HL Deb 31 January 1989 vol 503 cc985-7

2.47 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress is being made in reaching an up-to-date and effective international agreement on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the use of chemical weapons in war is already banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which over 120 states, including the United Kingdom, are party. Negotiations aimed at achieving a global, comprehensive and verifiable ban on the development, production and possession as well as use of chemical weapons continue at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Progress has been made, but complex issues remain to be resolved particularly concerning verification.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Although reports of the recent international meetings are encouraging, are the Government optimistic about verification provisions being included in any agreement when it appears that factories producing chemical weapons can easily be disguised as ordinary manufacturing plant?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point to the difficult issues involved in the verification of a chemical weapons ban. Speaking for myself, I believe that no such verification regime is likely to be effective if it does not include a provision for challenge inspection. I believe that that is also the view of the Government.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, can the Minister say what will be the effect of the successful conclusion of the recent Paris conference on the Geneva talks on chemical weapons which have continued for the past 14 years?

With reference to the 1925 protocol referred to by the noble Lord in his Answer, can he say what action the Government would support if a nation was in breach of that protocol, as some nations are alleged to be? Would Her Majesty's Government be in favour of taking sanctions against such a country?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is a difficult question. As the noble Lord will understand, although there are a number of allegations about the use of weapons which may be in breach of the convention, very few have been proven. One of the benefits from the recent Paris conference was that 10 more nations have indicated their intention to adhere to the 1925 protocol, for all its imperfections.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that full reply. With regard to the first part, does he not agree that the case of using chemical weapons was proven beyond doubt against Iraq in relation to the recent war with Iran and in relation to the Kurds?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am aware of the allegations to which the noble Lord has referred. I must agree that there is powerful circumstantial evidence to support them. However, they are denied by the country concerned and I understand that the Geneva Protocol does not make provision for the type of sanctions which the noble Lord has in mind.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very unusual these days that anyone says anything nice about Britain? However, is it not time to put on the record that Britain neither makes chemical weapons nor has a stockpile of them?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Of course, it is the case that the United Kingdom abandoned its chemical weapons capability many years ago.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, in the case of Iraq, is it not true that casualties who were clearly identified as suffering from the effects of chemical weapons were examined by impartial doctors from other countries and that the charges are proved to the hilt?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it is the case that we saw some casualties from Iraq who, it was alleged, were suffering from the effects of chemical weapons. It is very difficult to be certain in such cases; nevertheless, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the circumstantial evidence was considerable.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what evidence there is, contrary to the evidence of the doctors, that it was not chemical weapons which were used against these people?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I recall it, there was no doubt about the cause of the injuries concerned; namely, the presence of certain chemicals. However, whether those chemicals came to those people in contravention of the 1925 protocol is another matter.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, in view of the gravity of the allegations against Iraq, should there not be an appropriate international inquiry? If what is alleged is true, it is outrageous and should be condemned internationally.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the difficulty is that the 1925 protocol, as I have said, is a very imperfect instrument for these purposes. Agreed, as it was, so long ago in very different circumstances, as I understand it, it provides only for prohibition of the use of chemical weapons between contracting parties to the protocol. It is not clear that that is what happened in this case. For example, I am not entirely certain that the Kurds were contracting parties to the protocol. Of course, that is not to say that we do not deplore the use of chemical weapons wherever it may occur.