Arms Control Talks (Hansard, 18 February 1987)

§ 5. Mr. Nicholas Baker
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce further developments in the Geneva arms control talks.

§ 7. Mr. Soames
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress in arms control talks.

§ Mr. Renton
The current round of the Geneva nuclear and space talks began on 15 January and has several weeks still to run. The negotiations for a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons resumed on 3 February. In December last year we and our NATO allies proposed distinct negotiations on conventional arms control, one on confidence building, the other on conventional stability in Europe.

§ Mr. Baker
Will my hon. Friend ensure that the closest attention is paid to the inclusion in any agreement arising from these talks of provisions for detailed verification? Will he draw to the attention of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Heeley) Mr. Gorbachev's recent rejection of a policy of one-sided disarmament? Does my hon. Friend agree that if any Government were so misguided as to adopt that policy the continuation of these talks would be unlikely?

§ Mr. Renton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proposals on detailed verification are essential to all the arms reduction talks that are currently in train. During the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in December 1985 the West made proposals for force reductions, to which were attached detailed proposals for verification by on-site inspection. It is regrettable that so far the Warsaw Pact countries have failed to reply to those proposals.

§ Mr. Soames
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the cohesion of the Alliance that no new negotiating positions are taken by the Americans without the fullest and frankest discussion with their NATO allies?

§ Mr. Renton
In recent months the Americans have consulted widely with their NATO allies about the proposals that they are putting forward in Geneva and in the other forums. There has been a sign of the Americans' willingness — indeed, instinct — to carry their NATO allies with them as we move on in 1987, a year which obviously could be crucial for arms control talks. To make these talks succeed, which is our earnest hope, the United States wants fully to consult its NATO allies.

§ Mr. James Lamond
With regard to the negotiations on the reduction in chemical weapons, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will he tell us whether the Americans agreed to have on-site inspection of chemical weapons manufacturing plants, including those that are privately owned?

§ Mr. Renton
Yes. The Americans have tabled the most comprehensive proposals for challenge inspection, including on-site inspection, of any party to the conference on disarmament and the chemical weapons discussions in Geneva. The British proposal, which we tabled last July, is also a stringent regime on verification. In essence, it modifies some of the American proposals, while insisting on a very stringent verification regime. The Americans, as part and parcel of this regime, have accepted that there should be on-site inspection of the civil chemical industry.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that an important element in the overall arms control equation is the balance in short-range nuclear delivery systems? Does he agree that the Soviet Union is continuing to deploy an 901 increasing number of SS21s, SS22s and SS23s, which directly threaten the south-eastern corner of this country and much of western continental Europe? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unless these systems are withdrawn, it should be the policy of the Government with their NATO allies to deploy anti-ballistic missile defences—ATBMs—to counter this growing threat?

§ Mr. Renton
As my hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert on these subjects, knows well, obviously this is of great concern to countries in central Europe, such as the Federal Republic of Germany. For that reason, in bringing forward suggestions for an agreement that would essentially remove the long-range intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe—an agreement which we believe could be achieved this year and which is certainly worth going for— we and our NATO allies have insisted that parallel constraints must be negotiated on the short-range weapons.

§ Mr. George Robertson
On the subject of the chemical weapons negotiations, will the Minister confirm that yesterday the Soviet Union accepted much of the British proposal for a chemical weapons treaty at Geneva, especially in regard to on-site inspection, but that so far the United States of America has rejected the British compromise proposal which was tabled last year, as the hon. Gentleman said? Last week, Mr. Richard Perle launched a major attack on the British position following the attack on the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for "his mealy-mouthed evasions". Who precisely is on Britain's side in trying to get an agreement on this vital and critical issue in Geneva?

§ Mr. Renton
I have also seen the proposals, or rather the newspaper reports of the proposals, that the Russians tabled yesterday. In terms of inspection of the chemical weapons sites that produce the weapons, those proposals look interesting and worthy of closer examination. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States' proposals on challenge inspection, which are at the heart of the verification procedures, are more radical and stringent than those of any other country. The question now is whether the proposals that we have put forward, which will none the less demand a stringent inspection regime, but give the challenge country an opportunity to satisfy the challenger by other quick means, form a basis on which a ban on chemical weapons can be achieved.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, at Camp David in November, President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made as one of their points the insistence on a chemical weapons ban. This is one of their priorities. I do not think that in his remarks in London the other day Mr. Perle was speaking for the United States Administration.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Does my hon. Friend agree that in any arms control talks the research and development of a new generation of weapons or of anti-weapons systems become an increasingly important element in negotiations? Does he agree that one will not get any give from the other side unless one has tabled something to get it, and that that is one area in which SDI and other developments could become more important as time goes on?

§ Mr. Renton
Yes, that is obviously a point for argument. One could follow on from that and say that the NATO countries' decision in 1979 to deploy cruise and 902 Pershing missiles in the western European countries was what had brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table today.