§ 3.26 p.m.
§ Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they envisage discussions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact to determine principles of verification to apply to any proposals for nuclear disarmament.
431§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)My Lords, no. Current discussions on nuclear disarmament are bilateral and Her Majesty's Government fully support the goal of a US/Soviet agreement to reduce strategic nuclear weapons. It is NATO's policy that any arms control agreement must have effective verification arrangements. But verification regimes must be tailored to suit each agreement.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the Minister saying that the INF treaty verification agreement arrived at by Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze is only between the United States and the Soviet Union? I should have thought that it was fundamental not just to the United Kingdom but to all of NATO. Should not the Government insist that they and the rest of NATO should be involved in the verification of nuclear weapons? What role can British seismologists play in any future examination of nuclear deterrent verification?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, the INF agreement is bilateral. That is a fact. The details of the inspection arrangements are set out in an inspection protocol appended to the INF treaty. In addition, a basing-country agreement was signed on 11th December by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. When that comes into force it will establish the practical procedures and provisions necessary in order that the United States can discharge its obligations under the treaty in respect of facilities not on United States territory.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, while we welcome the resolution of the verification difficulties in relation to INF, does the Minister agree that the difficulties in relation to START are much more complex and acute? Are Her Majesty's Government confident that some progress can be made on that point when the leaders meet? Will the Minister confirm that there has been consultation with Her Majesty's Government on that and other matters?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, naturally Her Majesty's Government are closely associated with what develops. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that there are complex issues to be resolved—for example, mobile missiles, SLCMs, sub-limits and all types of things—when it comes to verification. As I said earlier, we support the goal of the 50 per cent. strategic arms reduction.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that in this weeks Defence White Paper there is a passage in which the Government take modest and justified pride in the fact that they are properly associated with Soviet inspection of the removal of American weapons from this country? There is no passage describing our association with American inspection of the removal of the Soviet weapons which threaten us. Why do the Government deem it sufficient to be sure that American weapons have been removed—to most of us that does not seem to be the main danger in the world— but are not doing anything to be assured of the removal of Soviet weapons?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, for the simple reason that the agreement is one between the United States and the Soviet Union.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that distrust is disarmament's greatest opponent? Many NATO countries and many people in this country are alarmed because United States nuclear weapons are based in this country, not 100 miles from the House. Should we not be taken much more into consideration in any bilateral agreement involving the verification of any nuclear weapon stationed anywhere?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, verification is important, but, as I have said, it is important to tailor the verification arrangements to the agreement concerned. The noble Lord should be under no illusions. Soviet modernisation continues at full speed. There are longer-range missiles. They are more accurate missiles. It would be as well for the noble Lord to study those facts.
§ Lord GisboroughMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am much more alarmed at the prospect of inefficient Russian nuclear stations such as Chernobyl going off again and about the mad sputnik with a nuclear engine which is going around and which could end up anywhere than I am about weapons under American control in this country?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, that is an interesting view, but verification of those points may be rather difficult to achieve.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, it is terribly important. Can the Minister assure the House that he knows the difference between massive nuclear weapons and the power station at Chernobyl?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, of course.