§ 18. Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government intend to take action following the nonproliferation treaty review conference to try to secure agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. RentonWe have been trying to achieve progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty for some time, particularly at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, where we have tabled a paper on seismic monitoring as a contribution to resolve the difficulties that still stand in the way of a treaty. A copy of this paper is available in the Library of the House.
§ Mr. StrangIs it just an insensitive coincidence that the first exercise in the deployment of American cruise missiles from Greenham common for four months should occur right in the middle of the Gorbachev-Reagan summit? Is this the American military's way of telling us that the summit will not change anything? Were the British Government consulted in advance about the decision to take these ground-launched cruise missiles on to Salisbury plain this morning?
§ Mr. RentonAs a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said this morning, the deployment of the cruise missiles was purely fortuitous. On the matter of the summit, may I remind the hon. Gentleman of what a White House spokesman said last night, that those who talk at the moment will not know, and those who know will not talk? At this stage in the summit that is sensible advice to follow.
§ Mr. SoamesDoes my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that a comprehensive test ban treaty is of the utmost 272 importance, and that the argument about verification is no longer valid? Will he and his colleagues press ahead with this matter?
§ Mr. RentonI fully agree with my hon. Friend's first point, but do not agree with his second one. It is necessary to arrive at a system in which there is clear differentiation between seismic disturbances caused by natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, and disturbances caused by low level nuclear explosions. The problem of such differentiation has not yet been solved, nor has the problem of peaceful nuclear explosions. Many countries want to continue such explosions, while wanting to stop military nuclear explosions, but it is obvious that peaceful explosions could be relevant to military purposes.
§ Mr. HealeyDoes the Minister agree that leading seismologists in Britain, Canada and the United States now agree that it is physically and scientifically possible to distinguish natural convulsions from underground explosions? The hon. Gentleman referred with approval to an article in yesterday's Financial Times. Since the nonproliferation treaty review conference asked the nuclear powers to resume negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty before the end of the year, will the Government take the initiative in inviting other nuclear powers to such a conference immediately?
§ Mr. RentonSeismologists differ on technical matters, just as economists do, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember from his days as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that he reads the paper tabled by the United Kingdom in July, which shows some of the difficulties of seismic monitoring. It emphasises the difficulties, about which many experts agree. It is essential that steps be taken on verification as a prelude to genuine discussions about a comprehensive test ban. We hope that that will continue in the conference on disarmament.
§ Mr. George RobertsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? You will have noticed the discussion on question No. 10 concerning the intergovernmental conference of the European Community. Since Britain's accession to the EC, Ministers have regularly reported on the outcome of European Council meetings to the House. We have had no reports from any Ministers on any European Council meetings since the new Session began. A Foreign Ministers Council is meeting in almost permanent session at an intergovernmental conference, but all that the House has to rely on are confused and confusing newspaper reports about the conference and the stance of British Ministers. The meeting is a prelude to the Heads of Government summit, which is to take place at the end of next week and the beginning of the following one. The abandonment of the principle that Ministers report to the House must concern you as well as the rest of us. Can we seek your protection to ensure that Ministers no longer keep the House in the dark on these vital issues?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows that whether the Government seek to make a statement is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. MaddenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order with you yesterday—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall deal with that in a moment, if I may.
§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several Conservative Members have spoken on South African matters. I have looked up the Register of Members' Interests. Several of the hon. Members who spoke did not declare that they have made trips to South Africa paid for by the South African authorities. Would it not be better if we changed our procedures so that the House knows, without having to look up the Register of Members' Interests, that sponsored trips have been made by the hon. Member—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question that I can answer. It is not necessary during Question Time to declare an interest, because it will appear in the Register of Members' Interests. If the hon. Gentleman wants a change in the procedures, he should take the matter up with the Select Committee on Procedure.