HL Deb 15 May 1995 vol 564 cc291-3

2.49 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will reconsider their nuclear policy in the light of the argument in Paper II on Nuclear Proliferation published by the International Security Information Service and written by Ronald Higgins and Professor John Ziman FRS, contending for "a higher realism than present national self-absorption."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)

My Lords, while we welcome most contributions to the nuclear debate, we believe that we already pursue the policies which most effectively promote peace and stability.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that there is a degree of criticism about Trident at a very significant level—indeed, even the necessity for it is now being questioned—and that similar criticisms are being raised by bodies apart from that to which I refer in my Question, which is a well-known non-partisan organisation? Is the Minister aware that Field Marshal Sir Nigel Bagnall is quoted in The Times as questioning the whole necessity for Trident? Is the Minister further aware that in this House the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Carver, has done the same from time to time? In all those circumstances, will not the Government at least have another look at their nuclear policy which is becoming incredible?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord says. As I have said on many occasions, we maintain a minimum deterrent which both contributes to NATO's strategy of war prevention and is the ultimate guarantee of our own national security. The noble Lord has been putting his points for a great many years. His analysis of what happened in the past has, I believe, been proved wrong while Her Majesty's Government's viewpoint has been proved right. It is possibly about time that the noble Lord reconsidered his point of view.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are some of us who, reading the phrase "national self-absorption" in the Question believe that the policy of a British Government should be to secure the interests and safety of the British people? If that is "national self-absorption", long may it survive.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord. Perhaps I can assist by informing him that just before the reference to "national self-absorption", quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his Question, appear the words: That hope could appear Utopian". That might help the noble Lord.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the recent non-proliferation conference, the Government's agreement to the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty without reservations and to a cut-off in the production of fissile materials helped towards the achievement of what I think was a very welcome consensus at that conference? Is it not deplorable that the Chinese Government, who accepted the consensus, have today conducted a nuclear test?

Lord Henley

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We heard today that the Chinese have tested a weapon. The Chinese issued a statement which includes a clear commitment to abide by the comprehensive test ban treaty when it is agreed; we expect them to honour that commitment. We shall pursue that point with them and we shall continue with our commitment to try to reach a conclusion to the treaty by the end of 1996.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, does the Minister agree that circumstances have changed completely since Trident was decided upon at enormous cost—in fact, eventually at double the estimate? We no longer have two superpowers and the purposes for which Trident was built have disappeared. In all those circumstances, is it not worth taking another look at the situation?

Lord Henley

My Lords, there are still two powers with very large quantities of nuclear weapons. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the beginning of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we do not think that we should be negotiating reductions in the size of our nuclear arsenal, which has already been reduced considerably, until we see those of the Russians and the United States reduced very considerably.