Nuclear Force Talks: Intermediate-Range Weapons (Hansard, 28 January 1982)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, the first round of these negotiations was held in Geneva from 30th November to 17th December 1981 and the second round started on 12th January: They have been conducted in a frank and businesslike manner, but the details remain confidential. Although these discussions are between the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States, the United States Government have consulted closely with their NATO allies. Her Majesty's Government strongly support the United States proposal to cancel NATO's intermediate-range nuclear force modernisation programme in exchange for the dismantling of all Soviet SS20s, 4s and 5s.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While it is obvious that the events in Poland make such negotiations more difficult, may I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the intention of the Americans to press on with these negotiations is unchanged?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Americans have made it clear that they intend to persevere and pursue these negotiations, but the noble Lord is right to say that the events in Poland sour the atmosphere.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, can the Government confirm that the United States have postponed indefinitely the opening of the other set of disarmament talks on strategic arms reductions? If so, will the noble Lord most urgently convey to Washington the opinion —which I hope is the opinion of this House—that if that postponement is other than temporary and tactical, a very great deal would be lost to mankind?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, this Government certainly hope that these negotiations can proceed at an appropriate time. Indeed, I think we had all hoped that the date for the re-start of these negotiations would have emerged from the Haig-Gromyko talks 1056 the day before yesterday, and we are sorry it did not. On the other hand, one has to understand the difficulties in which the western side find themselves following events in Poland and, further back, in Afghanistan.

§ Lord Peart
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Moscow has, I think, shifted its stance? The International Herald Tribune, which every Member should look at, declares today that "it seeks no confrontation". I believe the Americans really have achieved something and I hope we can have a successful conclusion at some time. As I said the other day, I hope that we shall be kept informed of how the talks are going.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we have become used to wringing declarations from the Soviet camp about their peaceful intentions. What we now have to do is see them match their actions to those fine words.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, would the Minister agree that we should have more faith in the disarmament talks if they were not accompanied by a massive build-up of nerve gas, which was shown on television when the talks were being held?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the "Panorama "programme a week or so ago

§ Baroness Gaitskell
I am, my Lords.

§ Lord Trefgarne
—then that programme made it clear that there is no present intention to base those gases in the United Kingdom.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many reports appearing in the press about changes that are taking place or are in contemplation? For example, it was reported only yesterday that our combat aircraft would be inadequate during the whole of the 'eighties. Is it not desirable that from time to time, in order either to refute such statements in the press or to clarify the situation, the Minister of Defence or his deputy should come to the House and make an occasional Statement, as for example our distinguished Foreign Secretary made yesterday?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Trenchard will hasten to come to the House to answer appropriate Questions when they appear on the Order Paper. It is of course the case that when we came to office a year or so ago, there were a number of deficiencies in our front line forces which we have been putting right ever since.

§ Lord Kaldor
Are there any plans, my Lords, to extend these talks on disarmament to what I would call short-range battlefield nuclear weapons?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the present talks, if the noble Lord is referring to those which appear in the Question, are of course specifically aimed at intermediate-range land-based systems.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, are we not to know the answers to Questions of this kind? Can we be told, for example, whether the agenda has been agreed and if there is a calendar of future meetings? Shall we be informed about such matters during the process of the talks?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it has been decided that the details of the talks should remain confidential. I venture to suggest that if they were to be conducted in the full spotlight of international publicity, progress would be much more difficult.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, while I enthusiastically support Solidarity in Poland, may I ask the Minister whether he realises that there are similar situations in many countries—Turkey, El Salvador, Indonesia—and would not all of them be improved in a peaceful situation in which disarmament took place, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Kennet?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, misunderstands the implications of the situation in Poland. The fact is that we are now asked to conduct negotiations in various disarmament and other fora with the eastern bloc in the context of their broken undertakings in respect of the Helsinki Final Act. En other words, we now have to be asked to believe what they say in the context of the fact that they have departed from their solemn undertakings in that document.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, pending the start of the talks, the Soviet Union has slowed down its deployment of SS20s, or is the current rate one new nuclear warhead every week? Is the total not now 280, and are they not reloadable and mobile? Does not this make it very difficult to avoid the balancing which becomes necessary by the deployment of cruise missiles if the Soviets refuse either to slow down or withdraw their SS20s?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on the nub of the problem. It is indeed the case that the Soviet Union already has a substantial superiority in these intermediate-range weapons, and that is why it is so important for the talks at Geneva to proceed and, I hope, succeed.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord on one brief point before we come to the end of this Question? He said that the present Government have been in power for a year or so. Is he aware that they have been in power for nearly three years and it feels much longer?

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, the noble Lord has said—

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we have now had eight minutes on this Question and I really think that it is time to move on to the next one.