§ 11.24 a.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the statement made by Lord Trefgarne in a Written Answer (H.L. Debates, 10th April, col. 407) that they have no record of any reservations made to the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention which relates to nuclear weapons.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)My Lords, I can confirm that we have no record of any reservations relating to nuclear weapons made to the 1977 protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, in that case (and perhaps for the sake of accuracy noble Lords will permit me, as I think is permitted, to read) how is it that the United Kingdom, at signature of this protocol in 1977, declared that it has signed Protocol I on the basis of ten understandings, the ninth of which was: 512
that the new rules introduced by the Protocol are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons"?Is the noble Baroness denying that that exists?—because, if so, I can give her chapter and verse on it and produce the protocol. It is in the Library. Are the Government mistaken, or are they deliberately intending to conceal the facts?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I do not know the particular document to which the noble Lord refers and from which he has quoted. I can only confirm that on signing the protocols in 1977 the United Kingdom made a statement of understanding to the effect that:
the new rules … are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, that is precisely what I said happened and precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, denied, which the noble Baroness has repeated. Our signature was subject to a reservation that the protocol did not do what it was primarily supposed to do. The fact that this was done by a government previous to the present one does not excuse the present Government attempting the gross act of concealment which has been perpetrated on the British public for all these years.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should make these extraordinary allegations in this way. The United Kingdom statement is in full accord with the intentions of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated in their introduction to the draft protocol:
Atomic, bacteriological, and chemical warfare are subject to international agreements negotiated by Governments, and in submitting these draft additional Protocols the ICRC does not intend to broach these problems.There is nothing incompatible between the first statement and, I think, the other.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, are the Government aware that when the noble Lord says that to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons was precisely what the protocol was intended to do he is inaccurate, because there is nowhere in Protocol I or Protocol II of the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention which mentions nuclear weapons at all? Indeed, during the negotiation of these protocols it was repeatedly made clear that nuclear and micro-biological weapons were not meant to be included.
§ Baroness YoungYes, my Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that statement that he has made.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, would the noble Baroness describe how the signing of these protocols has in any way influenced armament policy among the various signatories? Can she reconcile the use of nuclear weapons with what is said on page 47 of Protocol I, Article 50:
The civilian population, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack"?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the additional protocols are designed to update the existing laws of armed conflict and to provide improved protection for 513 civilians in time of war. Additional Protocol I deals with international conflicts. Additional Protocol II deals with non-international conflicts. Our position is that we are continuing to consult with our NATO partners, and I am not in a position at the present time to state when we would be able to proceed with the additional protocols.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, may I have an assurance from the noble Baroness, in view of what she herself has since said, that there will be no further statements from the Government such as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his Written Answer in which he said:
We have no record of any reservation which relates to nuclear weapons"?The reservation we have discussed refers precisely and particularly to nuclear weapons.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I am not going to confirm that statement. I have just made it myself in answer to the Question that the noble Lord has put down today. I will note of course what he has had to say.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that most of us do not understand what Lord Jenkins is talking about? Would she be good enough to put in the Library a copy of the protocol so that some of us who are fairly bright can read it and find out what the heck it is all about?
§ Baroness YoungI think, my Lords, that the noble Lord will find that it is in the Library; but, if it is not, I shall certainly see that a copy is put there.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, I apologise for intervening twice in the course of one Question, but would it not be useful as a point of information in the context of this Question and Answer to point out that of the five nuclear powers, two have not signed the protocol; and those three that have signed have not ratified? Furthermore, is it not true that Articles 1 and 3 of the protocol only come into effect when there is a state of war, which is precisely what the nuclear deterrent is supposed to prevent?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, that was very well put, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, it is a perfectly simple question to understand. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is asking why the Government, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave him a Written Answer which the noble Baroness this morning has contradicted by confirming that there was a reservation? Surely this is the issue before the House and it could not be simpler than that.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, what I said was that we made a statement of understanding. As I understand it, that is not the same as a reservation.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyIf your Lordships will forgive me, I must answer this last point.
§ Baroness JegerNo, my Lords, you cannot answer it.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyIs the noble Baroness aware that the signature of the United Kingdom was conditional upon what she calls this understanding? The effect of that is precisely the same as a reservation. Therefore if the Government are relying on the difference between the word "understanding" and the word "reservation", they are relying on something which they ought not to rely on because the consequence of that is the kind of confusion from which the noble Lord who sits on my left appears to be suffering.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I have made the Government's position on this matter quite plain. There is no misleading of your Lordships' House or of the public at large. The situation is as I have described it and I hope now that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I am not at all satisfied.