§ 3.3 p.m.
§ Lord BrockwayMy 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 were the votes at the First Committee of the United Nations on resolutions (1) recommending urgent consideration of the conversions of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and (2) and (3) deciding to include in the agenda of the 41st session of the General Assembly an item for the cessation of all nuclear tests; and which nations voted against in each case.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the First Committee of the 40th United Nations General Assembly considered one resolution recommending consideration of the conversion of the Partial Test Ban Treaty into a comprehensive test ban. It was adopted by 108 votes to three, with 26 abstentions. There were three further resolutions calling for a comprehensive test ban and for the inclusion on the agenda of the 41st General Assembly of an item on the need for the cessation of tests. Of these, one put forward by Australia and New Zealand was adopted by 103 votes to three, with 32 abstentions; one proposed by Hungary was adopted by 107 votes to three, with 26 abstentions; and that sponsored by Mexico was accepted by 111 votes to two, with 25 abstentions.
In all cases the United Kingdom and the USA opposed the resolutions. France voted against all but the last resolution in the First Committee. In plenary, France joined the United Kingdom and USA in voting against that resolution.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. May I ask her whether she does not agree that the overwhelming vote of over 100 against three indicates the strength of world opinion in favour of ending all nuclear weapons tests? May I ask her whether the attitude of the United States, Great Britain and France does not provide some basis for the feeling which the Prime Minister found at the Commonwealth Conference that the Western nuclear powers are preventing an advance to peace? Lastly, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the British Government will use their influence in the summit talks between the United States of America and the Soviet Union at last to get the abolition of all nuclear weapon tests?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I should like to make the position of our Government quite clear. We voted against the resolutions tabled because they did not meet our criteria. The Government continue to believe that outstanding problems of verification must be solved before negotiations can be started on a comprehensive test ban. Nor indeed would I accept that the record of the Western powers is in any way preventing the peace process. On the contrary, the peace process is more likely to be taken forward if we start our negotiations from a position of strength.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, while I appreciate the difficulty of her position, may I ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that it is now clear to everybody that the reason why the American and British Governments refuse to negotiate about a comprehen- 238 sive test ban treaty is not the problem of verification but the fact that they wish to have more tests, that that is perfectly plain to everyone and that the two Governments would do much better to come clean and admit it?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I am not prepared to accept that statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, which he has of course made on a number of previous occasions. We have made our position quite plain on this matter. As I have already indicated in the answer that I gave to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, we are committed to seeking progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, and our own nuclear tests are conducted to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear capabilities.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, does the noble Baroness maintain that verification is not possible in view of the scientific evidence—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, it is my turn. Is the noble Baroness not aware that the position now is that the nuclear nations of the West are against the rest of the world? Is this not an unhappy situation, and will she not do something about it?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I am not prepared to accept that the United Kingdom is isolated. We voted in these debates with the United States and with France, and most of our NATO partners abstained.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, would the noble Baroness maintain her position that verification is why the United States and Britain are against it, when in fact the evidence is clearly that with the new scientific methods they can verify whether nuclear tests have taken place anywhere in the world?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I am not quite sure to which scientific evidence the noble Lord is referring. If he is referring to the Norwegian seismic array experiment, we hope of course that this experiment will provide a solution to some of the outstanding technical problems. But claims for the efficiency of high frequency seismic stations can be exaggerated, and we do not have much data on them. Nor are there any reliable discriminants applicable to high frequency signals.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, I believe that verification always has been a difficult stumbling block. However, there has now been a positive contribution from Mr. Gorbachev that he recognises the problems of verification, and he is asking for full consultation and examination of the proposals that he has adumbrated, which are lengthy and complicated but which he believes will satisfy all the major powers involved with any form of nuclear weapons, testing them, or even developing them in future. Therefore, ought not the Government to take notice of this, and perhaps ask the United States to call a conference with the Soviet Union on this whole subject of verification and testing?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, we have received the latest proposals sent by Mr. Gorbachev in his message to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Many elements are a repetition of existing Soviet ideas, but the proposals are wide ranging; they contain new elements and they will require full and careful study.
On the noble Lord's other point, about our voting in the United Nations, perhaps I could say that we are not in the business in the United Nations of supporting declaratory and unbalanced resolutions which do not further the cause of balanced, practical and verifiable arms control and disarmament.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two nations which possess nuclear weapons which do not take part in any of the discussions on nuclear arms control and would be unlikely to take any notice of a comprehensive test ban anyway?
Secondly, would the Minister not agree that seismic detection is still not sophisticated enough to distinguish in all cases between nuclear explosions and natural seismic events, and that this is a much more complicated subject than some people would like to suggest that it is?
Finally, does she not agree that the whole problem of verification would be solved if the Soviet Union would accept verification on site, as Western nations have been prepared to do for 25 years?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his questions. It is true that there are other nations who would be involved in a comprehensive test ban treaty, and we agree that the scientific evidence available is not sufficiently advanced to be sure that we can rely on getting the verification that we require for a test ban treaty. I further agree that the United States proposed an exchange of test site observers and in July invited Soviet observers to visit a United States test site. This would go to the heart of the key issue, which is verification on the ground. It is a matter for regret that the Soviet response has so far been dismissive.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, we have now been 35 minutes on these four Questions, and nine minutes on this Question. I think the House may feel that it would be better to go on to the next business.