§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions were made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, particularly in regard to biological warfare and the demilitarisation of the sea-bed.]
§ THE MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Chalfont)My Lords, the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament is still in session in Geneva. Useful and detailed discussions have taken place on the draft Convention which Her Majesty's Government have 1210 put forward for the prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare, and the associated draft Security Council resolution. Further versions of the drafts, revised to take account of comments that have been made on them, were tabled on August 26. We expect the drafts to be submitted to the current session of the United Nations General Assembly with the report on the work of the Committee on Disarmament. We hope that the General Assembly will commend our drafts and that it will call on the Committee on Disarmament urgently to pursue the search for international agreement on effective and realistic measures in the C.B.W. (Chemical and Biological Warfare) field when it re-convenes.
On the subject of arms control on the sea-bed, I am happy to say that on October 7 the United States and Soviet Co-Chairmen of the Disarmament Committee tabled a joint draft treaty calling for a ban on the emplacement of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction on the sea-bed outside a twelve-mile coastal zone. This draft will now be discussed by the Disarmament Committee and it, too, will be referred to the United Nations General Assembly, under the Committee's report.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us greatly appreciate the initiative which the British Government have taken on this matter, which has placed these subjects on the agenda for serious international consideration? Also, may I ask the noble Lord what plans are in the minds of the Government, carrying out the indication by the Minister at the Geneva Conference, for extending this consideration to chemical weapons as well as to biological weapons?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think my noble friend is aware of the reasons why we tackled these matters separately. Biological weapons are at an earlier stage of development than are chemical weapons. So far as we know, they have never been used in war, and so we thought it would be easier to get agreement on their prohibition. So much for the reasons why we took them separately. But the draft Convention includes an article under which parties to the biological Convention would undertake to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to strengthen existing 1211 constraints on chemical methods of warfare.
As my noble friend will be aware, in the field of chemical weapons there are complex problems of definition and interpretation to be considered. We think that the Secretary-General's report will help us in the future consideration of these measures and in the future consideration of means of restricting chemical warfare, as well as biological warfare, which we shall pursue both in Geneva and in New York.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I also ask my noble friend this question? While welcoming the accord between the United States and the Soviet Union in proposing the prohibition of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare under-seas, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to support the proposals made by Sweden and other Governments at the Geneva Conference for the total prohibition of the sea-bed for war implements?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, this is an extremely complex problem. If it were simply a problem of extending the prohibition from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction to other weapons, this might be a matter for sympathetic consideration. But when we talk about complete demilitarisation of the sea-bed, Her Majesty's Government cannot support proposals of that kind because it would make it impossible for us and our allies to use the sea-bed in a number of ways that are of great importance to our security. Therefore complete demilitarisation is a matter that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to support, although we see no reason why in due course we should not extend the present definition of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.