HL Deb 29 November 1993 vol 550 cc421-3

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they share the view of the US Secretary of Defense that, "If we now had the opportunity to ban all nuclear weapons, we would. That is how profound the change is that we have undergone", and whether they have undergone similar change.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented. We are, therefore, committed to maintaining a minimum independent nuclear deterrent for as long as it is needed as the ultimate guarantee of this country's security.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question? Will he not say whether he will join the American Government, if opportunity arises, to do as the American Secretary of Defense said; that is, "If we now had the opportunity to ban all nuclear weapons, we would. That is how profound the change is that we have undergone"? Have the Government undergone a similar change? If the opportunity arises, will they join the American Government in banning all nuclear weapons?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord stands condemned out of his own mouth. The quotation from the member of the American Government is prefaced by the small and important word "if". I confirm, as I have on many occasions, that it is the ultimate goal of Her Majesty's Government to get rid of all nuclear weapons. That is not a practical proposition at the moment, but we can work towards it.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, is it not a fact that many Members of this House, whether pacifist or not, would love to see the time when there is no need for nuclear weapons? Of course we would; everyone would. But the fact is that some countries—for example, Cuba—are trying hard to get nuclear weapons into their possession, and while that remains the position we must stay as we are. It is as simple as that and I do not know why we are having all this fuss.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am always greatly reassured when I find myself wholly in agreement with the noble Lord. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, does the Minister agree that when the representative of Her Majesty's Government goes to the non-proliferation treaty extension conference in 1995 this is the kind of question that will be asked? Why are the Government refusing to contemplate becoming involved in disarmament negotiations? Why are they planning an increase in strategic warhead numbers between Polaris and Trident from 48 to 96 now that the Cold War has ended? That is the question that will be asked, because both policies contradict the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I expected rather better from the noble Lord. He knows that the Government have announced that the explosive power contained in the Trident deterrent will not in general terms exceed the explosive power contained in Polaris, and therefore there is no increase. The noble Lord also knows that we are committed, and have been committed publicly, to working towards a comprehensive test-ban treaty. Indeed, I made that announcement in your Lordships' House last Monday. When in 1995 the time comes for extending the non-proliferation treaty we intend to play our full part. There is nothing new in my saying that and I am sorry that when I do so the noble Lord believes that I am saying something new.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, will the Minister try not to be so patronising? Does he accept that only recently the Government have accepted that there should be a comprehensive test-ban treaty? Up until that time the Government had refused that. In expecting better from me, will the noble Viscount ask himself whether we should not expect better from him?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am extremely flattered that the noble Lord feels that I am capable of thinking of being able to patronise him. As always, we shall play our part to the best of our ability towards international disarmament. I have given specific examples of how we intend to do that.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, to some degree is not the Answer to the Question dependent upon the setting up of worldwide effective verification procedures?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, yes; I am grateful to my noble friend. That is absolutely crucial. When in 1995 we come to the negotiations attendant upon the extension of the non-proliferation treaty that will be absolutely crucial to the negotiating posture of Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us were extremely interested in the reply which he gave to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, that although the number of warheads has been increased, the explosive power has been reduced? What does that mean in policy terms? Does it mean that the British Government now intend to have a greater number of targets? Is that what is implied? It seems to me that nothing else can be implied. If that is so, is that a good policy?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I should make it clear to the noble Lord that the figure of 96 is very much a maximum. The noble Lord knows that we have never commented on targeting matters, and we shall not begin to do so now.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Government have been criticised for their foot-dragging, as it has been described, on this issue, not only from these Benches but also in the American Congress? In view of that, will he not look again at this question? If the Government cannot be in the lead in getting rid of nuclear weapons—to which they are committed in theory—will they at least ensure that they will not be the last country to give up nuclear weapons?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord and I, in spite of the very great respect I have for his views, start from completely opposite directions in our consideration of nuclear policy. Her Majesty's Government feel that it is the ultimate guarantee of British security. Therefore, if we are to change the level of nuclear weapons or the philosophy with which we approach nuclear policy, it is incumbent upon us, given our fundamental view, to make sure that any change is undertaken with due care and deliberation, because nothing less than the security of the nation is at stake.

Back to