HL Deb 02 December 1986 vol 482 cc703-5

2.49 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My 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 why they are opposed to the resumption of negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, as I have explained on previous occasions, it would be premature to resume negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty until progress has been made on resolving outstanding issues, especially verification.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, has the noble Baroness yet studied the statement in Moscow yesterday that the Russians propose to end their moratorium on testing at the end of the year? In view of the decisive improvements in verification techniques that have been discovered recently, will the Government suspend their ban on negotiations and make a final effort to reach agreement in the matter?

Baroness Young

My Lords, as I have explained to the noble Lord before, we are committed to seeking progress before a comprehensive test ban treaty. But any negotiations would need to deal with difficult questions such as scope, duration and compliance—the key issue being verification.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, so far from its being premature, we are almost at the eleventh hour on this issue? Will she not show some sense of urgency in the matter when an opportunity is before the Government at the moment which may not recur? If the arms race is to be arrested, some action by the Government has to be taken. It is no use them sitting around doing nothing, as they have been for so long.

Baroness Young

My Lords, that is not the case. We suggested as long ago as 1984 a non-negotiating mandate for the ad hoc committee at the Conference on Disarmament, but as yet this has not been taken up by the Soviet Union.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give some indication to the House of how far verification, so far as the Russians are concerned, has proceeded? We all know that that is what has held it up. It is not a question of any bad feeling on the part of the Government or of anybody else. We all want peace, but we want it to be a genuine peace.

Baroness Young

Again, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, makes an important point. We should all like to see movement towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, but a limited unilateral gesture, as has happened with the Soviet Union, is not a substitute for a long-term agreement with verification.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, will the Government progressively reconsider their attitude on this question? Would not this step be part of a great progress towards ending the danger of a nuclear war and has it not overwhelming support in the world, with the exception of the President of the United States and of our Government?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I do not think I have anything further to add to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, other than I have already said in answers to questions. But I really cannot accept his last statement.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what standards of verification the Government would require before we can take this very desirable step of banning tests?

Baroness Young

My Lords, as I indicated in the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we have suggested a non-negotiating mandate for the ad hoc committee at the Conference on Disarmament. Some countries—the Soviet Union and some non-alligned countries—are not even prepared to accept this. It is a technical matter and it needs to be considered appropriately in that committee.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, it is a technical matter. But is it not the case that it is now claimed that major advances in seismology would make possible at the very least a low yield threshold test ban? Can she say what is the Government's view on that, and is it not possible at Geneva to get a multilateral discussion on the possibilities based on recent scientific discoveries?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I am aware of the papers which were presented in Modern Geology by Sykes and Leggatt which criticised the United Kingdom's paper. But they present no new elements and we do not believe that they undermine the conclusions in the Committee on Disarmament of July 1985. In fact, officials wrote to Dr. Leggatt answering his points in August, and we would of course welcome publication of the response that we made.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one should not overstress the importance of individually declared moratoriums, and that there are more convenient moments for some powers to declare a moratorium than others?

Baroness Young

Yes, my Lords. We believe that these unilateral gestures are not a substitute for long-term durable agreements. Of course, the second point that my noble friend made is important.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, apart from the question of verification, do the Government need to make further tests of the Trident warheads?

Baroness Young

My Lords, again I think that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in a Written Answer earlier this year. We are committed to the modernisation of an independent nuclear deterrent and we shall take steps to ensure this, as, of course, have previous governments. The fact is that while there are no prospects of negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty, it is a hypothetical question to link the two.