Nuclear Testing: Moratorium (Hansard, 22 June 1992)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom has a continuing requirement to conduct a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. I should point out to the noble Lord that the US Congress has not approved a moratorium on tests.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is not the noble Viscount aware that Congress approved the moratorium? It is true that it has to go through the Senate, but the Democratic leader in the Senate has said that he has no doubt that on this occasion, rare though it is, the Senate will agree with Congress. In that case, if the United States then decide to join the moratorium, will her Majesty's Government do the same?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the House of Representatives, as the noble Lord suggests, approved such a resolution. However, it has not passed the Senate and the United States government policy remains the same as it was before that resolution was approved.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in the context of my noble friend's Question, can the noble Viscount give Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the agreement reached between President Bush and President Yeltsin over the weekend? Does he believe that in due course it may lead to a comprehensive test ban treaty to which this Government will subscribe?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the proposals for further cuts in the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals which were announced at the recent Summit in Washington. However, I must point out that the United Kingdom has already announced very significant reductions in its nuclear capability, including the ending of the maritime sub-strategic capability which we announced last week before the announcement was made in Washington.
Her Majesty's Government are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty. I point out to the noble Lord that a comprehensive test ban treaty is not necessarily an absolute guarantee that countries which wish to acquire a nuclear capability will not do so. I need only cite to the noble Lord the example of Iraq.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, the noble Viscount announces the Government's welcome of the huge reductions agreed in nuclear capability by the Russians and the Americans. It is true that in certain minor respects we have reduced our nuclear capability, but does the noble Viscount agree that overall our strategic and sub-strategic capability is being increased by the Government? Can the Minister say how that reconciles with the Government's welcome of the huge reductions made by the Americans and the Russians?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the noble Lord rather underestimates the contribution that we have made. He will remember as well as I that we have cut the RAF nuclear role squadrons from 11 to eight; given up our nuclear artillery and Lance missile role in Europe; and we have also cut the number of free-fall nuclear bombs by about 50 per cent. The noble Lord will also know that, as a result of the exchanges that he and I had some weeks ago, we are reviewing the question of our sub-strategic nuclear capability. This is a review which is not yet complete. He already knows that we are considering a number of possibilities.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from the major fallacy in the Question posed by the noble Lord—that is to say, that Congress has not passed this resolution and that it is not even yet in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee —there are two other points which should be borne in mind if the House is not to be misled? The first is that this resolution is to come into force only if no republic 338 of the CIS conducts a nuclear test and that it is only Russia that has declared the moratorium. Secondly, is the Minister aware that this resolution is only part of a broader provision, which is the appropriations for 1993? Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be premature for Her Majesty's Government to take such action now?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I certainly subscribe to his analysis. I point out that, as I understand it, the French announcement covers only the suspension of testing for one year.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, no doubt out of courtesy, my noble friend did not point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that Congress in the United States, like our own Parliament, consists of two Houses; namely, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The reference made by the noble Lord in his Question and supplementary question to Congress made the mistake of not realising that simple fact.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, as always I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he said. I believe that I made the distinction in the reply that I gave to the noble Lord's supplementary question.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House the reasons for the British Government deciding that the safety of this country requires the continuation of testing while the safety of Russia and France does not?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, it is a matter for Russia and France. Both those countries have been conducting a very much higher volume of testing than the United Kingdom over the years. As regards the reason for our own continuance of testing, it is perfectly clear that one of the benefits of the minimum amount of testing that we have been conducting has been that it enables us to keep a much safer guard over our own nuclear weapons than we would otherwise have.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, despite what the noble and learned Lord has said, it is true that the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a resolution in favour of a moratorium? Is he further aware that it is also true that the leader of the Senate has expressed the view that the Senate is likely to go in the same direction? If that happens, then the possibility of the United States joining the moratorium is real. Will the noble Viscount answer the question: if that occurs, will Her Majesty's Government do the same?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is dedicated to asking hypothetical questions at every opportunity. I shall address myself to that matter if the eventuality occurs which he suggests. That may well be an unlikely event. I stress to the noble Lord what I said to him a moment or two ago; namely, that without question the American Government are still committed to the existing policy.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, my Question is not as obvious as the fact that night follows day, but very nearly so.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, in the further interest of accuracy, perhaps I may intervene once again. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the resolution had been overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives. In fact it was passed by a majority of 190 to 160 which is scarcely overwhelming.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I wish to acquaint the House with the fact that I quoted from the International Herald Tribune which used the word "overwhelming".

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, perhaps, as is so often the case in matters of this kind, not only does the noble Lord ask me hypothetical questions but his judgments are as subjective as anyone else's.