HL Deb 10 June 1991 vol 529 cc890-1

2.48 p.m.

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they consider that it would enhance global security if the constraints of the ABM Treaty were relaxed.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I made clear to the noble Lord in my Written Answer of 22nd May, the ABM treaty is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union and its interpretation is a matter for the two parties.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that he has not answered the Question, either now or when I first put it in writing? I did not ask whether the treaty was bilateral or whether its interpretation was a matter for the two parties. I asked whether the Government consider that it would be beneficial to global security for the constraints of the treaty to be relaxed. That is a question about the opinion of the Government. Why do the Government refuse to give me their opinion and insist on answering a question that I have not asked?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is talking of a hypothetical situation. It is a matter for the two parties concerned.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, is the noble Earl insisting that the Government have no opinion because they cannot be bothered to have one; or does he think that it would be wrong for them to have an opinion; or do they have an opinion which he is unwilling to divulge?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that must be the fourth time that the noble Lord has asked. It is a matter for the two parties concerned.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, do the Government support the US initiatives to relax the ABM treaty? Does the noble Earl think that the United States' development of SDI is in danger of breaching the ABM treaty? Those are possible dangers.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, at the moment the work that is being carried out is purely research and, as I understand it, is not therefore covered by the terms of the treaty. The Government's policy remains that set out between my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan in 1984 and expanded upon in 1986.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, although I entirely agree with the noble Earl that an amendment to the ABM treaty is a matter for the two governments concerned, surely it is also a matter for other governments as to whether or not one superpower has the ability to attack the other with nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation? That is to say, other governments have a right to an opinion as to whether or not they support the SDI initiative of the United States. Are the Government in favour of that initiative?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I have just said to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the Government's policy remains absolutely as it was set out between my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan in 1984 and expanded upon in 1986.