Nuclear Weapons (Hansard, 9 February 1984)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I have made clear to your Lordships on many occasions, it is the policy of all members of the NATO Alliance, including the USA, to prevent war through the strategy of deterrence. In October 1983 NATO Ministers endorsed a programme to reduce the number of the alliance's nuclear warheads in Europe to the lowest level for 20 years. And at the START talks the United States made a proposal for substantial reductions in warheads on strategic ballistic missiles.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, would not the noble Minister agree that, while both sides have made specific proposals for reducing certain categories, as the discussions have been going on the totality of weaponry has increased and that, since I put down the Question on the Order Paper, the latest averages which I have calculated from the various international organisations suggest that the totality of nuclear weapons in the world now exceeds 50,000 warheads? In these circumstances, while the discussions have been going on the weaponry has been increasing, and is it not the case that there is no purpose in this increase because either side can eliminate the other with less than half of its existing weaponry? Will the noble Lord therefore not suggest to the United States that they are engaged in a fruitless exercise and should 1271 they not make some gesture, which I believe would bring a response from the other side, whereby it would be possible to make a start on bringing the weapons down instead of increasing them—increasing them all the time?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I, too, would like to see a reduction in the number of warheads. That is why I hope that the Soviet Union will return to the negotiating table.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, as the House is aware, the resumed meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Conference met yesterday in New York. Disregarding the rhetoric which emanated from there on the first day, could the noble Lord say what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have got to make so that some progress may be made in disarmament? Secondly, could he say whether there is any prospect of the START meetings being reconvened, since, as he recalls, there was some thought in Stockholm that the START Conference could be reconvened fairly quickly? Is this likely?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I recall having mentioned to the noble Lord before, we hope that the Soviet Union will return to the START negotiating table, but they have not yet agreed a date.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will deal with my question about the resumed United Nations Disarmament Conference in New York, which reopened yesterday. I asked him what initiatives, if any, Her Majesty's Government are likely to take. I think this is an important point. Secondly, on the START talks, there was a clear indication in Stockholm that these talks would be reconvened. Could the noble Lord be a little more positive on that?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the initiative to resume the START talks now rests with the Soviet Union. It is they who are considering the date upon which they can return. As for the other talks to which the noble Lord refers us, the noble Lord will understand that the main protagonists in this area are the main superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. But the United Kingdom, of course, stands ready to make whatever contribution we can.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a distinction here between warheads and weapons? Is it not the case that where warheads are concerned the Soviets are well ahead of the West?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the precise number of warheads possessed by either side is not a matter which is readily ascertainable, but my noble friend may well be right.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is possible to agree entirely with the need for a nuclear deterrent and yet to say that there is now extensive nuclear overkill on both sides? Do not the Government accept that this is so?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I certainly agree that there is scope for mutual and balanced reductions by both sides, and that is why, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question this afternoon, we hope that the Soviet Union will come back to the negotiating table so that that may happen.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is it not naïve to think that just because we throw something away the Russians will follow suit? Surely the perfect example has been chemical and biological weapons, which are outlawed by treaty and which the West does not have, and this has not stopped the Soviet Union building them up. If one could think that one could trust them, all right, let us do it; but we cannot trust them. This has been shown time after time and Her Majesty's Government are absolutely right to try to negotiate disarmament from strength rather than weakness.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I think that my noble friend is suggesting that verification ought to be an important feature of any new agreement, and I quite agree.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, would the Government consider throwing their weight behind amalgamating the START and the INF talks on the principle that if two groups of people are negotiating about what to have for dinner, there is not much point in negotiating about the first course in one room and about the main course quite separately in another?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is certainly one of the possibilities that has been canvassed. But it is perhaps worth saying that difficulties have arisen in both of the separate talks that have been proceeding so far, and it is not immediately clear that those difficulties would automatically disappear if the talks were merged.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, would the Minister accept that the reduction in the weapons to which he referred is really a reduction in numbers of weapons which are less effective and their replacement by much more lethal weapons than ever? Will he accept that if the Government continue to go towards parity in some ways this is leading to escalation, and the only hope is to pursue the policies which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has just referred to in the negotiations?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has forgotten that the replacement of a few SS.4s and SS.5s by SS.20s has been just the process he has described.

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, at a convenient moment after—

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, before the noble Lord intervenes, may I ask the noble Lord to correct his noble friend behind him by pointing out to him that in warheads, as well as everything else, the West has a substantial lead?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not think it falls to me to correct my noble friend.