§ 2.48 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Warsaw Pact countries' proposal for a nuclear freeze.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)My Lords, a freeze on nuclear weapons would perpetuate current imbalances in favour of the Soviet Union and remove the principal incentives for the Russians to agree to reductions. Verification of an agreement to freeze nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult to negotiate. For these reasons we remain convinced that it is better to concentrate on negotiating reductions of nuclear weapons.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in their communiqué of 14th October the Warsaw Pact powers made it clear that they are prepared to put into the bargain the scrapping and reduction of their own intermediate range missiles? What are the Government's individual reactions to that proposal?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the offer that was made by Mr. Andropov was a small step in the right direction but did not amount to very much. The Russians would still have about 500 SS20 warheads targeted on Western Europe and they have offered no constraints on missiles in Asia. The missiles in Asia could be moved within range of NATO quickly in a crisis.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, since there may be difficulties in the way of general acceptance of a nuclear freeze, more particularly in part of the United States, would not the Government agree that it might be more helpful and more productive to concentrate on the alternative proposal for a withdrawal of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons over a certain area on both sides of the dividing line?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the view that this and other NATO Governments take is that NATO Governments have shown a great deal of flexibility in the INF negotiations. We have offered a zero level or an interim agreement providing for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, does the Minister not agree that the freeze might be the starting point for 6 mutually balanced force reductions? Have the Government forgotten in a short time the scare which everyone had when the Korean airliner incident came about? Does she not consider that that makes it necessary to stop escalation and bring about a freeze as a first step towards a reduction in weapons on all sides?
§ Baroness YoungNo, my Lords. That is not a view taken by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that a freeze in INF at current levels would be unacceptable given the massive Soviet superiority.
Viscount St. DavidsMy Lords, is the noble Baroness perhaps not made sorrowful—though no doubt not alarmed—by the enormous number of different ways that the noble Lord finds to ask us the same question?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has asked questions on this subject many times, but then of course it is the right of a noble Lord to ask the question that he wishes.
§ The Earl of KimberleyMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Warsaw Pact suggestion that there might be a freeze on nuclear weapons is just another ploy on their part in the hope that we might delay siting cruise missiles in our country?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, it may well be, as my noble friend says, that this is one of the reasons for making this proposal, but of course the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that deployment will take place but at the same time that we shall continue to negotiate.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, as the noble Baroness is representing the Government's view that the deployment of cruise and Trident will take place anyway—which is an escalation—is it also the Government's view that it increases deterrence to raise the percentage of the human race that can be destroyed by nuclear weapons by 10 times? Is deterrence now to be dependent on the ability of the NATO Alliance to destroy the human race 100 times rather than 10 times?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, as I have already indicated in answering some of the other supplementary questions, we continue to seek negotiations, but the fact is that the massive build-up of Soviet SS20 forces since the late 1970s has caused a disturbing imbalance in medium-range nuclear weapons. It was against this background that the NATO allies decided in 1979 to modernise their forces by introducing cruise and Pershing.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, would the Government agree that we already have negotiations and that what we now hope for is a solution in time to prevent the deployment?
§ Baroness YoungYes, my Lords. We have made it quite clear that, if there were satisfactory negotiations, this position could be reconsidered; but our intention at the present moment is that there will be deployment of cruise and Pershing towards the end of this year.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, as a matter of international law, when one nation accepts the armed forces of another in circumstances in which it abandons all control over their activities, does not that nation cease to be an independent sovereign power and revert to the position of a protectorate; and is that not what we are doing?
§ Baroness YoungNo, my Lords, that is not the case. If the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is asking a question about joint control of these weapons, I can do no better than repeat the position as stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles. We are satisfied that they are effective. The arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off bases. The effect of the understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col 435.]
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, is it the Government's view that even at this late hour in order to reach agreement in the INF talks in Geneva the United States should show flexibility in the negotiations?
§ Baroness YoungYes, my Lords; and, as I indicated in the answer to one of the earlier supplementaries, we believe that the United States has shown flexibility. We have offered the zero level or an interim agreement which would provide for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, what we are seeking to achieve is a parity between United States and Soviet weapons at as low a level as possible.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, would the Minister agree that this is one of the few occasions where we enter upon negotiations with the Soviets from a position of strength, and, judging by the reaction of the Soviet Government, does it not show?
§ Baroness YoungYes, my Lords, the whole intention of the dual track policy is that there will be deployment but that there will be a continuation of the negotiations.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, would the noble Baroness the Minister agree that there is considerable public anxiety throughout Europe on this matter? Is she aware that the very substantial demonstration that took place in London and elsewhere on Saturday is evidence of that anxiety? Is she further aware that on that occasion there were a number of people under the banner of "Tories against cruise and Trident"? Having regard to all these things, will she use the Government's influence to see whether it is at all possible, even at this late stage, to secure an agreement which will prevent the necessity for the deployment of cruise and Pershing?
§ Lord DerwentMy Lords, before my noble friend answers that supplementary, as I am sure she will, does she feel that a Starred Question provides a suitable time for a full-scale debate?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, which I have given already, is that we are continuing to negotiate. We would all wish to have a successful conclusion to that, but until we reach a successful conclusion both cruise and Pershing missiles will be deployed.