§ 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 they have any indisputable evidence that the Soviet Union is involved in any ABM project comparable to the United States star wars programme; and whether they can confirm that, as recently reported in the magazine Nature, the Soviet Union has now begun to dismantle the installation at Krasnoyarsk, which has always been adduced as proof of Soviet violation of the ABM treaty of 1972.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)My Lords, details of our understanding of Soviet ballistic missile defence-related research programmes were published as long ago as 1985. We are not aware of any developments which would change our view that the radar raises serious concerns about Soviet compliance with the ABM treaty.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Where exactly does that indisputable evidence come from? From what source is it derived? Do the Government believe in any case that the Russians are ceasing to construct at Krasnoyarsk?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we are of course aware of the report on which I think his Question is based. We understand that the United States has not changed its assessment of the ABM radar on the basis of that report. Our position on Krasnoyarsk is well known to the House. The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on the first part of his question. Serious questions with regard to compliance are raised. I understand that the United States Administration have raised the matter with the Soviet authorities on various occasions. The United States authorities have not received a satisfactory reply.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the situation is unsatisfactory because of the paucity of evidence about the Russian operation? Does she agree that it is difficult to make any comparison of the resources being spent on the American SDI and the Russian SDI operations when evidence is inadequate?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be well aware of our view of the interpretation of the ABM Treaty. It may be helpful to remind the House yet again of what my right 816 honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 19th February:
First, we have no locus in interpreting the ABM Treaty. Secondly, deployment is clearly a matter for negotiation, as we"—That is the United States and the United Kingdom—have agreed. Thirdly, we have received satisfactory assurances from the United States that there will be consultation about any significant change of policy in relation to SDI research. Fourthly, the Government fully support the SDI research programme, which is permitted by the ABM treaty.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/87; col. 1054.]
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for that information. Does she agree that the great difficulty here is that whereas the United States is an open society, the USSR is a closed society? I accept that it is extremely difficult to obtain firm information, but on the evidence available to Her Majesty's Government, is it not true that the resources being put into SDI by the United States are enormously greater in every respect than anything the Russians are doing?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, with regard to details of the Soviet strategic defence research programme, I cannot add anything to the Answer that was given by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on 13th December 1985. It is in the light of these activities that the United Kingdom supports and participates in the US SDI research programme.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, are the Government aware that the Soviet Union has said that it will stop work on Krasnoyarsk if the Americans stop work on Fylingdales and another station in Greenland? Can the noble Baroness tell the House in words of one syllable why the Government hold that Krasnoyarsk breaks the ABM Treaty but Fylingdales does not?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, it is always unwise to answer questions of that nature in words of one syllable. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate, they are extremely complex. I can only say that it is too early to give any definite views of Soviet actions over radars. Our own view on compliance of Soviet actions with treaty obligations is well known.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in so far as there has always been doubt whenever talks take place as to what the Russians are doing, we are now very much in the dark as to precisely what the USA is doing, and that not many people in the United States Government seem to know what is going on? Bearing in mind that there is a new atmosphere, will she agree that the British Government can make a big contribution in all these matters by underlining how important verification is?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, we shall certainly make the point of verification on every occasion.