HL Deb 20 June 1994 vol 556 cc4-5

2.43 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are aware of the United States Government's admission of the loss of a quantity of plutonium sufficient to make 300 nuclear weapons and, if so, what steps they propose to take with the United States to trace the missing plutonium.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, this is a matter for the US Government. We understand from them that recent reviews of their plutonium production have revised the quantity of plutonium produced, and that the differences in their figures are not due to missing or stolen plutonium. We understand they are due to material contained in solutions, ducts and other plant or radioactive waste, which is not readily accessible. We further understand that the US Government intend to release additional information on their plutonium production in the near future.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is this not an extremely worrying matter? Is the Minister aware that the Washington correspondent of the Guardian describes the American method of accounting for what has happened to the plutonium supplies as showing breathtaking irresponsibility? Does the Minister not agree that it rather appears that one explanation is that the amount of plutonium produced was deliberately understated in the statistics so as to make available a certain amount of plutonium, which was then exported secretly to those countries not on the list of "exportables"? Those countries are said to include both Iran and Iraq. In those circumstances, does the Minister not await with considerable anxiety the further report which we are supposed to receive from the American Government?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I understand the preoccupation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, with this matter. I do not believe that the words of Martin Walker, the Washington correspondent of the Guardian, are the last words on this matter. We understand that the United States maintains security arrangements over its plutonium stocks which are in line with internationally agreed standards. Certainly our UK civil facilities are subject to strict safeguards oversight by independent Euratom inspectors, and are subject also to strict security arrangements in line with those internationally agreed standards. I cannot tell the noble Lord what will be in the forthcoming report. I can say only that the British Government will not allow plutonium to be exported from this country unless we are confident that it will not be misused. I cannot speak for the US Government.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, will the Minister agree that such incidents underline the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection and co-operation procedures? Have the UK Government had any discussions with the Russian Government about their stocks of plutonium, and has the IAEA inspected those stocks?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear, because the noble Baroness's question raises the matter, that I understand her belief in the IAEA. We follow what it does with the greatest care. I am told that the different sets of figures which are the subject of this Question arise because the measurement skills in 1944, when the system started, have changed greatly over the 43 intervening years. That is why the United States Government are now giving a different figure.

In respect of the question which the noble Baroness asked, we have close contact with the Russians. However, I should like to check on the specifics of her question and I shall write to her on that matter.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances, we must await the further report of the American Government on this issue? But, if they are not to be trusted to keep charge of their plutonium in a reasonable and proper manner, who is to be trusted? Is that not a matter of worldwide anxiety?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I have certainly not said that the United States Government are not to be trusted. That is a very strange interpretation for the noble Lord to make. We certainly can be trusted to obey the rules. We have done so; and we shall continue to do so.