§ 2.59 p.m.
§ Lord GladwynMy 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 whether their participation in research for President Reagan's star wars project involves implicit acceptance of the objective of a kinetic kill system in space, as outlined recently by Mr. Caspar Weinberger, the first stage in the deployment of which is to be accomplished as early as 1993.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the aim of the SDI research programme is to assess the feasibility of strategic defences. The United States Administration have made it clear that no decisions on deployment, let alone on any particular system, have been taken.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that moderately reassuring reply. I hope that he 648 will not mind if I put three very short supplementary questions to him.
§ Lord GladwynFirst, is it not obvious that the "broad interpretation" of the ABM treaty on which Mr. Weinberger's plan is based, whereby you reverse what the treaty says on the simple grounds that new techniques now exist for accomplishing what it expressly forbids—
§ Lord Gladwyn—is a repudiation of the treaty and must be so considered by all fair minded people? In the second place—
§ Lord Gladwyn—will not the Government also agree that if this interpretation is approved it will result in a failure of the arms limitation talks at Geneva? Finally, if Mr. Weinberger's plan is thereafter put into operation—
§ Lord Gladwyn—would it not result inevitably in a kind of nuclear war in space which some people in America would probably desire?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, perhaps I can answer the noble Lord by referring to the second of the four points which were agreed between my right honourable friend and the President the year before last. It is that SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation.
Earl Ferrers. My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was not out of order in asking three questions instead of one—and reading the lot?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, technically yes, but the noble Lord has considerable knowledge in these matters and I try to extend as much understanding as I can to people in this position.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, I have frequently heard more than one supplementary question put by the initiator.
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us are very gratified to hear his answer, given that the first Question this afternoon by one of his noble friends was read out at dictation speed?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, it is certainly no part of my business to be gratified one way of the other by what noble Lords feel at any time. My job is to interpret the wishes of the House, and indeed the customs of the House as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. This I was seeking to do to the best of my ability.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, may I return to the Question and ask the noble Lord to what extent he understands the ABM Treaty to have been re-interpreted by the United States Administration? If it has been re-interpreted, as we understand, without mutual agreement between the two parties to the treaty, is it not the case that the testing and the deployment of SDI technology can take place? It is very important that we should get that clear.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am not aware of any change in the United States position in this matter. As your Lordships will be aware, we have consistently welcomed assurances that while broad interpretation of the treaty is legally sustainable, the SDI programme is being conducted within a narrow interpretation. We are not aware of any new decision and we look forward to continuing consultations with our American friends.
§ The Earl of KimberleyMy Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the strategic defence initiative is one of the few methods of defence that kills only incoming ballistic missiles and not human beings?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, unhappily, we have no such assurance as yet because we are still embarked upon the research programme.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if what the Americans are doing was being done by the Soviet Union, the Americans would declare that it was in breach of the ABM treaty? Is he further aware that support of star wars is incompatible with a genuine search for peace? Will the noble Lord look again at the Government's policy in this respect?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Soviet Union is indeed embarked upon a major research programme into matters of this kind. It has been doing so for 10 or 15 years at least. That is what makes the position so curious.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, will the Government confirm that on Sunday Mr. Shultz, speaking expressly for the President, said that there would be no change in American SDI plans before further consultations with the allies? When will those consultations take place? Who will handle them for us? It should be the Foreign Office, not the Ministry of Defence.
Lastly, will the Government ensure that at those consultations the full political and strategic implications of SDI for Europe and the whole world are at last taken into account lest, in the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe, political decisions are pre-empted by the march of technology?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we remain in close and continuous touch with the United States Government on these matters.
§ Lord ZuckermanMy Lords, my question arises out of that last answer. I refer to the speech made by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe a week or two ago, in which he said that it remains crucial to seek the answers to R & D questions before reaching conclusions on what may be technically possible. Is that to be dealt with independently by Her Majesty's Government? Have we the machinery to do so considering that General Abrahamson, the director of the SDI office, has said that no one can prove it cannot work which means that he is set on a course of proving a negative?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the position of the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government was set out very clearly when the Prime Minister met the President in December 1985. It is encapsulated in the four points with which I suspect the noble Lord is familiar.