§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy 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 whether they will confirm the reports that Russia has been experimenting with chemical warfare both inside the Soviet Union and in Afghanistan.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union holds large stocks of chemical weapons and that Soviet troops are fully trained to use them. While reports of their use in Afghanistan are disturbing, the Government have so far no evidence that would confirm the point.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him three short questions: First, if there were to be an accident inside the Soviet Union, either by chemical or biological means, would not this be against the Biological Convention of, I think, 1975? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that 1,200 Afghans were massacred in April last year and that it took very nearly 11 months for this to be reported in the Free World? Thirdly, does not my noble friend agree that if the Russians used chemical warfare in Afghanistan and it took 11 months to find out, this was much too late? We must try to find out now.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we need to distinguish between chemical warfare and biological warfare because they are covered by different conventions. The current convention in connection with chemical warfare dates from as long ago as 1925—a Geneva Convention of 790 that year. Biological warfare, however, as my noble friend says, stems from the 1975 convention banning that particular group of weapons. Certainly the recent reported incident in Russia, if it did occur, was covered by the 1975 Biological Convention, and that is the matter which the United States Government have recently taken up with the Soviet Union. As for the lack of information about what is happening in Afghanistan, certainly we would be anxious to know what is going on there as soon as possible, but in a closed society like that this is sometimes difficult.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I wonder whether I may put one or two points to the Minister. Would he confirm that the United Kingdom took a leading part in preparing a perfectly workable chemical warfare ban agreement for presentation to the disarmament committee in Geneva—as we had done with the biological warfare ban agreement to which he has just referred—and that that draft, of British authorship, was handed over to the United States and the Soviet Union, or was taken over by them, the expectation being that they would achieve a consensus and then present their findings to the disarmanent committee in Geneva, but that little progress has been made by the super-powers in that respect? Would the Minister further confirm that, although the United States has run down its chemical warfare capacity to the point of near obsolescence, at the same time there is clear evidence that the Russians have not only maintained but developed their own? This gives very great concern not only to this country but to the whole world, lest the United States, in the absence of co-operation by the Soviet Union in this vital field, may feel obliged to resume its capacity for chemical warfare and so, despite its past efforts—
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTSMy Lords, this is an extremely important matter and I think that the whole House would wish me to be as helpful as I can to the Government in this present situation. The United States, having run down its chemical warfare capacity, may feel that it has to resume it, thus adding a particularly horrifying extra dimension to an already very threatening arms race.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the noble Lord was quite right in the first part of his supplementary about what has been happening at Geneva. The committee on disarmament who were considering this matter have very recently set up a working group to look into the areas which need to be covered in any future chemical weapons convention. The United Kingdom, as a member of the group, expects to play a full and useful role in its deliberations. The main issue to which the group will wish to address itself is the most important question of verification.
As for the plans of the United States in this area, I do not think it is for me to comment on American plans, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the present aging stocks of chemical weapons held by the United States are only a tiny fraction compared to those held by the Soviet Union and its allies.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, with regard to reports of the accidental release of biological warfare agents from an establishment in the Soviet Union near Sverdlovsk, which have been taken up by the United States, can the noble Lord arrange to have assembled in the Library of your Lordships' House all the reports which have come to the notice of the Government regarding this alleged release of anthrax pathogens so that noble Lords may judge for themselves what validity there is in the allegations; and, if they were found to be true, can the noble Lord say whether it would be contrary to the 1975 convention which he has mentioned and whether we would take the responsibility for raising this matter at the United Nations?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, a number of deaths were reported in the Press. However, I should say that proof is difficult to obtain, given the closed nature of the Soviet society. The Soviet Union have said that an outbreak of anthrax occurred from poor food handling procedures. We are examining this explanation with care and very much hope that the Soviet Union will be prepared to co-operate in substantiating it.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, the noble Lord has confessed that, in spite of Press reports, he is unaware that the 792 Russians are using either biological or chemical warfare in Afghanistan. Has he noted that we have had very little information about Afghanistan for several weeks? We hear a great deal about the Olympics, which is associated with the subject of Afghanistan but, apart from occasional references in the Press, there has been no statement made by a Minister in another place or in your Lordships' House about Afghanistan. Is it possible to have a statement made, based on the information which is available, about what is happening in Afghanistan?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am not sure that we should be able to add much to what the noble Lord and the rest of your Lordships have read in the Press reports, but I will certainly consider what additional information I can give to the noble Lord and I will also consider the best way in which to do that. I would not want to give an undertaking about making a statement, or anything of that nature. Certainly the rumours that we have heard, and which have been quite extensively reported, give us considerable cause for concern.
§ Earl CATHCARTMy Lords, in view of the confirmation that my noble friend the Minister has given, that the Soviet ability for increased aggression by chemical warfare exists, will he confirm that in the Government Defence White Paper which we hope will be issued shortly, information will be given to us about what steps we are taking to counter this threat?
§ Lord TREFGARNENo, my Lords. I am afraid that I cannot foreshadow what will be in the White Paper.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, why in this nuclear age should we bother our heads about anything as obsolete as chemical warfare?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the noble Lord might like to put that question to the people of Afghanistan.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, will my noble friend recall that some 10 years ago there was very strong Left-Wing pressure and marches against the chemical warfare research establishment at Porton, and was this not a sign that at the same 793 time Moscow was stepping up its research and development along exactly similar lines? Will he suggest to our large diplomatic staffs in the Soviet Union and our more limited diplomatic staffs in Afghanistan that it is of extreme importance that they should find out what is going on in those two countries in respect of biological and chemical warfare?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, my noble friend has described what has happened in the past in this field of chemical and indeed of biological warfare. I agree that these things are best dealt with and contained by an effective and verifiable convention, and that is what we are working on.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I remember when Porton was doing these experiments? Will he agree that we can find out quite a lot about the teratological effect of biological warfare by examining what is now going on in Vietnam 10 years after biological warfare was used on the forests?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, that is slightly different. The agents that were used in Vietnam, such as agent Orange and some of the other incapacitating agents used for riot control, are not normally considered to be chemical weapons.
Lord ST. JUSTMy Lords, speaking as one of your Lordships who has lived next door to the chemical warfare establishment for some 30 years, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that in fact we are as much up to date now—as we can find out the situation in any local pub in the Wiltshire area that we go into—as we have ever been?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I would advise my noble friend to be very wary about what he hears in pubs.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the Minister to good enough to indicate the organs of the Press on which he is relying? He mentioned "according to reports in the Press", and he also said that he was short of information, so will he be good enough to tell the House the names of the papers on which these reports are based? Secondly, will he be good enough to define the effect of defoliation as 794 practised in Vietnam, where it killed thousands and maimed millions and in fact may have immobilised large areas for many years?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, in answer to the first supplementary put to me, I do not think that I can be asked to provide a Press cutting service for the noble Lord. As to his second supplementary, I can simply repeat that defoliant agents are not normally regarded as chemical warfare agents.
§ Lord GISBOROUGHMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the only reason why the Germans did not use nerve gas in the last war (the existence of which we were not aware, and nor did our gas masks filter it) was that they thought we had it? In that respect, if we cannot discover what the Russians are doing, is not the best defence to have a good supply of it ourselves?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I cannot really say why it was that the Germans did not use these agents in the last war; I am not able to look into the minds of those now dead. I am not necessarily convinced, however, that my noble friend is right in his second supplementary question. The military value of these agents is very questionable.