§ 3.10 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the decision to regard CS and other such gases as outside the scope of the Geneva Protocol.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT)NO, my Lords. The Government gave long and detailed consideration to this matter and believe that their decision is the right one.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. May I ask him some supplementary questions, in view of the grave concern in this matter? First, have not the British Government, whether Labour, National or Conservative, for 40 years stood for the inclusion of these gases within the terms of the Geneva Protocol? Did we not in 1931 secure general agreement at Geneva that lachrymatory gases should be included? What is the reason for this change of attitude?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, it is true that in 1930 the Government made a certain interpretation of the Geneva Protocol. This interpretation in general terms has now been reiterated. The Government had to give close consideration to what was in the minds of the drafters of the Protocol and what developments had taken place since. One of the developments that has taken place since is that the agent known as CS has been developed. Her Majesty's Government decided that this agent was not significantly harmful, except in exceptional circumstances; and it was to exclude significantly harmful agents that the Geneva Protocol was formulated. We therefore believed that we were right in saying that, although we stood by our interpretation of 1930, this agent should be excluded. It is not, in fact, as my noble friend has suggested, entirely true that we achieved general agreement at Geneva in the 'thirties. We suggested that tear gases should be excluded by 162 the Geneva Convention, and the reaction to this was not, as my noble friend has suggested, unanimous.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, was not the only qualification by the United States of America, which had declined to sign the Protocol Agreement? Arising from the noble Lord's reply, may I ask him this question? When he says that this gas is not lethal, is there not abundant evidence in Vietnam where, contained in dugouts, it has caused the death of women and children, and driven the men out of those dugouts to be shot down as soon as they got outside?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, the answer is still, "No". This was not a unanimous reaction; and it is not true that it was only the United States that was not prepared to go along with us. We put the point to the other Powers in Geneva. Some replied agreeing with us; some did not reply at all, and it was the United States that made the reservation. So far as the second part of the supplementary question is concerned, in fact I did not use the word "lethal", I went further than that and said that the gas is not even significantly harmful. So far as the use of this weapon in Vietnam is concerned, that, of course, is entirely a matter for the United States Government. So far as the British Government are concerned, I can say that, if it were ever necessary for British troops to use this substance, it would be used to save lives and to take prisoners.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I am sorry to press this matter, but it is very grave. May I ask my noble friend this question? While we take unilateral action in interpreting this Agreement, is it not the case that if this unilateral precedent is followed it may affect the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even our own Government's proposal for the Convention on biological weapons? Would the Government be prepared at least to submit to the Geneva Disarmament Conference an interpretation of what this Protocol covers?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the reason we are taking what my noble friend has called unilateral action in this case is because, as he will be aware, in any international instrument of this kind 163 it is up to the individual signatories to interpret the Treaty they have signed. We are interpreting it in this way, and this is fully consistent with normal international practice. So far as my noble friend's point about the Non-Proliferation Treaty is concerned, I think that this is entirely another question. Nothing we have said about the Geneva Protocol need in any way affect the adhesion of this country or of any other country to a Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
So far as the Biological Weapons Convention is concerned I am convinced that here, too, there is no real connection. Her Majesty's Government have made clear their view that chemical weapons and biological weapons are entirely different in kind. We shall continue to pursue vigorously in Geneva our attempts to secure a convention on the abolition of the use of biological weapons. I see no reason why our interpretation of the Geneva Protocol on chemical weapons should have any effect on this at all. So far as the last part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, I do not believe that anything is to be gained by using up the time of the Geneva Conference in seeking to banish the use of a non-lethal agent which is not even significantly harmful, when we have things like germ weapons and nuclear weapons to deal with.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, is it entirely wise for Her Majesty's Government to base their decisions on what Her Majesty's Government themselves would do, or what would be done by the British in any particular circumstance? While accepting entirely that the British would not use these gases except in the circumstances that the noble Lord suggests, is it not a fact that the lachrymatory gases can be used to conceal the presence of other more harmful weapons?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I was not suggesting for one moment that we had based our decision on the tactical use of these weapons: quite the reverse is the case. We based it on a close examination of the properties of this particular agent. I was merely pointing out to my noble friend, in answer to his comment about the way these gases are used by other armies, how we ourselves regard their use. I can only say that, except 164 in very exceptional circumstances, this particular agent is not significantly harmful and we would not use it in a way that would make it so.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, while my noble friend says that this gas is neither lethal nor even, in the ordinary case, dangerous, will he confirm that it is is not dangerous or lethal to the very young or the old, or to persons in indifferent health; and would he assert that these lives are not worth preserving?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, so far as our present investigations are concerned, we have made a careful study of all available evidence. At this moment there is a study going on into the long-term effects of the use of this gas in ordinary circumstances. We shall, of course, take full account of the report when it becomes available. So far, there is no evidence that the use of this gas in war—and I emphasise "in war", because I think it is not fully appreciated that the Geneva Protocol deals with war and not with riot control or internal security—except in exceptional circumstances, is significantly harmful.
§ LORD RITCHIE-CALDERMy Lords, can my noble friend tell me what one can do, as one heavily involved in international relations, to explain this unilateral action (I follow my noble friend Lord Brockway) in terms of the credibility of British intentions in relation to the Disarmament Conference?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I fail to see why this should have any effect on the view that people have of the intentions of the British Government on disarmament in general. What we have done is to examine the Protocol that was signed in 1925, and interpreted in 1930, and we have come to the conclusion that there have been developments since then which would lead us to review that interpretation. If this is taken, as it should be taken, in its context, I entirely fail to see how anyone could regard this as having any effect on our good will in the field of nuclear weapons, in the field of biological weapons and in the field of disarmament and arms control generally. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend if I say that I was recently in Geneva, since this decision was taken and 165 announced, and I saw no evidence among my colleagues there from the inter-national community that our credibility is in any way damaged.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, am I correct in saying that we used this gas in Northern Ireland and subsequently sent scientists over there to examine the effect on those people who were subjected to it? And am I right in saying that those scientists were not unanimous in their view on whether that gas was harmless?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think that I can only stick to the formula I have already used. These are words chosen with great care. My noble friend is quits correct in saying that this gas was used in Northern Ireland. Scientists did go there, and they have made a careful study of its effects. We have studied these reports with very great care, and our conclusion from all the evidence is that, except in exceptional circumstances, the substance is not significantly harmful.
§ LORD RITCHIE-CALDERMy Lords, would my noble friend at least arrange that the evidence on which this conclusion is based is put before people who are extremely doubtful about the facts?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the evidence of most of the scientists who have examined this matter is already public; and there is a great deal of public literature on it which everyone can examine. I have examined it myself and I say (I am sorry to return to a well-tried formula, but I know that noble Lords will understand this) that, except in exceptional circumstances, this substance is not significantly harmful to man.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, would the noble Lord explain what, in this context, is meant by "exceptional circumstances"?
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords. I can explain what is meant by some exceptional circumstances—clearly, I cannot be exhaustive about this. If, for example, this substance were used in very high concentrations in enclosed spaces over long periods, this would be an exceptional circumstance.