend says with great care, but the fact of the matter is that this is an area where it is essential that there should be not only verification measures that work but confidence on both sides that the verification is working. If there were to be non-compliance and that was not verified, it could lead to a breach in our national security, which would have serious consequences.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the Minister aware that the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, who has always proved a most reliable conduit for Foreign Office news, recently stated that there was now no scientific obstacle to verification and that the only obstacle was political, by which he meant the toadying of the Prime Minister to President Reagan? Therefore, will the Government support the early recalling of the conference on a comprehensive test ban agreement, since the Prime Minister herself said that she greatly regretted its being broken off last time?

§ Mr. Renton
I well realise from previous exchanges that the right hon. Gentleman is setting himself up as an amateur seismologist, but he is not much better as a seismologist than he was as an economist. The fact of the matter remains, as I have said before, that there is a genuine and serious division of scientific opinion. We have suggested that a committee should be formed at the conference on disarmament at which detailed questions about verification could be studied, and it is a matter of regret to us that the Soviet Union has not accepted that suggestion and has not moved forward with it.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order arising directly out of questions, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary clearly said earlier that it was one of my hon. Friends who said, "Who cares?". In fact, it was none of my hon. Friends; it was his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I wonder whether that could be put right. In answer to the substantive question, the people who care are those who care that the House of Commons should be told the truth.

§ Mr. Latham
I readily confirm that that is correct, Mr. Speaker. Had you permitted an interruption earlier I would have said so then. It was I who made that comment.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sure that Hansard will have noted that exchange.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to apologise; it is for the Minister who used—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot be responsible for that. It will be noted.

§ Mr. Marlow
On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. It is only a small point of order, but I am asking you for your help and assistance. You may remember that in distant days gone by we used to have European questions for 20 minutes. There are some 20 questions on European issues on the Order Paper today. Europe is responsible for our agriculture policy, for our trade policy and for a growing basket of other policies. It is only right and proper that we should have the ability, not just to question the Foreign Secretary after Council meetings, but to ask substantive questions on the subject. I wonder whether anything can be done about that.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I seem to remember that in the not too distant past there were exchanges about this and it was agreed through the usual channels that EC questions should go in with foreign affairs questions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that changed, his right course would be to talk to the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Caborn
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance and perhaps some information on a question on the Order Paper. Has there been a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have not had that, but it does not arise directly out of questions today.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Very honourably and truthfully the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) admitted that he was responsible. I would not pursue the matter further, but it would be gracious of the Minister to at least admit that he made a mistake; no doubt a genuine mistake, but, nevertheless, a mistake. Would it not be nice if Ministers were a little gracious?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very nearly Christmas.

§ Mr. Eggar
If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. I did mishear; the comment came from another direction. I apologise.