§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the tenth round of talks at Geneva on a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the final plenary meeting of the tenth round took place on 1st April. Progress was made on provisions for verifying an eventual treaty. The eleventh round began on 16th June.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is it not the case that these discussions have now been taking place for three years? Is there not a more immediate danger even than war? Is there not evidence that these underground tests had some responsibility for the disastrous volcanic eruptions in America and in the Balkans? May I ask whether, in the case of verification, it might be possible to have unaligned observers in order to prevent any agreement from being disrupted?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I do not think it is proven that underground explosions have caused the volcanic eruptions to which the noble Lord refers. As for criticism about the time taken for a conclusion of these negotiations, I should say that the issues are complex and indeed vital to the 1536 security of the United Kingdom and the other negotiating partners. The negotiators are currently working on a full report for the Committee on Disarmament. We hope that this will be ready soon and will be available indeed before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in August.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I agree of course that the Geneva discussions, necessarily technical and protracted as they must be, will take some more time before we may expect results in this field. Nevertheless, may I put a question to the Minister and hope that he will take it up with his right honourable friend? Could he suggest that there might be made a definitive statement of the progress already made in the INFCE discussions—I hope that the House will not expect me to elucidate that particular acronym; it would take the scope of a full supplementary question to do so—in which we are, I think, co-chairmen with the Japanese on this aspect of nuclear arms control, though my memory does not serve me very well on this? These discussions address themselves not only to the question of proliferation, which is the great danger today, but also to the point raised by my noble friend, which cannot be brushed aside as being fanciful; namely, the interference of certain underground tests with the environment and even with climatic conditions.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I certainly do not say that the suggestions of the noble Lord are fanciful. I simply say that they are, for the moment, not proven, although perhaps they will be one day. As for the connection between these negotiations and non-proliferation generally, I can say that we hope that a test ban will be supported by most states, both nuclear and non-nuclear, and that it will he recognised as a genuine measure of self-restraint on the part of nuclear weapon states by those who, among the developing nations, argue that the nonproliferation treaty discriminates in the nuclear weapons states' favour.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to consider a definitive statement on the progress in the discussions which I mentioned, INFCE, on proliferation? No doubt he is aware that 1537 one of the conditions that promotes proliferation is the sluggishness of the nuclear powers as regard sharing nuclear knowledge for civilian purposes with the non-nuclear powers. The whole thing is bound together.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I shall certainly consider whether a further statement could be made as the noble Lord suggests, but of course the forthcoming review conference, to which I referred, will doubtless issue a communiqué or report when it ends.