§ 3.3 am
§ Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)I start at this late hour by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, and to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is Opposition spokesman on this subject. The lateness of the hour is not of my choosing, and, no doubt like them, I look forward to being in my bed ere too long.
I welcome the opportunity to debate, however briefly, the nuclear aspect of our defence policy, particularly as the conventional forces are almost certain to dominate the two-day debate that the House has scheduled for its return in October, and rightly so. The Government's proposals for the conventional forces, particularly the Army, are extremely dramatic and therefore need to be discussed in considerable detail.
This is a welcome opportunity for us to consider nuclear policy, albeit briefly. It surely warrants our consideration.
Although I am pleased to see that one or two Opposition Members are present, I am a little surprised that the Opposition Benches are not packed. Here is a chance for the Opposition—and, indeed, the rest of the country—to discern the Labour party's policy, at least for this week. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable element of shifting sands in Labour's nuclear policy.
I have taken a brief look at a document that is, I am sure, dear to many hearts: Labour's 1987 general election document, entitled "Britain Will Win". In fact Britain did win, because Labour did not. Page 15 of the document, commenting on Britain's place in a modern world, explains why Labour fought the election on a unilateralist ticket—which was, of course, rejected by the British people.
Two years later, Labour produced another document, "Looking to the Future", which spoke of a dynamic economy and a decent society, strong in Europe. That document was more vague, and—perhaps cleverly, from a political point of view—managed to avoid the subject of unilateralism entirely.
I suppose that, by 1991, the lure of the red boxes and the chauffeur-driven Montego had proved just a bit too much. It is now rather difficult to find out where the Opposition stand. However, the good old Guardian came to our help last week. As hon. Members will know, last week saw a lively exchange—in the spirit of modern, free debate—between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, and its transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We were granted the interesting spectacle of the pair slugging it out, courtesy of a national newspaper. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was quoted as saying that his right hon. Friend—he may not have used that title—had
sown seeds of confusion and dillusionment".All that appeared in the wonderfully supportive Guardian.There is confusion, not in the Tories' challenge but within the ranks of the shadow Cabinet. We can always rely on the Tories' friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who described the contribution of the right hon. Member for Gorton as 926 unwise and unprincipled, and continued in a similar vein. We should be lost without her, and the wonderful supply of quotes with which she provides us.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself has seen fit to withdraw from CND, leaving Bruce Kent as one of his beleaguered candidates—destined, no doubt, to be permanently in opposition. I feel slightly sorry for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is regarded by many—and rightly so—as a very nice man, but who simply does not feature in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps, given the perpetual vote for a woman, his only way into the ranks would be to become a transvestite. I do not mean that cruelly; he is a good guy, but he has a hard wicket to fight in his own party, where confusion reigns. The situation is not helped by the leadership.
My party presented a very different history to the electorate, and it continues to endorse the same policy: a policy advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, when the USSR deployed its SS20 missiles, was adamant—sometimes in the face of considerable criticism within NATO and our European allies—that Britain would deploy the American cruise missile. There was no messing about; she warned the Soviets that, if they did it, we would match it. She meant what she said, and the Kremlin knew it.
I think that it is fair to say that the Soviets understand strength. Perhaps that is why they treat the Leader of the Opposition so discourteously: they also understand weakness. I am convinced that the progress made in eastern Europe will be judged by history to owe a good deal to the steadfastness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, who played a substantial part in the arms reductions that are now taking place, and which we hope that all sides will welcome.
It is, I suppose, right for the House to consider—even at 3.8 am—whether there is a continuing role for military force in inter-state relations. I would argue that there is. We still live in a very unsettled world. Who could argue against the proposition that Europe is still far from stable? Undoubtedly the threat of nuclear war is colossal and way beyond anything that high-explosive weaponry could achieve, although those who have witnessed high-explosive weapons say that the devastation they cause is substantial, if not on the scale of a nuclear war. Even a dictator like Saddam Hussein understood the threat, and refrained from chemical bombing during the Gulf war.
The east-west balance has prevailed for 40 years, but who can judge just how far a conflict would escalate amid the confusion of a major war? There would always be the doubted intention, the doubted action. Most of all, there would be the certainty of ability. That certainty of ability has enabled us to each the stage that we have reached in all the international negotiations.
I would argue that nuclear weapons are still a much-needed cornerstone of our defence policy. We all wish the scale to be reduced, and we should like the capacity reduced. I hope, however, that most of us see the sense of keeping and modernising our nuclear defence arsenal. If anyone is tempted to think that the Soviet economy is now down to a brush and a couple of ponies, he should look at table 4 of the defence statement that the House will consider in October, which still shows a substantial balance in favour of the Soviet forces in terms of nuclear arms.
927 To look on the bright side, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty was concluded between the USSR and the USA in May. United Kingdom involvement in that has ceased. All the ground-launched cruise missiles were withdrawn in December 1988 from RAF Molesworth, and in March of this year from Greenham Common. I am sure that the House will have considered the defence estimates and the statement, particularly paragraph 319, which shows that the Government welcome the strategic arms reduction treaty, agreed between the USSR and the USA. The Washington summit last June saw that framework agreement signed. Undoubtedly there is a will on all sides to reduce the burden of such a large arsenal.
The question remains, however, whether it is right for the United Kingdom to pursue the Trident programme as our national system. My party believes that that is the case and will continue to stand by it, whereas the Opposition, as far as I am aware—perhaps we shall be told differently in this debate—are still committed to its removal by the year 2000, although there seems to be some doubt about that in the shadow Cabinet. The debate provides them with an opportunity to set the record straight.
I suspect that much ground could be covered during this short debate—not only nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation but alternative defence strategies—but this is neither the time nor the place to do so. What remains the case is that, as with French socialists and capitalists alike, the Conservative party has always understood the uncertain world in which we live. Perhaps we are slightly more cynical or, as we would prefer to call it, more realistic, but our policies have been prudent and will continue to be prudent for the long-term integrity of our national security. The general public know that. They considered that fact in 1983 and 1987 and stood by us. I believe, therefore, that, as the public know us, they trust us. It is right that they should continue to do so.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)This is a very interesting and important occasion. We are talking about the nuclear deterrent. There have been massive changes in eastern Europe. The Soviet bloc is no longer there. The threat that it posed was never there in the first place, but it was used as an excuse to build up our nuclear forces, at very great expense and sacrifice by the British people.
Justification for the nuclear deterrent was shot to pieces, to use a military phrase, by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who said, in effect, in a debate in this House in 1981 that the Soviet Union had been in decline ever since that high point of 1948 at the time of the Berlin airlift, and that it was beginning to lose control over various parts of the Soviet empire. The right hon. Gentleman's highly thoughtful speech was entirely contrary to the general trend of speeches in that debate. It was remarkably far-sighted, because the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Minister of State for Defence Procurement, said that the Soviet Union was not so strong as successive Conservative Governments had claimed., that it had serious weaknesses, and that it did not pose a threat. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but our expenditure on nuclear weapons kept increasing. We embarked on the Polaris programme in 1962 and are now faced with the Trident nuclear missile programme.
The nuclear deterrent is a myth, because the Polaris programme is not what it used to be. To varying degrees, 928 all the Polaris submarines are suffering from cracks in their cooling systems which make them dangerous in operation. Only one of the four-boat system is available for use. In May, Greenpeace produced a report entitled, "Bring Polaris Home". The Ministry of Defence did not reply to the questions that that study posed. Greenpeace expressed serious concern that HMS Resolution, Renown, Repulse and Revenge have serious defects. They were launched in 1966 and were designed to last for only 20 years, but they are still in use. A cloak of security prevents us from getting answers to the questions that were asked in that important report, which suggests that in reality we can hardly manage to put one Polaris boat to sea.
Over several years, we have trusted the Soviet Union. Rather curiously, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Generating Board had a uranium enrichment contract with the Soviet Union which was concluded in 1975. Some 170 tonnes of uranium per annum were supplied in the form of uranium hexafluoride. It returned from the Soviet Union as enriched uranium or as tails—that is, depleted uranium. The enriched uranium was needed for incorporation in civil reactor fuel. If it is further enriched, it can be used for bomb material.
The Government told us that the Soviet Union was a powerful organised nuclear threat to civilisation, yet they authorised a contract between a publicly owned body and the Soviet Union to enrich uranium—the basic process for producing nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the Soviet Union did not keep the uranium that the CEGB and the Scottish generating board supplied. It was perfectly honest and scrupulous in its dealings with this most powerful and dangerous material. Did the Government intervene to stop the contract? Apparently they did not regard the Soviet Union as such a threat that they felt that they had to stop the contract. It was a quite an irony.
If we are to maintain the fiction of the nuclear deterrent, someone has to be prepared to use it. If it is not going to be used, it is not a deterrent, but a complete myth.
The Minister will confirm that the Government and the Prime Minister are prepared to press the button. That means that the Minister, apparently an affable and quite innocent man, is prepared to become party to one of the biggest acts of mass extermination in human history. He and the Government are prepared to embark on killing on a scale that will make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. They may say that they do not want to do that, that it would be a failure of the nuclear deterrent if they did so, and that they would desperately wish to avoid doing it, but at the end of the argument, they will say that they are prepared to do it. I reject that attitude. I reject a relationship of our country to any other country based on the threat of mass extermination.
Other countries share my view. I do not mean countries with communist or even left-wing Governments. Let us consider Canada which is under a Conservative Government. At Heads of State meetings, the Prime Minister of Canada talks with a fellow Conservative when he meets the British Prime Minister. Canada has a Conservative Government and a Prime Minister who would ally himself with the range of values and attitudes that the British Government claim to support. But Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil.
It is extraordinary that our Government believe, uniquely, that it is necessary for our country, virtually 929 uniquely, to have nuclear weapons, whereas other Conservative Governments reject that attitude. They are not alone. In NATO, there are countries that reject the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, such as Denmark and Norway.
If we decided, as I believe that we should, to get rid of our nuclear weapons, we should not be isolated; we should be joining the majority of nations. How do we know that? When I was first re-elected to the House in 1987, I raised the question of the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty with the Minister. I vividly recall that he said that this country was not a signatory to the treaty. He had to write a letter to me subsequently, however, to say that he had examined the matter and discovered that this country was indeed a signatory to the treaty.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" makes it clear that the Government regard the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as being extremely important. I quote from paragraph 323 of the statement, which has not been debated by the House yet:
The NPT Review Conference in September last year demonstrated the wide support for the NPT's objectives, with agreement being reached on most issues. We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation, but the Conference nevertheless achieved a full review of the operation of the Treaty, and demonstrated its continuing importance as a cornerstone of world security.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)I remember the incident, when I had been in office for a very short time, extremely well. I actually said —the hon. Gentleman will remember this—that the United Kingdom was not covered by the part of the non-proliferation treaty that he was going on about. I had to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide a full explanation of that. I never said that we were not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
§ Mr. CryerI do not have the Hansard quotation in front of me, but I accept the Minister's correction. It is virtually what I said anyhow. What is important is that that demonstrates the priority that is given in the big fat briefing document that Ministers get when they get into office. The civil servants say to them, "This is your brief, Minister—this is what you've got to learn as a background to your Department." At that stage, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was obviously not one of the headlines.
The quotation from the current "Statement on the Defence Estimates" shows that the Government, a signatory to the important nuclear non-proliferation treaty, recognise its importance for the preservation of the planet. Under clause 6 of that treaty, the nuclear power signatories are called upon to negotiate in good faith to get rid of nuclear weapons from their soil. The Soviet Union and the United States, both signatories, have done that because they have got rid of intermediate nuclear weapons with the removal of cruise missiles.
The United Kingdom has done nothing. What is worse is that the United Kingdom has embarked on replacing the Polaris nuclear weapon with the more powerful Trident nuclear weapon. I believe that we are therefore in breach of United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
In our document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", we make it clear that we support the United 930 Nations treaty. Any Government who support that treaty are committed to getting rid of nuclear weapons by virtue of clause 6.
It is worth noting what the move from Polaris, creaking and defective though it is, to Trident will mean. In the Polaris system, there are three warheads per missile and 16 missiles per submarine. In the Trident D5 programme, there are still 16 missiles per submarine, but the number of warheads per missile has leapt to 14. Therefore, the total number of warheads per submarine is no longer 48 but has shot up to a maximum of 272, or, on average, 224.
Under the Polaris system the four submarines can carry a total of 192 warheads, but under the Trident D5 programme the submarines will carry 896, with a possible maximum of 1,088. The yield per warhead is 200 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 100 and 200 kilotonnes in the Trident system. The total yield for all the missiles is 38,400 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 89,600 and 217,600 kilotonnes in the Trident system. In the case of Polaris, the maximum number of targets is 64, but Trident offers a maximum of between 896 and 1,088.
The Government are intent on developing the Trident missile and installing it in submarines. Where will those dreadful weapons of mass extermination be targeted? It would be interesting to hear the answer from the Minister, but it is a secret. We are not allowed to know which section of the planet the Government propose to subject to mass extermination. What an extraordinary and absurd set of circumstances.
We believe that those weapons will be aimed at the Soviet Union. Just last week, a lot of Conservatives were grovelling around Mr. Gorbachev when he visited the Terrace. One of my hon. Friends wanted to know what Mr. Gorbachev was doing with all those Conservatives. After all, they are the very people who have argued that Mr. Gorbachev and all the other Soviet citizens should be the target of our nuclear deterrents. Considered in those terms, it is absolutely outrageous. The Prime Minister is toadying around Mr. Gorbachev and inviting him here while at the same time pointing a pistol to his head and saying, in effect, "If I determine that the Soviet Union is a threat, I shall kill your men, women and children."
The Government are supposed to be concerned with green issues. What sort of green country would this be if the button were pressed and those weapons were used? It would not be a country in which Greenpeace would get the Conservative vote—it would be a radioactive cinder heap. There would be nothing left. It would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Yet that scenario is implied when the Government or anyone else talk about deploying nuclear weapons. It is morally unacceptable and outrageous.
The United Nations non-proliferation treaty is supported by 141 non-nuclear nations—two of which the Government do not recognise—which have said that they will not deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons. Those nations have had a number of review conferences. The statement on the defence estimates indicates some of the difficulties. They are not spelt out very clearly, but the document says:
We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation".That happened because the signatories to that treaty are a bit fed up with the nuclear signatories. The vast majority of the nations of the world—those 141 signatories—have 931 signed the non-proliferation treaty. They have implicitly bargained that they will not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons if the nuclear signatories agree to get rid of their nuclear weapons. They see no reason why they should reject nuclear weapons if other countries insist on having them. On three occasions, the review conferences have said that they are not satisfied with the United Kingdom Government's attitude in retaining nuclear weapons, seeming to do nothing to get rid of Polaris submarines and manufacturing and deploying Trident nuclear submarines with their massive increase in missiles, delivery, firepower and accuracy.One of the dangers of the world is that some of those nations might withdraw from the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and start to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. The Government will then say, "How terrible—you should not have nuclear weapons", and they will ask what God-given right the United Kingdom has to tell them that they should not have nuclear weapons when it has them. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who introduced the debate, said that nuclear weapons are important. I do not share his view, and neither do the vast majority of the nations of the world. Some of those nations might decide to do as the United Kingdom does rather than as it says. The Government says that the non-proliferation treaty is important—so important that, if a country like Iraq wants nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom and United States Governments are prepared to bomb the sites where they are being developed. That comes pretty rich from countries that have developed nuclear weapons.
I agree that Iraq, which is a signatory country to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is utterly wrong even to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. There must be an international regime to supervise any nation that develops nuclear weapons. It should dismantle, and prevent the sale of, equipment that can be used for the development of nuclear weapons. That is clearly important, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty provides a vehicle for that. That treaty may not be a perfect, but at least it is a vehicle, on which we must build. We must not erode it or criticise those nations which have declared that they will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. We should join those countries, not say that we need four expensive nuclear-powered submarines stuffed to the gills with nuclear weapons at a cost of £10,000 million.
It is morally outrageous for any Government to spend £10,000 million on nuclear weapons. They cannot be used, because that would mean self-destruction. The vast majority of the world's nations do not need nuclear weapons—they need food, shelter and clothing. Every week Parliament is in session, questions are tabled about some region of starvation or deprivation, either in our own country or abroad. There are people in the United Kingdom living on the poverty line in inadequate housing and rotten conditions. A fortnight ago, there was a sleep-out in London to demonstrate against the cardboard cities springing up in major towns and cities throughout the country.
We know about the massive levels of starvation in Africa and the Sahel, where men, women and children virtually die in front of the television cameras. While the charities get to work drawing our attention to the terrible plight, the Government continue to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than introducing a programme to switch those great assets and facilities, and the ability of 932 people in Barrow-in-Furness, to make items which could help to develop, maintain, preserve and enhance life both at home and abroad.
Engineering skills could be developed in Barrow, but instead, thousands of people have been sacked. Defence expenditure has not saved all jobs. As the Minister knows, there have been massive sackings, and there will be more. The conditions in eastern Europe which, some argue, precipitated expenditure on nuclear weapons, have changed. It is claimed that we are no longer threatened by the Soviet Union, but we are still going ahead with Trident nuclear submarines and the nuclear missile programme. That does not make sense, and it is a moral outrage when so many people in our country and others throughout the world are deprived of the means of achieving a decent standard of living and preserving their place on the planet.
There is so much work to be done on the planet. The ozone layer over Europe is thinning. We are in difficulties because of our abuse of the planet. Yet the Government spend £10,000 million producing weapons that we cannot use. If we ever used them, it would be curtains for all of us —we are pointing a gun at all our heads. There will be no clear distinction between defence and defended, attackers and defenders. There will be no time for that. The possession of nuclear weapons is an outrage against democracy. Has there been any consultation? Has the Prime Minister included in his charter of rights the right for people not to be slaughtered by the Government? Will people be able to say, "I don't want the Government to use nuclear weapons—I want to live"?
The phrase "Better red than dead" no longer applies because the redness is disappearing into a pale pink imitation. The phrase will be, "Is it better to be pink than dead?" The power to press the button will not be spread throughout the nation or even given to part of it. That power will be in the hands of a tiny clique—the Prime Minister, one or two cronies, and the chiefs of staff. That decision will be taken wholly undemocratically. It is a complete and utter outrage against humanity.
When the next Labour Government achieve office, they will express their support for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If people really mean what they say about that treaty, they must get rid of nuclear weapons.
There is a powerful case against nuclear weapons. If we had any sense, we would produce a plan for switching the engineering skills used in their manufacture to peaceful uses for the benefit of mankind. We would be able to help the wretched, starving nations of the world, and join with the majority of nations—including those headed by conservative Governments—who say no to nuclear weapons and will not allow them on their soil. We would also improve our civil liberties. The development and possession of nuclear weapons and our links with the United States in that respect is an erosion of our civil liberties.
I have in my hand a facsimile of the front cover of the New Statesman for 18 July 1980, which refers to
The Billion dollar phone tap",and to Menwith hill monitoring station, which is described asAmerica's big ear in the heart of Yorkshire.It reports:America taps into our international telephone network in the cause of defending freedom".That may be done not wholly in the cause of defending freedom but in that of defending American commercial 933 interests, as was done when the Americans interfered to stop the sale of BA146 aircraft—peaceful, civil aircraft —to Iran. Menwith hill was authorised without Parliament's approval. That sort of interference was exemplified also by the withdrawal of trade union rights at GCHQ. It is all part of a parcel.I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since it began in the 1960s, and I shall continue to do so. It is morally right and makes pragmatic sense. If we join the majority of nations by getting rid of Trident, we shall be on the side of the moral majority.
§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on his powerful speech. One may not agree with some of his premises, arguments and conclusions, but he speaks a lot of sense.
I enjoyed also the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). No one is more arrogant than a Conservative talking about defence. It bucks one up at three o'clock in the morning to hear an arch-Conservative wrapping himself round with the Union Jack again. The hon. Gentleman gave us an analysis of Labour policy, but not of that of his own party, whose defence history he appears to have forgotten in respect of its geopolitical interests over the years.
The hon. Gentleman's history conveniently stopped at 1945. He did not delve back 10 years before that, when one of the predecessors of the present Secretary of State for Defence was a great buddy of the Nazis in Hitler's Germany. The Conservative party also enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with Saddam Hussein for some years, and with other dictators throughout the world. I am sure that the Conservatives are proud of their history, although they do not recount it very often. Instead, they claim to be the party of defence—and that is an awful arrogance. It is appalling.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about being realistic, but I would say that the Conservative party is opportunistic. Opposition Members do not need lessons on patriotism from Conservative Members. Many of us find it deeply insulting when Conservative Members, who have dallied with many opponents of Britain for purely financial and economic interests, decide to give us lectures on patriotism. Most of my constituents find that attitude insulting. In villages and towns throughout the country—in wool towns, cotton towns and mining towns —where people have always voted Labour and have always been socialists, there are cenotaphs and memorials. Those people are as interested in the defence of their country as anyone else.
It is unfortunate that the Conservative party starts to talk about patriotism when we are coming up to a general election. They cause divisions by talking about a commitment to defend Britain, and that only causes harm. When we are faced with a danger, however, the Conservative party always wants everyone to get together to form a united front. That is what we did during the Gulf war. As soon as it was over, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the Labour party was not really with the Government. I suppose that he has had to withdraw that insult. I have never known such 934 condemnation to be voiced by supporters of the Conservative party and Conservative Members. I remember the many Members who came up to me and said that the Minister had ruined the debate by making that awful statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonWill the hon. Gentleman admit that the Opposition's policy—I am not saying that they did not back the action when the conflict started—was to wait for sanctions to work?
§ Mr. RogersIt was clearly stated that we wanted sanctions to have the maximum effect so as to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. When the Minister starts rattling his sabre, he knows in his heart of hearts that we were lucky to lose so few in the Gulf war. If the losses had been as horrendous as some thought they might be, I do not know whether the arguments that the Minister advanced and his statements following the war would have washed.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about the changes in Labour party policy. I cannot see that there is any problem in changing one's political views. Surely it is a sign of political maturity. Everyone has said that the world has changed, that the Russian threat no longer exists and that we are facing a completely different set of circumstances. What is wrong with a change of political views in those circumstances?
I understand the problem of change for the Conservative party. Its attitudes are neanderthal and fossilised. Conservative Members are in a groove and it seems that they cannot move out of it. Their policies are the same now as those which prevailed during the Crimea war and which created the slaughter in Flanders. We know that the Conservative party is incapable of adjusting, and we are only too well aware of the disasters that it brings upon the country from time to time.
The Labour party sees changes in political views as signs of political maturity. If we are presented with a different set of circumstances, we can adapt our policies for the benefit of the nation. It seems from what Conservative Members say from time to time that they would welcome a Labour party that said, "In the circumstances, we might want to adopt a multilateralist stance rather than a unilateralist position." Why condemn us? I thought that that was the policy that Conservative Members wanted us to adopt.
§ Mr. ConwayI talked about the French socialist Government and the French capitalist Government. Many of us would be pleased if the major parties of Britain had the same views on defence, and I am sure that the electorate would be pleased as well. The hon. Gentleman talks about my party's neanderthal way of thinking and the maturity or otherwise of political development. On which level of maturity does he put the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Their views are diametrically opposed. Who is neanderthal man in the shadow Cabinet?
§ Mr. RogersIt is the opposite—they are not Neanderthalic, they are two mature politicians discussing their differences, and why not? What is the matter with political argument and discussion? That is actually 935 beginning to happen in the Conservative party. The schoolmistress has gone; she is no longer whipping the boys into shape.
Some dissention is developing in the Tory party. which is now the party of argument on all sorts of issues. During the last Army debate, the former Secretary of State for Defence attacked the present Secretary of State and told him where he was going wrong. There have been wide dissensions on European issues.
As the hon. Gentleman has pushed me, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record the Labour party's position on nuclear deterrence. We believe that the best method of enhancing Britain's security is through the achievement of properly inspected and verified international disarmament treaties. The case for further discussions on nuclear disarmament talks is strong, and that has already been recognised by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
In a joint statement on 1 June 1991, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed that
reducing the risk of outbreak of nuclear war is the responsibility not only of the USA and the USSR and that other states should also make their contribution towards the attainment of this objective. In particular, in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons they call upon all states to consider the new opportunities for engagements in mankind's common effort to remove the risk of outbreak of nuclear war world wide.We have considered the new opportunities to reduce the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war, and we wish to make our contribution. We know that more work is required, but hope that working with other nuclear powers we can begin talks on a START 2 agreement. We believe that British pressure could act as a catalyst for START 2. President Mitterrand has indicated French willingness to participate in the disarmament process. In addition, the French have committed themselves to signing the non-proliferation treaty. Given a sufficient weight of world opinion, the Chinese could also be persuaded to begin disarmament discussions. Once those discussions are under way, Britain should participate until they are successfully concluded with an agreement by all nuclear powers completely to eliminate those weapons.Complementary to that work will be the need to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. Controlling the spread of nuclear weapons needs to be tackled at two levels. First, we need to take steps to make it more difficult to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. In particular, the inspection and verification measures need to have more teeth. Secondly, we must address the motives of states seeking to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. There are understandable reasons for such attempts, which relate to regional security concerns. The United Nations should be much more involved in attempts to resolve such regional problems.
There have been a number of proposals to ban nuclear testing, although it must be said that some of them have been made after the proponents of that line have just completed a nuclear test programme. The Labour party does not recognise a need for nuclear testing. Other methods, apart from full-scale nuclear testing, can be used to ensure the technical effectiveness and safety of British nuclear weapons. Testing the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, computer simulation modelling and other forms of non-destructive testing could be used to provide satisfactory evidence of the technical effectiveness 936 and safety of British nuclear weapons. The only real need for testing would be in the development of new warheads, which is not likely to happen under the START process.
Anti-ballistic technology also needs to be studied. The spread of ballistic missile technology to many countries is alarming. The Government must not only strengthen the missile technology control regime, which is designed to limit the spread of ballistic missile technology, but consider their position on that technology.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)This has been a short, but interesting, debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on raising the important subject of nuclear deterrence. He pointed out that in 1987 Labour's manifesto was unilateral. Labour believed in nuclear disarmament and believed that Britain should get rid of its nuclear weapons without any corresponding gestures from other countries.
Since then, there has been a slight adaptation of that policy in the 1989 document, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which basically said that Britain should negotiate away its nuclear weapons. There was a flaw in that argument. If there had not been any START 2 talks, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred, we would have negotiated away our nuclear weapons and only a small part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have been reduced in return. That would have left Britain with no nuclear deterrent and the Soviet Union with enormous numbers of such weapons.
As I understand it, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was approved by a two thirds majority at a Labour party conference. If any Labour Member would like to correct me, I should be grateful for that. I believe that the Labour party conference is responsible for making Labour party policy. If a policy were to be changed, it would be necessary for the party conference to approve it. Is that the position? I am more than happy to give way to any Labour Member who wishes to answer.
§ Mr. RogersI would bow to any right hon. or hon. Friend who wishes to correct me, but, as I understand it, the conference makes a policy recommendation to the leadership of the Labour party which then constructs a manifesto upon which the election is fought. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the position is quite different from his description.
§ Mr. HamiltonAs I understand it, a Labour party conference makes recommendations to the Labour party leadership, which can ignore them or take them up, if that happens to suit the leadership. Is that the position? Even if a two thirds majority is in favour of a motion that has been passed at the party conference, that makes no difference, because it can be overridden by the leadership. It is important to understand the position taken on these documents.
§ Mr. RogersHow does the Conservative party arrive at its policy?
§ Mr. HamiltonThe Conservative party has never been tied to conference motions, so we are in a different position. I was not responsible for changing the constitution of the Labour party. I thought that the Labour party believed that policy should be decided by the 937 party conference. It is interesting that that party is moving from that position and now says that the party leadership can ignore any motions made by the party conference, even if there is a two thirds majority. It is important to discover where we stand on all this.
§ Mr. CryerIt is interesting that the Minister is exploring the democracy of the Labour party. I suggest that he looks to the democracy of the Tory party which is notable for its absence. "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was carried overwhelmingly at the Labour party conference. There was not a card vote on it, so there may or may not have been a two thirds majority. No one can say that with any authority. The Labour party conference does the groundwork for the compilation of an election manifesto in a democratic way, and long may the Labour party's democracy continue—in stark contrast with the authoritarian, elitist regime of the Tories.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Where do we now stand? "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was an important document. It received the overwhelming support of the Labour party conference, but that policy now seems to have been changed.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on nuclear deterrence and the undesirability of nuclear weapons. I do not agree with his arguments, but he feels them strongly. I should have thought that the changes in Labour party policy to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred must put him in a rather difficult position, but perhaps we can explore that later.
Conservative Members have come to realise the importance of nuclear deterrence. War in Europe has been prevented by a range of deterrents, conventional as well as nuclear, but many of us feel that the nuclear component is the most important, bearing in mind the fact that we have in the past been faced with the enormously superior numbers of forces of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which we have been unable to match on the ground. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out if we ever were invaded has long been one of the principal reasons for our avoiding war in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham spoke of the INF deployment—a significant move, backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and President Reagan, to deploy cruise and Pershing in Europe. The deployment of those missiles was one of the most significant things that forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and resulted in the first significant treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which started the whole business of negotiating away large amounts of nuclear arsenals between the Americans and the Soviet Union.
It is significant that the deployment of cruise and Pershing was robustly opposed by the Opposition throughout and there has been no act of contrition since then admitting that this was a good policy and that the Labour party was wrong. That policy produced remarkable results in terms of subsequent arms reduction negotiations.
The Government have always taken the view that it is important that we have our own independent nuclear deterrent. It was becoming apparent that Polaris could not 938 go on indefinitely and needed to be replaced by a decent system. That is why we are investing in the Trident system which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says is extremely expensive. However, the figure will be taken over a number of years and, when I last looked, it was on average about 3 per cent. of the defence budget. Compared with other forms of defence spending, in terms of deterrent effect the Trident system is good value for money.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a robust and interesting speech which did not seem to quite tie in with the latest pronouncements on Labour party policy. He said that there has never been a threat from the Soviet Union. That view is not supported by any military analysis of the fact that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have in the past practised exercises for making serious inroads into western Europe and across the inner German border. We have been aware of several of their plans which have posed a serious threat.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to weaknesses in the Soviet system which, he said, made it impossible for the House to take the Soviet Union seriously as a military enemy. For a long time there have indeed been serious weaknesses in the Soviet economy, but they never seemed to extend to the Soviet defences, which seemed almost the only part of the system that really worked. The Soviets have produced massive numbers of submarines, missiles, tanks, and so on. The general view is that they have a sophisticated defence manufacturing industry and a great capability in terms of producing equipment and of training service men.
§ Mr. CryerWhen discussing the long-term weakness of the Soviet Union, I was paraphrasing a speech made by a Minister of State, Ministry of Defence in March 1981.
§ Mr. HamiltonI have made it clear that the military capability of the Soviet Union has exhibited great strengths. We should not think that the whole place was so inherently weak, corrupt and rotten to the core that it posed no military threat.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked with great vehemence about mass extermination. The hon. Gentleman always goes on about how nuclear weapons are the only form of weapon that can kill large numbers of people. During the last war—in which, I agree, atom bombs were dropped on Japan—the fighting in Europe seemed to account for a very large number of service men being killed. They died in their tens of thousands, and millions of civilians died at the same time. It is naive to propose that only nuclear weapons kill people in large numbers. There is no evidence that large numbers of people are not also killed in conventional wars.
We want to avoid war. The question is how that can best be done. The massive destructive power of nuclear weapons has been an important component in ensuring that we have had no war in Europe since 1945.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil. As he said, the same applies to Denmark and Norway. It is worth pointing out, however, that Canada, Denmark and Norway have all signed up to the NATO treaty and at meetings of NATO Ministers they have accepted the importance of nuclear deterrents as part of NATO's arsenal. So the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians are in the fortunate position of being able to come under the 939 protection of other countries' nuclear deterrents, even though they have decided not to have them on their own soil. NATO has collectively benefited from the nuclear weapons held by the Americans, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the French.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the United Kingdom had done nothing under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has always been understood that the onus is on the Soviet Union and the United States, which have the most weapons to negotiate away. We look to them to start the negotiating process, as they have in fact been doing. The United Kingdom has a minimum nuclear deterrent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the capability of the Trident system is greater than that of Polaris, but, as a percentage of overall warheads, it does not give any great increase. At a time of increasing sophistication, Trident is the minimum that we need to be able to say that we have a nuclear deterrent. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that we should negotiate away our minimum deterrent when many other countries still have nuclear weapons.
Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that the Labour party has changed its policy or that it is radically different? Does that conflict with his membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to allow his membership of CND to lapse and I gather that other Opposition Members are being encouraged to do the same. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that his membership of CND totally conflicts with Labour party policy or does he think that Labour's policy has not changed very much? The hon. Gentleman spoke vehemently on the matter and I shall give way if he wants to tell us where he stands.
The hon. Gentlemen is typical of many Opposition Members, because about 140 of them are members of CND. Will they allow their membership to lapse? IC they do, it will raise the question why they joined in the beginning. I thought that membership of CND stemmed from great convictions about the evil of possessing nuclear weapons and was not the sort of strong moral conviction that one simply allows to lapse.
§ Mr. RogersThe Minister seems determined to drivel on at this time of the morning. Before he finishes drivelling, can he say how many Conservative Members were once members of the National Front?
§ Mr. HamiltonThe National Front has nothing to do with this, and I should be very surprised if any Conservative Members were ever members of the National Front. No Conservative Member has ever been a member of CND, and the Conservative party has been united in its resolve to have an independent nuclear deterrent.
§ Mr. CryerThe Minister should be careful about saying that there have been no supporters of CND in the Tory party. I well remember going to a CND demonstration at Lakenham and seeing a group of Conservatives holding a large banner saying, "Conservatives against nuclear weapons". Perhaps those people have been scoured from the Conservative party. Labour is a very democratic party and encourages discussion and argument. In a democratic party there is always room for policy changes and movements. Many people in the Labour party are anxious to see a Labour Government, because they believe that such a Government will be far more sympathetic than the 940 present Government to implementation of the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. I am staggered that the Minister should dismiss in a couple of sentences his Government's total inactivity on that treaty. That is absolutely appalling.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am a little bemused by that, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke vehemently about the matter and his membership of CND seemed to be important to him. There comes a time when one's party changes its policy so radically on some issues that the only course that an honourable person can adopt is to reject the Whip. The hon. Gentleman seems to be changing his position on the issue and falling in behind the non-proliferation treaty. He either feels that the changes are not very substantial or that they are substantial but he is prepared to live with them. His attitude does not quite tie in with the vehemence of his speech, which seemed to come from the heart.
§ Mr. ConwayMy right hon. Friend is prodding a sore in a way that some Labour Members would prefer that he did not. Did he see the deputy leader of the Opposition being interviewed, admittedly at a late hour, on Channel 4 last Thursday? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was asked about unilateralism. In the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), he made some arrogant but failed attempts at humility, and said that while he stayed soundly in the multilateral camp, his party had moved way across to the left in the 1987 manifesto, and had come back in a full circle to his position. Is not the difference the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about individual members of the Conservative party who held no office and certainly were not Members of Parliament? No member of the parliamentary Conservative party holds a unilateralist position, and—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The House is debating the Adjournment. The hon. Gentlemen can make only one speech.
§ Mr. ConwayThat is so. I am reminding my right hon. Friend—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentlemen was intervening at too great a length.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of those facts. The Labour party is in great confusion over this, and the embarrassment is clear for all to see.
The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the need for properly inspected and verified treaties under international control, saying that that was what the Labour party now stands for, that START 2 should take place, and that British presssure was needed to bring this about. That may be the understatement of the year. I have not heard from the Americans that people want START 2, and a great deal of pressure would be needed to begin the talks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great ideal moment when there would be agreement by all nuclear powers to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is a problem about that, in that one has strong suspicions that there are some countries which have nuclear weapons but do not admit to having them. Will those countries be included in the treaties? Will they be talking about the nuclear weapons that in theory they do not have? Will they be gathered up 941 in the talks or shall we impose external verification or inspection on them, even when they say that they do not have nuclear weapons?
We must establish whether Labour party policy is to keep our independent nuclear deterrent if we cannot be confident that the talks will produce the miraculous result that no other country has nuclear weapons, as the hon. Gentleman thinks that they might. I cannot see a point at which we could be confident that that had happened. I also do not think that the scenario suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South—that if we got rid of our nuclear weapons, other countries would follow suit—would materialise. Many of the countries that one suspects have nuclear weapons have them for their perceived security interest, not because they feel threatened by super-powers with nuclear weapons.
§ Mr. CryerMy argument was that we should strengthen the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—that other countries would miraculously follow our example and get rid of their weapons. Does the Minister regard it as desirable that we should try to reduce nuclear weapons stakes?
§ Mr. HamiltonAbsolutely—that is one of the essential parts of our policy, and has been for a long time. We entirely support the non-proliferation treaty. We must, however, be completely confident that no other country holds nuclear weapons, before we negotiate away our own independent nuclear deterrent. The same is true virtually everywhere in the world. At a time when we had good reason to believe that other countries were holding nuclear weapons, negotiating our deterrent away would have put Britain's entire defence in jeopardy and would have been a great mistake.
The debate has taken us a little way towards finding out what Labour's policy is. In the autumn, the Labour party conference may give us a chance to see whether the so-called new policy has any support among the rank and file, who pride themselves on being so democratic in their decision-making. Perhaps they will support the policy change—if, indeed, it is a change. However, we should all be much happier if we could be convinced that if the negotiations that Labour constantly talks about do not come to fruition, a Labour Government would definitely keep our independent nuclear deterrent and we would continue to possess Trident.