The Palmé Commission Report (Hansard, 17 November 1982)

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

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, I welcomed this important report in the House on the 16th June, and gave the Government's views on its main proposals, many of which are in line with our own approach. We believe that the report makes a valuable contribution to informed debate about disarmament and security issues.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the report is most unusual in having been produced and signed by people of real standing on both sides of the Iron Curtain? Can he say which of its specific recommendations the Government now accept?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree that the report is very valuable, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. I think that I would pick out as being of particular value in its recommendations, first, that it specifically excludes unilateral disarmament; secondly, that it emphasises the importance of verification in arms control; and thirdly, that it recognises that the best way of making progress is through specific and balanced agreements step by step.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in seeking to limit the use of nuclear weapons and to prevent theatre nuclear war, the Palmé Commission—which we, too, on this side support—recommends negotiations on the deployment of conventional forces? Will he assure the House that the Government will do all that they can to help to revitalise the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions as suggested by the Palmé Commission?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, by meeting a major stated Eastern requirement—firm commitments by all participants from the outset—the alliance, in an initiative which was taken at the beginning of July has, I think, again demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment in mutual and balanced force reductions 522 to reaching an effective agreement involving significant reductions, adequate verification, and lower equal ceilings. We are still awaiting a reply to the July initiative.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, while I appreciate the welcome that the Government have given to the report, may I ask whether they will carry out their welcome by supporting in the Geneva Committee on Disarmament the comprehensive programme for disarmament that is endorsed in the report?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we certainly wish to work for a comprehensive test ban, and we have, of course, been active in supporting the setting up in the Disarmament Committee at Geneva of a working group to look at the particularly difficult problem of verification.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that one of the most interesting proposals in the report is that for a 150 kilometre-wide nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone on each side of the Iron Curtain?

§ Lord Belstead
No, my Lords.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that verification is quintessential in all these things?—because no matter what agreements are reached, people will be suspicious of one another unless there are guaranteed results of proper verification. Therefore, towards this end ought not the Government perhaps to consider the establishment of a fully qualified, independent body which could produce the fruits of verification to make disarmament an accepted reality throughout the world?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, if I may say so, that is an interesting question, and the noble Lord hits the nail right on the head, because the Western powers have made proposals for arbitration on force levels in the MBFR talks in Vienna. This, again, is an initiative to which we await a response.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, is the Minister of State aware of the difference between a nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone and a nuclear weapon-free zone? Is he aware that the report recommends the former, but does not recommend the latter?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord if I got him wrong in his original supplementary question, but I think that the answer remains, no, because in both cases there is a difficulty of targeting. This is the problem, and if you declare a zone to be nuclear-free, it may be nuclear-free for those who are of good intention, but those who are not of good intention can simply station their nuclear weapons just outside the zone and target them on the zone.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that a nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone is not a nuclear weapon-free zone, and that therefore his last answer was inapplicable?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think that I had better look carefully at what the noble Lord has said and at what I have said, and if I have misled the noble Lord or the House, I shall, of course, write to him.

§ Lord Davies of Leek
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most of us partially welcome what he has said? But is he also aware that in the Palmé Commission report an emphasis is placed on securing world peace by asking for a partnership between the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and an approach to third world countries, so as to encourage among those countries the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by extending aid and, I hope, lifting the standards of living of the countries?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is asking me about two things, So far as the third world countries are concerned, may I make it crystal clear that the Government welcome anything which can be done to see that the valuable provisions of the non-proliferation treaty are really made to stick. So far as concerns the proposal in the report for a concordat of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the Government feel that this is something which really would not work. We feel that the Falklands, Afghanistan and other crises suggest that the United Nations would rarely have sufficient warning time to achieve the kind of conflict prevention which is advocated in the report on that particular point.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, referring to the answer that the Minister gave to my earlier question, is he aware that I was not referring only to a test ban on nuclear weapons but to the comprehensive programme for disarmament now being discussed at Geneva? What is the Government's attitude towards that?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, our attitude is for a step-by-step approach, and this is why we welcome the individual negotiations on intermediate nuclear forces, and on strategic forces, both in Geneva, and on mutual and balanced force reductions, in Vienna.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the new leader of the Soviet Union has declared that Soviet policy rests upon the invincible might of the Soviet Union, and will he therefore take care to see that the Soviet Union takes some steps in this direction before others commit themselves?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I entirely agree with the force of his question.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that if nuclear weapons were abolished all the way round then the Russians would have vast superiority in ordinary troops over Britain and the rest of Europe?

§ Lord Belstead
Yes, my Lords, and this is why we are endeavouring to proceed step-by-step, not only so far as nuclear weapons are concerned but also so far as conventional forces are concerned.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords—

Several noble Lords
No!

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
It is only a simple question, my Lords.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we have now had nine minutes on the first Question. Perhaps I may suggest that we take one more very short supplementary question and then move on.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that if we are going to get armament reduction and agreement we need the Soviet Union to have a sense of some security; and that while we oppose their ambitions, we recognise that in the case of their own territories, liberalisation must come from within and not from without?

§ Lord Belstead
But, my Lords, surely, as the speech of my noble friend Lord Home made clear in the debate on the gracious Speech only a week ago, all arguments—moral, strategic and security arguments—point towards the desirability of mutual and balanced force reductions. If we can achieve that in both the nuclear and conventional fields, that would give the security which the noble Lord is speaking about, not only for the Western powers but for the Soviet Union as well.