§ Lord BrockwayMy 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 their attention has been drawn to the statements made on the BBC "Panorama" programme on 25th January that the Pentagon plans to manufacture a nerve-gas warhead for cruise missiles in Europe and Big-eye bombs for the F-111 fighters already at American bases in Britain; whether such plans are known to them; and whether consent has been or will be given to fulfil these alleged intentions.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)My Lords, I am aware of the "Panorama" statements to which the noble Lord refers. In my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on 18th February I explained that, while the United States Government have decided, in the face of the Soviet Union's massive chemical warfare capability, to proceed with some development of new chemical weapons, no decisions on deployment have been taken. We hope that arms control discussions in this field will now make progress.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that chemical weapons can now become even more deadly than nuclear weapons? Can he give us an assurance that chemical weapons are not being and will not be installed on American bases in Britain without our consent? May I ask him to do two more fundamental things? First, in view of the charges that chemical weapons have been used in Afghanistan, Kampuchea and Eritrea, will the Government urge the United Nations Security Council to appoint a commission of unaligned nations to examine those charges? Secondly, will the Government agree to support at the Geneva Committee an international convention banning and dismantling all chemical weapons, in view of the Soviet and American stocks, and President Reagan's plan, which the Minister himself has mentioned?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I compared these weapons, as the noble Lord has just done, to nuclear weapons. I also mentioned that the Soviet stocks were well in excess of 300,000 tonnes of modern weapons mainly stored forward, against an out-of-date, aging stock of 30,000 tonnes in America, which is the only stock that they have. Against that situation, I hope the noble Lord, instead of pressing this House, will press for the cessation of production of chemical weapons in the UUSR and for the destruction of their stocks. We have the guarantee on consultation of which the noble Lord speaks and which I also announced on 18th February, and, so far as the various United Nations or other forums are concerned, we shall lose no opportunity to support practical disarmament moves.
§ Lord PeartMy Lords, is the Minister aware that recently in the International Herald Tribune there is an account to the effect that so far nothing has been decided. We have the statement by the Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger that, according to sources, he told alliance diplomats that no decision had been made on either production or deployment. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount has something to say on this matter. I think that my noble friend, with whom I sometimes disagree, is right to question this matter in this way. Cruise missiles, as carriers of chemical warheads, can be very dangerous indeed to all.
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to my Answer on 18th February—I have the feeling that the noble Lord was in the House but I may be wrong—that the United States has, in fact, confirmed that it intends, against the balance that I have mentioned, to start certain developments and particularly they involve ordering long-lead items. That is all. No decisions have been taken on deployment of any kind, and before they are taken, consultation has been promised.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all experience, including that of the last war, is that the vast Russian stock of these horrible weapons is much less likely to be used if those who 7 control them know that their use would produce retaliation in kind?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, it is, indeed, that thinking that has driven our American allies to the very modest step of ordering certain long-lead items as a back-up for efforts at discussions as regards which we wish them well.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, is the Minister aware that persistent reports have been reaching the West of the deployment and use of chemical weapons by the Ethiopian armed forces backed by the Soviet Union in Eritria, and that evidence of this has been sent to the Foreign Secretary on more than one occasion over the last 18 months, but that the Foreign Secretary and the Ministers in his department simply say that the ambassadors of the western nations in Addis Ababa do not have conclusive proof of the deployment of these weapons? Therefore, will not the Minister take on board the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the United Nations should be invited to set up an international commission to examine the deployment of weapons of this kind in Kampuchea, Afghanistan and Eritria?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, we are indeed taking part in an investigation in relation to the use of chemical weapons in the Far East. I promised the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—at least I think I did—an answer in relation to Ethiopia which I have not yet sent him, but which I have called for and will send him.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House look at the phrasing of this Question, because it would seem that this is a formula which would allow the Order Paper to be used and Questions to be asked on anything which is written, broadcast, televised or disseminated by any process? Can it be in the interests of the House to draw attention to matters for which Her Majesty's Government have absolutely no responsibility at all and would always stand back from—"Panorama" programmes or any other televised programmes? Could my noble friend look at this matter? I would not ask for a decision now. However, I am not sure that this is in the interests of the House because it opens Question Time and the Order Paper to a lot of erroneous and inaccurate statements being made which may be believed outside?
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)My Lords, the whole question of the framing of Questions for the Order Paper is, I think, governed by the wording of Questions and Motions as set out in the Companion to Standing Orders. I think that it would be very difficult to show that in this particular Question there was any reason why it should not appear on the Order Paper.
Quite a number of noble Lords are indicating that they wish to ask supplementary questions on this matter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will ask their 8 questions and then I suggest that we move on to the next Question.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that, in terms of lethalness, a cruise missile armed with gas would be somewhat less than 0.1 per cent. as lethal as one charged with a nuclear weapon—that is, nuclear weapons are at least a thousand times more lethal? Secondly, but most unfortunatunately, will the noble Viscount confirm that we have no control whatever as to what the Americans choose to put into their cruise missiles, even though they may be based here?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, so far as lethality is concerned in a hypothetical situation where no decisions have begun to be taken about deployment of weapons of a power which I do not think we have yet understood—I am referring to modern chemical weapons—I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I would say once again that Her Majesty's Government are entirely satisfied that the American assurance on consultation before any deployment—assuming that by then no progress has been made on disarmament—will be entirely satisfactory.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, is the Minister aware that a copy of this remarkable document is in the Library due to the kindness and courtesy of the Librarian? It is a transcript which he obtained for me and it is for any noble Lord in this House to see it there.
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I presume that the noble Baroness is referring to a transcript of the "Panorama" programme. I find that there is plenty of speculation in the media of every kind on every defence subject. I am finding that the vast majority of it has very little correlation with the facts.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that, in spite of the points that he has made, the competitive development and production of chemical weapons by the Russians and the Americans is a fresh and deplorable escalation of the arms race? Secondly, will the noble Viscount be more specific?—he referred in his reply to the fact that the Government are willing to support measures in suitable disarmament forums. Can he assure the House that the Government are going to take an initiative in a particular forum of a particular kind in order to try to check this arms race?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, Lord Mayhew's definition of an "arms race" or a race at all is, I think, different from mine. If your opponent is within 10 yards of the finishing post and you order a pair of running shoes and tell him that if he does not stop you are going to start chasing him, then I suppose that you can call it a race. That is the situation. As far as an initiation of disarmament talks is concerned, I am quite sure that my noble friend loses no opportunity whatever to initiate them. But as I have said so often in this place, I believe that most worthwhile initiations are not widely announced in advance.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I think that the House did agree that, after we had taken the last three questions, we should move on to the next Question.