Test Ban Treaty Conference: UK Position (Hansard, 3 June 1991)

HL Deb 03 June 1991 vol 529 cc434-5 434

§ 3 p.m.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

§ Who were the delegates from the United Kingdom present at the meeting held in New York in January 1991 at which a comprehensive test ban treaty was discussed; and why these delegates voted with the United States delegation against further attempts to achieve such a treaty.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, the UK delegation to the Partial Test Ban Treaty Amendment Conference consisted of the deputy head and one member of the UK delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and two members of the UK mission to the United Nations in New York. The delegation made clear that in our view the Conference on Disarmament provides the most appropriate forum for discussion on nuclear testing issues and therefore we were unable to support moves to resume the work of the PTBTAC.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the informative aspect of his Answer. However, as regards policy, is it not rather absurd for the Government to continue to take the position that they are in theory in favour of a test ban treaty while, at the same time, appearing not to be prepared to take steps actually to discuss the matter? They are getting themselves into the position where 75 countries vote in favour and only two against. Ought not the Government to try to avoid that position?

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords. As I said in my original Answer, we believe that the conference on disarmament is the best forum for discussions on the issue. Our view remains that a comprehensive test ban is a long-term goal of the Government.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that rather than make objections on procedural grounds, the British Government would do better to say that they need to retain the option to test in order to test the new Trident warheads?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we have never hidden from anyone the fact that UK security will depend partly on some kind of deterrence; that is, the possession of nuclear weapons.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the announcement by President Mitterrand today, that France is to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is extremely encouraging? Does that not stimulate Her Majesty's Government and other governments who are not parties to the comprehensive test ban treaty to consider what steps 435 they should take? Is it now the case that China is the only country which has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If so, what steps will Her Majesty's Government and their allies take to ensure that China becomes a signatory as well?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises a most important point. We give a wholehearted welcome to the news from France today. It goes to prove the point that the Question phrased by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not accurate, because when France and China are not signatories to the partial test ban treaty, it is not a comprehensive measure. Of course we welcome the proposed signature by France of the non-proliferation treaty. I shall have more to say on that during the debate on the noble Lord's Motion on Wednesday.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that his first two answers to the Question would have been appropriate if, at the meeting in New York, the question under discussion had been where a complete test ban should be negotiated—that is, in what organ of the world's system it should be negotiated? Does he also agree that that was not what the vote concerned? It was not about where the ban should be negotiated but whether it should be pursued. Surely, it was not a matter of 75 countries being in favour of negotiating the ban in New York and the United States and the United Kingdom alone in favour of negotiating it in Geneva. Rather, there were 75 countries in favour of negotiating it and the US and UK alone were against negotiating it.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord's statement is absolutely right. I am not sure that I see the point of the question.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my noble friend has put his finger on the point? The United States and the United Kingdom give the impression that for procedural reasons—under the cloak of procedure—they conceal unwillingness. Would it not be better for them to say, "We shall want to make a caveat in respect of our own needs but nevertheless we are prepared to go forward with discussions on the principle"? At present, continual avoidance by procedural methods brings both the UK and the US Governments into disrepute.

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that it brings either the United States or the United Kingdom into disrepute. As I said in my original Answer, which I am sure the noble Lord will read again carefully in the Official Report, we believe that the conference on disarmament provides the best forum in which to discuss these matters.