Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Hansard, 16 January 1991)

§ 5. Mr. Kirkwood
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the conclusions reached by the recent conference on the nuclear test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
The partial test ban treaty amendment conference is due to end on 18 January. We have made it clear that we do not support the proposal to convert the treaty into a comprehensive test ban. Because our security will depend for the foreseeable future on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons, we have a continuing need to test our nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and up to date.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Does the Minister accept that that is a disappointing answer? Will he assure the House that he will listen to the discussions that will continue until 18 January, when a vote will be taken on replacing the 1963 840 partial test ban treaty with a comprehensive treaty? Does not he understand that there are now compelling reasons for moving towards a comprehensive test ban on nuclear weapons? Is he aware of the signals that would be sent if the United Kingdom Government voted against that and tried to veto any such decision? More important, does he understand the need to try to influence in a positive way the United States contribution to the conference, which may also be considering vetoing any such conclusion?

§ Mr. Hogg
Of course we shall listen to all the arguments that are adduced at the conference. We have reached the conclusion that our security depends on the possession of nuclear weapons. To maintain effective and up-to-date nuclear weapons, we have concluded that we must retain the ability to test.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that hon. Members are beginning to return to the consensus that as long as others have nuclear weapons we should have a credible deterrent? It is fallacious for the Opposition to suggest that we can have those weapons without testing them, because their safety and effectiveness cannot be proved unless they are tested in underground, safe conditions.

§ Mr. Hogg
My hon. Friend put the argument extremely clearly and I agree with everything that he said.

Mr. Robertson
Few people—I can think of no hon. Member—are not conscious, with some fear, of the prospect of the conflict in the Gult involving the use of nuclear weapons by countries such as Iraq. The Minister will therefore understand how depressing his answer was. This week, the Government have a chance to act rather than to agonise on the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries such as Iraq. Converting the 1963 partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty would be an automatic method of stopping the dangerous expansion of nuclear weapons into the hands of other countries. Why, therefore, as the technology to verify nuclear tests is available and reliable, cannot the Government take a lead in ensuring that this small measure, which would make the world much safer, is taken?

§ Mr. Hogg
Much as I should like to agree with the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that I cannot follow him in his argument, not least for this reason: Iraq, the country which he mentioned, is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. Notwithstanding that fact, it is still seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.