HL Deb 19 June 1991 vol 530 cc162-3

2.57 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have ratified the 1981 United Nations treaty they signed 10 years ago prohibiting or restricting the use of certain weapons such as phosphorous and napalm which although classified as conventional are deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, no.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I realise that that completely negative answer was not the noble Earl's personal fault. However, will he perhaps be a little more forthcoming on this matter? Why have the Government not ratified this convention which they signed 10 years ago?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. The answer is entirely mine. I changed it from the original one that was presented to me because I wanted to give the noble Lord a clear and concise answer. The reason is that we are still considering ratification of the convention.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking on the responsibility which, of course, he was bound to do whatever the situation. Nevertheless, will he elaborate a little on what he said? This is rather unusual; we have had a signature on this convention for 10 years but for some reason we have not ratified it. Is that because Big Brother in the United States has not done so? Is that the real reason?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, of course that is not the real reason. The noble Lord must not get hung up about America, as he tends to do. We are giving the matter very serious consideration and taking into account the implications of the recent conflict in the Middle East.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many countries have signed the treaty? Of those countries, how many have ratified the treaty? Can he say whether, apart from ourselves and the United States, any of the other five permanent members of the Security Council have signed the treaty?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I cannot give the answer in the form that the noble Lord would like because it would be a lengthy operation—there are several parts to the convention. For example, France has ratified the convention in protocols 1 and 2 but not in protocol 3. The United States and Germany are still considering ratification. It might be helpful if I place in the Library copies of the document showing the true situation. It amounts to many pages.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, does not the Minister consider it worthwhile to point out that this convention is an extension of the 1925 Geneva Protocol which Her Majesty's Government have signed and ratified? Does not he further agree that Great Britain has an enviable record in this respect in that it is one of the few countries that has signed and ratified every other international arms control agreement?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that to your Lordships' attention.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is the noble Earl telling the House that this consideration has been going on for 10 years and has not yet reached a conclusion? If so, what are the factors within this consideration which have delayed ratification for so long?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, yes. The answer to the second question is the same as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.