Nuclear Weapons Tests: Policy (Hansard, 7 November 1989)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, for the foreseeable future our security will depend on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons. That will mean a continuing requirement to test our nuclear weapons in order to ensure that they remain effective and up to date. A comprehensive test ban therefore remains a long-term goal, to which progress can only be made on a step by step basis.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will recall that at the September meeting in Geneva the debate between the parties interested seemed to be between the desirability of revising the present partial test ban treaty and drafting a completely new comprehensive test ban treaty. As I understand it from the Geneva note on the subject, the American representative (who I think was Mr. Friedensdorf) replied that 541 the US and the UK opposed the convening of an amending conference. Does that mean that they are prepared to consider the possibility of a complete comprehensive test ban treaty or that they are not?
Secondly, Mr. Friedensdorf went on to say that the US, the UK and the USSR intend to hold such a conference. That seems rather contradictory. On the one hand, he is against revising the existing treaty but, on the other hand, he says that those three countries intend to go ahead with it. Will the Minister be good enough to explain to the House the present situation?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the proposed amendment to the partial test ban treaty. The United Kingdom cannot support this amendment given our continuing requirement to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain effective and up to date. Since an amendment would require the support of all three original parties—ourselves, the United States and the Soviet Union—in order to be approved, an amendment conference would be futile and costly. But we shall fulfil our duties as a depository of the treaty. That means that a conference would have to be convened.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Will he inform the House of the present situation? Has the conference between the USA, the USSR and the UK been arranged? Will it take place? Can he add to our information on this?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, we have held initial discussions with the other depositories—the two other countries to which the noble Lord referred—in order to begin preparations for convening the conference. We are now discussing with the other parties the best way forward. The depositories believe that the conference should be held in January 1991.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, since noble Lords are responsible for the accuracy of any Question that they put down, has my noble friend evidence to demonstrate the fact that even now the Official Opposition would support a ban, irrespective of the effect that it would have upon our defence capabilities during this period of change?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I cannot answer that question. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will have his views and the Opposition (the Labour Party) their views on whether they would have a test ban. It is not for the Government to say. We would wish to continue testing. Our long-term goal is a comprehensive test ban. It is also our goal that there should not be a Labour Government either in the short or the long term.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in his early days in his new position—and I congratulate him upon it—the noble Lord has made a very considerable mistake, but no doubt he will learn as time goes on. Can he say what progress is being made in the START talks? Is he aware that the policy 542 of Her Majesty's Opposition is to proceed in concert and in agreement with our allies, including the United States and France? In view of the damage to the environment that has been caused by continuing testing, is there a possibility of negotiating a moratorium with the United States, the USSR and France, which are the countries that are continuing to test to the damage of the environment?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of his question. I am not sure of the mistake that I made to which he referred. I am grateful also for his explanation of the official policy of the party opposite.
On a moratorium on testing, we are not interested in such a moratorium. We need to test at a minimum level and will continue to do so in order to make sure that our deterrent is effective.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, it is refreshing to hear the Government's opposition to a test ban treaty explained not in terms of the unverifiability of such tests—they have been verifiable for many years—but that they wish to be able lo test our new warhead for Trident and no doubt the new warhead for the short-range nuclear missiles. However, do I understand from the noble Lord's original Answer that the Government's position is that in order to deter aggression by the Warsaw Pact this country now needs a major increase in its nuclear capability?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I do not think that I said anything along those lines in my original Answer. I said that a comprehensive test ban remains our long-term goal but progress can be made only by a step-by-step approach. This must take account of technical advances on verification as well as progress elsewhere on arms control and the attitude of other states.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, as the one who negotiated the test ban treaty in 1963, perhaps I may ask my noble friend this question. Is it possible still to take the view that, so long as nuclear weapons exist, there is not the slightest possibility whatever of the major powers agreeing to a total ban on tests underground, and that even if there were, there are other powers which are not members of that treaty and have not adhered to it who would continue to do so, whatever we said?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, my noble and learned friend, who obviously has experience going back to the negotiation of this treaty, makes very good points.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, to put the record straight, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House believe that there is no point in having a nuclear weapon unless one tests it to find out whether it goes off? That is the first point. Secondly, one does not abandon such tests until all the countries in the world agree to do so.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of our policies.

§ Lord Zuckerman
My Lords, what evidence can be given that nuclear warheads are in fact tested before they go off?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I am not quite sure exactly what happens in these tests.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on this point he is mistaken in believing that there is a difference between the Front Bench and other Benches in the Labour Party? We are at one in our desire to ban all nuclear weapons. There may be some slight divergence on exactly how we do it, but we are at one in the aim that we seek.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I do not think that I said that I detected a difference. I said that I was looking forward to an explanation. I now have it.