French Nuclear Tests (Hansard, 25 October 1995)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, no. We understand the deep concern that the French decision has caused, particularly in the south Pacific. But the international community's first priority must be the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We do not believe that the present limited series of French tests should damage the prospects for that.

§ Lord Archer of Sandwell
My Lords, is it not clear beyond argument that anything which diminishes respect for the Non-Proliferation Treaty and for the test ban negotiations is likely to lead some of the more macho among the non-nuclear powers to repudiate the treaty and to acquire their own nuclear weapons? Surely that would make the world not more secure but 1107 substantially less so for all of us. Is not that danger exacerbated if Britain by silence appears to condone further testing?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
No, my Lords; I really do believe that the noble and learned Lord has not got it right on this occasion. The decision is for the French Government; it is not for the British Government. It is not for us to comment on a French decision affecting their defence requirements or how they decide to meet them by testing. The French have repeatedly stated their commitment to the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. It was reiterated on a number of occasions by no less than President Chirac in announcing his decision to test. There is absolutely no reason why a limited programme of tests should affect the prospects for successful negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I am quite amazed by the Minister's Answer. Is it not outrageous that the Government, as a depository government of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with a duty to uphold its terms, have sat back and done nothing to condemn French testing in the Pacific despite the fact that resumption of testing is totally contrary to the spirit of the commitments made at the conference in May to extend the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has got it wrong. The French testing is consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no comprehensive test ban in force. France is not in breach of the NPT or any other international treaty obligations. The French Government have made it absolutely clear that they will limit the number of tests to the minimum, that they will give up testing when a comprehensive test ban treaty has been concluded, and that the current tests are designed to put France in a position to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.
The other very good news—which has no doubt passed the noble Baroness by—is that we said only last Friday that, together with the United States and France, we shall sign the protocols on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in the first half of 1996. We have made clear that it is our wish to respond in a practical way to the concern of all those in the south Pacific and elsewhere on nuclear testing.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that while there may be seriously-held arguments about whether or not people should have nuclear weapons, the worst of all worlds would be a country having nuclear weapons in its deterrent which had not been fully tested for reliability and accuracy? Is that not even more important if France is to be asked to sign the total test ban treaty in 1996?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is absolutely right. What we want is an effective and viable comprehensive test ban treaty. We have made clear our support for an absolute "zero yield" ban on tests, as have the United States and the French governments. We hope that we can very quickly get an effective, verifiable 1108 treaty. The verification regime must be that which gives us an effective deterrent against testing without being disproportionately costly or intrusive. It will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to know that it is the United Kingdom which is making a significant contribution to the technical discussions on verification.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why they will not condemn the French is that Her Majesty's Government are likely to receive information from the French after the tests are completed? Is the Minister further aware—I know that she does not want to be hypocritical about the issue—that Her Majesty's Government, and especially the Ministry of Defence, have made it absolutely clear that on safety and reliability of nuclear weaponry (as long as we have it) we reserve the right to test and that if we can find the facilities, the test sites, we shall do so if the need arises?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the kernel of the question posed by the noble Lord is in the last phrase; namely, "if the need arises" to do so. We hope that it will never be necessary in the future to do so. That is why we want and, indeed, are working for a comprehensive test ban treaty.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, can the Minister answer my question about the exchange of information?

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, the noble Lord did ask the Minister—she obviously overlooked it‹—whether the French had offered to share with us any information arising out of their tests, and, if so, whether we shall receive the data. Can she respond?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I have no knowledge of what the French have or have not offered. I do not believe that a matter of national security is for this House to debate.

§ Lord Archer of Sandwell
My Lords, is not saying that the French will accept the test ban treaty after they have conducted further tests a little like someone saying that he will sign the pledge after he has had one more evening on the bottle? Does that not have some effect on the confidence of the non-nuclear powers?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may indeed have a point. However, it is important to note that the United States, the French and ourselves are quite determined to achieve a comprehensive test ban treaty by the end of next year. As regards whether or not France provides information about the tests to other authorities, I should point out that there is no legal requirement upon it to do so. Whatever the French are doing, I believe that it is right to work towards the comprehensive test ban treaty with all speed. It is to that that the British Government are fully committed.

§ Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
My Lords, have the Government given consideration as to how they will avoid a serious dilemma and division at the Commonwealth conference in November between our French ally on the one hand and the Australians and the New Zealanders who are so close to us on the other?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will know, we have felt considerable concern about just what the future would hold for the south Pacific as a result of the tests that the French have been carrying out. However, as we are already actively pursuing nuclear arms control, are negotiating hard for the early conclusion of the CTBT and have made the announcement that the Rarotonga Treaty will be signed in the first half of next year, I believe that many of the anxieties expressed not only by those on the islands of the south Pacific but also by Australia, New Zealand and many other nations are being addressed.