CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE (Hansard, 5 February 1979)

§ Lord ELTON
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the reports that have appeared in certain journals describing the training of the East German Army by the Soviet Union in chemical warfare. Noble Lords should not, however, accept these reports as wholly accurate. Your Lordships will understand that to indicate the errors in detail would involve the disclosure of classified information. As regards the protection of the civil population of the United Kingdom, we are keeping the position under review. In common with our allies, we have taken measures to protect military personnel against the use of biological and chemical weapons. All personnel in the British Army on the Rhine are equipped with individual protective kit including a respirator, and armoured vehicles have protection against biological and chemical attack where necessary. RAF forces tasked to operate in the Central Region of Europe are, similarly, fully equipped and trained to operate under conditions of chemical and biological warfare.

§ Lord ELTON
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, from which I gather that the activities at Leipzig and Neubrandenburg may not be entirely as sinister as we suppose. Is he aware that, leaving aside any of the satellite countries' forces, upwards of 70,000 Russian troops are employed solely in the use of chemical weapons, and that in particular the stocks of sarin, soman, and VX held by the Soviet forces have been greatly increased, and that these are nerve gases which are persistent in the atmosphere and do not make any distinction between soldiers wearing respirators and civilians wearing none? Does not the noble Lord regard this as a very serious threat indeed?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I am well aware of the dangers of the use of weapons that have been described by the noble Lord. I accept that. But NATO is well aware of this. I cannot go into details. It would be wrong of me to mention classified figures, et cetera. We are well aware of this, and I would only say to the noble Lord that I cannot answer the specific charges for the reasons I gave in my original Answer.

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware—apart from not going into details, which I can understand—that the East Germans have the strongest conventional military force of any country in Europe? Is he aware of that? That has been well known to some of us for several years. Is it known to the Government? Have they any details? Is NATO taking effective steps in order to circumvent anything of the nature of conflict initiated by the East Germans?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government are well aware of this. I am too. That is why I believe it is important that we should make our position known with our allies in NATO. Of course we are well aware of it.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, while I fully understand the difficulties of the Lord Privy Seal in this matter, is not his original Answer really a very terrible thing indeed? All these weapons are in fact forbidden by treaty, to which I think the Russians and East Germans are both parties, and 445 by international law. Is it not a very terrible thing indeed that the Russians, who are so sensitive to criticism of any kind, treating it always as anti-Soviet propaganda, should be doing that which causes Her Majesty's Government and our NATO allies to have to take protective measures against what ought never to have existed?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord. May I say that the United States and the USSR are currently engaged in bilateral talks aimed at reaching agreement on the elements of a multilateral convention to prohibit the development, production, and stock-piling of chemical weapons. Naturally these talks are confidential, but it is hoped that before long the two Powers will be able to transmit the results of their deliberations to the multilateral disarmament negotiating body in Geneva for the negotiation of such a convention.

§ Lord W1GG
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House be kind enough to publish in the Official Report the treaties of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, alleges the Soviet Union and the East Germans stand in breach? Will he be good enough to publish them in the Official Report so that we can see exactly what has happened and the extent to which these treaties have been broken without anyone being aware of it?

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, there are many treaties. I will see whether I can do this. For example, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a party, prohibits our possession of an offensive biological warfare capability. Incidentally, the convention was signed by the previous Administration. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who was then Foreign Secretary, signed the convention. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was quite right in his approach to it; it really is a terrible situation

§ Lord HANKEY
My Lords, arising out of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may I ask the Government to consider once more whether the time has come to restart 446 air raid precautions training? Is it not extraordinary, the extremely low level of ARP preparation that exists in this country?

§ Lord PEART
I do not think we are at that stage, my Lords, but obviously this matter should be carefully watched.

§ Lord ELTON
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we are glad that efforts continue, particularly through the United Nations Disarmament Committee, to find means of monitoring the control of disarmament in this field? We are anxious because this weapon, which is employed tactically, has in fact a major strategic effect which, so far as I can see, is left out of consideration when discussing the SALT balance. And can he not recall—I am sure he can—that in the last war it was quite clear that the reason chemical weapons were not used on either side was that the other thought there was a very strong counter-strike capability? That situation no longer persists, and the Soviet Union are in possession of a means of sidestepping the nuclear threshold with a weapon which does exactly what they said was wrong with the neutron bomb by destroying people and not property.

§ Lord PEART
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot answer that. I do not think he should be too pessimistic.