GENEVA DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE: PROGRESS REVIEW (Hansard, 23 October 1979)

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

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, we have already done so. A review of the work of the committee can be found in the first issue of the Government's Arms Control and Disarmament Newsletter and in the speech made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the First Committee of the United Nations on 7 October 17th. Copies of both are in the Library of the House.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, should not the House and the public be made more aware of what has been happening at this committee? Has it not discussed the test ban treaty, nuclear disarmament and a ban on chemical, radiological and new weapons of destruction? Surely, this House and the public ought to have more information. What has occurred since the speech of the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations Assembly?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the proceedings of this committee ought to be more widely disseminated, but I do not think there is anything more we can do than we have done already.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask two specific questions arising from these discussions. First, the negotiations regarding a ban on chemical weapons between the US and the USSR having dragged on for four years, is it not possible for the Geneva Committee itself to prepare a convention? Secondly, with regard to the objection of the West to a ban on new weapons of destruction until a weapon has been identified—is that not too late? Cannot research on new weapons of destruction be put into operation?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, if I may take up the point made by the noble Lord concerning chemical weapons, the committee on disarmament has not yet been able to start negotiating a treaty text because of the need to avoid impeding the bilateral US and USSR talks. While we acknowledge the pressure for the committee to start multilateral negotiations on chemical weapons, we believe such negotiations will be useful only if both the United States and the Soviet Union are in broad agreement.
On the more general point of restricting new weapons before they are even developed, I think the noble Lord has a point, but I would remind him that in this, as in many other spheres of disarmament negotiation, we are anxious that any treaty we negotiate is effective and must include proper confirmatory arrangements.

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, may I put two points to the Minister. First, does he agree that while it is essential that the United States and the Soviet Union should be in fundamental agreement on all practical forms of disarmament, including the banning of chemical weapons, which has been raised this afternoon, nevertheless it is also essential for the enlarged committee in Geneva to have a say in these matters? In the past there has been a suspicion that disarmament talks have been confined to the negotiations of the two super powers without the rest of the world being properly consulted. I hope the Minister will confirm that Her Majesty's Government will take that view in regard to the work of the Geneva Committee.
The second point is this: relating to our ambassadorial representation in Geneva for this purpose, can we take it that our permanent representative in Geneva for disarmament purposes will continue to have ambassadorial status and that his base will be Geneva rather than London?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, two points again: I shall have to take advice on the precise diplomatic status of our representative in Geneva and I will write to the noble Lord, if I may. On the question of whether we should proceed with negotiations for a multilateral treaty on, for example, chemical weapons while bilateral talks between the US and the USSR are in progress, that is a matter of judgment, I think; and our judgment is certainly that these bilateral talks would be impeded if we were to proceed on a multilateral basis at this time.