HL Deb 23 July 1996 vol 574 cc1264-6

2.57 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it would be safer to live in a nuclear weapon-free zone, having regard to their view that such zones "enhance global and regional security", than in Europe where it is also their view that peace and stability can only be preserved by nuclear weapons (H.L. Deb., col. WA22, 18th June 1996).

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, whether a nuclear weapon-free zone is feasible and would enhance stability must depend upon all the circumstances in any given region. With regard to Europe, I refer the noble Lord to my earlier Answer on 18th June.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a certain contradiction between the view that the nuclear weapon is peace-making and the alternative view that the whole region is better without it? Under those circumstances, would it not be wiser to say that the Answer to the Question is yes, and that the Government will work hard towards creating a nuclear-free zone in Europe so as to create the safest of all situations—a nuclear-free world?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is no. The NATO countries believe that nuclear deterrence continues to play an essential role in the policy of maintaining stability in Europe, as I said in my Answer on 18th June. Our non-proliferation commitment is that the establishment of the nuclear weapon-free zone on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by the states concerned enhances their global and regional security, but if the nations of Europe are not going to take that into account, then I believe we are far better to have proper deterrents. I compliment the noble Lord on carrying out to the full his recreation listed in Who's Who, which is to avoid retirement. I wish him—and I am sure everyone in the House will join me—a very happy 88th birthday on Saturday.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

The Earl of Kimberley

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, having had nuclear deterrents since 1945, which is 51 years, peace has been kept in Europe and that if Afghanistan had had a nuclear weapon the Soviet Union might not have invaded Afghanistan?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, Afghanistan is a sad country. It may be that that would have been as good a deterrent for Afghanistan as the nuclear deterrent has been for Western Europe and the free world.

Lord Richard

My Lords, as my noble friend approaches his 88th birthday, is the Minister aware that to my knowledge, he has been asking questions on this subject for 36 or 37 years? If he thinks he has made progress, will the Minister join with me in congratulating him? If he thinks that he has not made progress, shall we join in mutual commiserations?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, there may be a time for commiseration, but fortunately I believe that this is a time for congratulations. The very fact that we are coming close to the prospect of achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty later this year is a sign that we have educated ourselves on these matters. However, I believe that it is right that nuclear deterrents should be regarded properly and we should work away at these matters. But it will not be easy to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally. We are already reducing the size of our deterrent and taking into account new minimum security requirements. I am sure that that is the right way to go.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reference to the non-proliferation treaty is reassuring and goes back to the optimistic view that she was expressing about a month ago? Does that mean that the Government have overcome the problem of signing the treaty while India and one or two other countries do not sign it?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I believe that I told the noble Lord about a month ago that we were working away at this matter. I think that I said on that occasion that we want a treaty that will be effective in preventing proliferation. It cannot be effective unless there are proper inspections. That is clearly the problem which needs to be resolved before we can sign the treaty.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the British nuclear deterrent will never come under any kind of control, operational or otherwise, of the European Union under the common foreign and security policy.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, that will certainly not happen so long as a Conservative Government are in power. I cannot speak for the noble Lord's noble friends.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is only a small amount of danger or lack of safety if nuclear weapons are in the control of stable governments but that the biggest danger that we have today is that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable governments and, indeed, terrorist organisations?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I thank her very sincerely for her congratulations? I hope to continue making a nuisance of myself for a little longer yet.

Is the noble Baroness aware also that we have made progress on this matter in that we are now able to discuss it with more light than heat? In view of that, if the Government will look again at the possibility of making progress in relation to Europe, Europe will be a safer place. Will the Government consider the possibility of making perhaps not a U-turn but a movement of recognition towards the ultimate aim to which the Government are committed as much as anyone else; namely, a nuclear-free world?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's passion on this issue. I believe that we are maintaining that minimum deterrent consistent with our national security requirements. That is how it should remain. However, we have made substantial reductions in our deterrent. It would be well for your Lordships to note that by the end of 1988, our deterrent will be reduced to a single system with 21 per cent. fewer warheads and 29 per cent. less explosive power than in the 1970s. Therefore, we are moving forward.