HL Deb 31 October 1996 vol 575 cc436-9

3.18 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the Opinion of the International Court of Justice that "in view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, their destructive capacity and capacity to cause untold human suffering and damage for generations to come, their use in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the law applicable in armed conflict … the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law", and if so whether they will move a Motion to that effect in the United Nations.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, we consider that the Opinion, taken as a whole, does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamentals of UK and NATO defence policies. Nuclear deterrence continues to be important in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government are failing to move with a general feeling around the world that the time has come to be active in putting an end to the nuclear weapon? I am sure she is fully aware not only of the Opinion referred to in the Question but also of the Canberra Report on which we had some discussion. Is she aware that this country seems to be in the lead of immobility in this matter? Is it not time that we gave expression to the general feeling in the House that this is an opportunity that we ought to take to get rid of the nuclear weapon?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, it is a nonsense to say that this country is in the lead of immobility. Let us examine what the issue is about. We have consistently argued that it is not suitable for judicial determination. As some noble Lords will know, it cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances of any individual case. It was the court which emphasised that the Opinion should be read as a whole. There is no way that one can debate the details of that Opinion in a Starred Question. It is a long and complex document which needs to be looked at as a whole. We retain our deterrence at a minimum level consistent with our assessment of security requirements. We continue to believe that that is the way we should go and that the process of building new relationships with Russia and other central and eastern European countries will be helped by maintaining the stability in Europe which comes from maintaining NATO's strategy of war prevention.

Lord Elton

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rendering the use of nuclear weapons illegal would have no effect whatever on a power which wished to use them? Dictators do not look at the law to see how they should exploit a situation; they look at their interests. Hitler was not concerned with the legality of mustard gas. He was concerned with the fact that the allies had mustard gas as well, and it was not used.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right. When people try to say that there is an ICJ prescription outlawing the use of nuclear weapons, they are certainly wrong. A large majority-11 to three—found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or of the use of nuclear weapons as such. That is the basis of my response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, in responding to what seems to be the latest phase in the campaign for nuclear disarmament, will the Government bear in mind that the United Nations Special Commission charged with destroying the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of Iraq recently reported to the Security Council that it is being systematically and consistently deceived by the Iraqis? The International Atomic Agency, also charged with the destruction of Iraq's nuclear potential, reports that Iraq is still receiving nuclear and missile equipment from abroad and that, the know how and expertise acquired could provide an adequate basis for reconstituting a nuclear weapons programme". Would not this be a strange time for the rest of the world to be dismantling its deterrent capacity?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, puts the position far better than I. As I mentioned on Monday in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, there is deep concern about what is going on in Iraq. We now know that we must be aware that other countries are still not prepared to lay down weapons. The UK deterrent is not growing. Our deterrent has always been set at the minimum level necessary to secure our safety against current risks. As the noble Lord knows, we have already eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and withdrawn our nuclear artillery advance missiles. We are moving in the right direction but it would be wrong to give up the deterrence we must have and which all members of NATO agree upon 100 per cent.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, can the Minister advise the House who or what threatens this country and is deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, Iraq.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether the Opinion referred to in the Question truly reflects a majority opinion? If it was not unanimous, to what degree was there dissent? Also, what was the substance of the dissent? In other words, is that view of the court a majority decision? If so, is it fairly reflected in the excerpt given?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the judgment is extremely complicated. On different aspects of the judgment different groups joined together. I mentioned the large majority which found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition of the use or threat of nuclear weapons as such. I do not have the exact break-down of who divided which way on that. What is clear is what I said in my original Answer; that is, that the Opinion must be read as a whole. There is no way in which picking out the bits that appeal to one or other noble Lord or one country or another represents a proper use either of the ICJ or of proper judicial determination. Therefore, the Opinion as a whole must be judged. It is extremely varied, and it is right that this country should proceed in the manner I described in response to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Baroness tell the House that the Government are not immobile on the matters raised by my noble friend. In that case, can she tell the House what initiatives they now intend to take to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, in order to ban the production of fissile materials one must have more of the sort of activity described as UNSCOM' s activity in Iraq or that of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Unfortunately, while we and many other nations support that activity, many nations do not. We shall continue working on that. Alas, it is clear that while we make every effort to achieve the goals established by the NPT, many other countries are not working in the same direction.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I was aware of the fact that many countries are not doing so. However, there is a specific commitment in the Queen's Speech to work on the banning of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. I was asking the Minister to elaborate on the Government's plans to move that forward. I do not believe she has done so.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I have not done so because the detail has yet to come before Ministers. When the time is right I shall be only too willing to write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, are not those two questions very curious coming from the official spokesman of a party which apparently now backs Trident?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, yes. I should perhaps have tried to embarrass the noble Baroness a little more. As far as I am concerned—this side of the House and most people agree—we have a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent in Trident. I have already said that we sought to bring down and succeeded in eliminating our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability. We are clear about what needs to be done and shall not lightly consider dismantling the stable and secure deterrence framework which we have. This Conservative Government will never do that.