HL Deb 07 December 1981 vol 425 cc1200-1
Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what circumstances they envisage the return of capital punishment and the introduction of forced labour in the event of nuclear war.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, it would he for the regional commissioner to decide, through the commissioners of justice of emergency courts, on sentences appropriate to the offence in the prevailing circumstances, and to decide on the use of the statutory power to direct labour.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that last month the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked a Question on the subject and that the noble Lord the Minister wrote to him in a rather unsatisfactory way? Would he agree that this matter is now de-restricted and that noble Lords who wish to know what the Government say about it are, I believe, themselves able to refer to a copy of the circular? Is it not the case that the Government must either spend thousands of millions of pounds in providing a proper civil defence or, much better, spend the money on conventional defence and abandon nuclear weapons? Will the noble Lord at least suggest to his colleagues that this last option be examined?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I agree that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a few weeks ago, as a result of a Question which was asked by the noble and learned Lord. So far as a comparison between nuclear war and conventional war is con cerned, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was in favour of either.

Lord Shin ell

My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: If, unfortunately, there should be nuclear war, would capital punishment really be necessary?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, there would be exceptional circumstances.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, are not these provisions rather ridiculous in the circumstances of a nuclear war? Is the noble Lord aware that the background paper of the British Medical Association says that, even in the deepest shelters which have been prepared for the administrative class, all would be choked and asphyxiated to death, and that, therefore, these provisions in nuclear war circumstances are almost obscene?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I must say that to listen to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Brockway, is not really quite the way to start a Monday at the beginning of a week. I think the way I should reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that it is necessary, in the event of war, to make provision for the administration of justice. The sensible way to go about it seems to be the policy which was the policy of the previous Government, and which remains the policy of the present Government, which is that, broadly speaking, the penalties for peacetime offences would remain, but decisions would have to be taken for exceptions in particular cases.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, without being in favour of any kind of war at all, it is possible to think that conventional war is somewhat preferable to nuclear war? Is he further aware that there are many people inside this House, as well as outside it, who take the view that the nuclear weapon is not a weapon of war at all?

Lord Belstead

Mercifully, my Lords, that question does not arise from the original Question.