| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 931
signed the non-proliferation treaty. They have implicitly bargained that they will not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons if the nuclear signatories agree to get rid of their nuclear weapons. They see no reason why they should reject nuclear weapons if other countries insist on having them. On three occasions, the review conferences have said that they are not satisfied with the United Kingdom Government's attitude in retaining nuclear weapons, seeming to do nothing to get rid of Polaris submarines and manufacturing and deploying Trident nuclear submarines with their massive increase in missiles, delivery, firepower and accuracy.One of the dangers of the world is that some of those nations might withdraw from the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and start to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. The Government will then say, "How terrible--you should not have nuclear weapons", and they will ask what God- given right the United Kingdom has to tell them that they should not have nuclear weapons when it has them. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who introduced the debate, said that nuclear weapons are important. I do not share his view, and neither do the vast majority of the nations of the world. Some of those nations might decide to do as the United Kingdom does rather than as it says. The Government says that the
non-proliferation treaty is important--so important that, if a country like Iraq wants nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom and United States Governments are prepared to bomb the sites where they are being developed. That comes pretty rich from countries that have developed nuclear weapons.
I agree that Iraq, which is a signatory country to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is utterly wrong even to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. There must be an international regime to supervise any nation that develops nuclear weapons. It should dismantle, and prevent the sale of, equipment that can be used for the development of nuclear weapons. That is clearly important, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty provides a vehicle for that. That treaty may not be a perfect, but at least it is a vehicle, on which we must build. We must not erode it or criticise those nations which have declared that they will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. We should join those countries, not say that we need four expensive nuclear-powered submarines stuffed to the gills with nuclear weapons at a cost of £10,000 million.
It is morally outrageous for any Government to spend £10,000 million on nuclear weapons. They cannot be used, because that would mean self- destruction. The vast majority of the world's nations do not need nuclear weapons--they need food, shelter and clothing. Every week Parliament is in session, questions are tabled about some region of starvation or deprivation, either in our own country or abroad. There are people in the United Kingdom living on the poverty line in inadequate housing and rotten conditions. A fortnight ago, there was a sleep-out in London to demonstrate against the cardboard cities springing up in major towns and cities throughout the country. We know about the massive levels of starvation in Africa and the Sahel, where men, women and children virtually die in front of the television cameras. While the charities get to work drawing our attention to the terrible plight, the Government continue to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than introducing a programme to switch those great assets and facilities, and the ability of
Column 932
people in Barrow-in-Furness, to make items which could help to develop, maintain, preserve and enhance life both at home and abroad.Engineering skills could be developed in Barrow, but instead, thousands of people have been sacked. Defence expenditure has not saved all jobs. As the Minister knows, there have been massive sackings, and there will be more. The conditions in eastern Europe which, some argue, precipitated expenditure on nuclear weapons, have changed. It is claimed that we are no longer threatened by the Soviet Union, but we are still going ahead with Trident nuclear submarines and the nuclear missile programme. That does not make sense, and it is a moral outrage when so many people in our country and others throughout the world are deprived of the means of achieving a decent standard of living and preserving their place on the planet. There is so much work to be done on the planet. The ozone layer over Europe is thinning. We are in difficulties because of our abuse of the planet. Yet the Government spend £10,000 million producing weapons that we cannot use. If we ever used them, it would be curtains for all of us--we are pointing a gun at all our heads. There will be no clear distinction between defence and defended, attackers and defenders. There will be no time for that. The possession of nuclear weapons is an outrage against democracy. Has there been any consultation? Has the Prime Minister included in his charter of rights the right for people not to be slaughtered by the Government? Will people be able to say, "I don't want the Government to use nuclear weapons--I want to live"?
The phrase "Better red than dead" no longer applies because the redness is disappearing into a pale pink imitation. The phrase will be, "Is it better to be pink than dead?" The power to press the button will not be spread throughout the nation or even given to part of it. That power will be in the hands of a tiny clique--the Prime Minister, one or two cronies, and the chiefs of staff. That decision will be taken wholly undemocratically. It is a complete and utter outrage against humanity.
When the next Labour Government achieve office, they will express their support for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If people really mean what they say about that treaty, they must get rid of nuclear weapons.
There is a powerful case against nuclear weapons. If we had any sense, we would produce a plan for switching the engineering skills used in their manufacture to peaceful uses for the benefit of mankind. We would be able to help the wretched, starving nations of the world, and join with the majority of nations--including those headed by conservative Governments-- who say no to nuclear weapons and will not allow them on their soil. We would also improve our civil liberties. The development and possession of nuclear weapons and our links with the United States in that respect is an erosion of our civil liberties.
I have in my hand a facsimile of the front cover of the New Statesman for 18 July 1980, which refers to
"The Billion dollar phone tap",
and to Menwith hill monitoring station, which is described as "America's big ear in the heart of Yorkshire."
It reports :
"America taps into our international telephone network in the cause of defending freedom".
That may be done not wholly in the cause of defending freedom but in that of defending American commercial
Column 933
interests, as was done when the Americans interfered to stop the sale of BA146 aircraft--peaceful, civil aircraft--to Iran. Menwith hill was authorised without Parliament's approval. That sort of interference was exemplified also by the withdrawal of trade union rights at GCHQ. It is all part of a parcel.I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since it began in the 1960s, and I shall continue to do so. It is morally right and makes pragmatic sense. If we join the majority of nations by getting rid of Trident, we shall be on the side of the moral majority.
3.42 am
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on his powerful speech. One may not agree with some of his premises, arguments and conclusions, but he speaks a lot of sense.
I enjoyed also the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). No one is more arrogant than a Conservative talking about defence. It bucks one up at three o'clock in the morning to hear an arch- Conservative wrapping himself round with the Union Jack again. The hon. Gentleman gave us an analysis of Labour policy, but not of that of his own party, whose defence history he appears to have forgotten in respect of its geopolitical interests over the years.
The hon. Gentleman's history conveniently stopped at 1945. He did not delve back 10 years before that, when one of the predecessors of the present Secretary of State for Defence was a great buddy of the Nazis in Hitler's Germany. The Conservative party also enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with Saddam Hussein for some years, and with other dictators throughout the world. I am sure that the Conservatives are proud of their history, although they do not recount it very often. Instead, they claim to be the party of defence--and that is an awful arrogance. It is appalling.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about being realistic, but I would say that the Conservative party is opportunistic. Opposition Members do not need lessons on patriotism from Conservative Members. Many of us find it deeply insulting when Conservative Members, who have dallied with many opponents of Britain for purely financial and economic interests, decide to give us lectures on patriotism. Most of my constituents find that attitude insulting. In villages and towns throughout the country--in wool towns, cotton towns and mining towns--where people have always voted Labour and have always been socialists, there are cenotaphs and memorials. Those people are as interested in the defence of their country as anyone else.
It is unfortunate that the Conservative party starts to talk about patriotism when we are coming up to a general election. They cause divisions by talking about a commitment to defend Britain, and that only causes harm. When we are faced with a danger, however, the Conservative party always wants everyone to get together to form a united front. That is what we did during the Gulf war. As soon as it was over, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the Labour party was not really with the Government. I suppose that he has had to withdraw that insult. I have never known such
Column 934
condemnation to be voiced by supporters of the Conservative party and Conservative Members. I remember the many Members who came up to me and said that the Minister had ruined the debate by making that awful statement.Mr. Archie Hamilton : Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Opposition's policy--I am not saying that they did not back the action when the conflict started--was to wait for sanctions to work?
Mr. Rogers : It was clearly stated that we wanted sanctions to have the maximum effect so as to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. When the Minister starts rattling his sabre, he knows in his heart of hearts that we were lucky to lose so few in the Gulf war. If the losses had been as horrendous as some thought they might be, I do not know whether the arguments that the Minister advanced and his statements following the war would have washed.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about the changes in Labour party policy. I cannot see that there is any problem in changing one's political views. Surely it is a sign of political maturity. Everyone has said that the world has changed, that the Russian threat no longer exists and that we are facing a completely different set of circumstances. What is wrong with a change of political views in those circumstances?
I understand the problem of change for the Conservative party. Its attitudes are neanderthal and fossilised. Conservative Members are in a groove and it seems that they cannot move out of it. Their policies are the same now as those which prevailed during the Crimea war and which created the slaughter in Flanders. We know that the Conservative party is incapable of adjusting, and we are only too well aware of the disasters that it brings upon the country from time to time.
The Labour party sees changes in political views as signs of political maturity. If we are presented with a different set of circumstances, we can adapt our policies for the benefit of the nation. It seems from what Conservative Members say from time to time that they would welcome a Labour party that said, "In the circumstances, we might want to adopt a multilateralist stance rather than a unilateralist position." Why condemn us? I thought that that was the policy that Conservative Members wanted us to adopt.
Mr. Conway : I talked about the French socialist Government and the French capitalist Government. Many of us would be pleased if the major parties of Britain had the same views on defence, and I am sure that the electorate would be pleased as well. The hon. Gentleman talks about my party's neanderthal way of thinking and the maturity or otherwise of political development. On which level of maturity does he put the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) ? Their views are diametrically opposed. Who is neanderthal man in the shadow Cabinet?
Mr. Rogers : It is the opposite--they are not Neanderthalic, they are two mature politicians discussing their differences, and why not? What is the matter with political argument and discussion? That is actually
Column 935
beginning to happen in the Conservative party. The schoolmistress has gone ; she is no longer whipping the boys into shape. Some dissention is developing in the Tory party, which is now the party of argument on all sorts of issues. During the last Army debate, the former Secretary of State for Defence attacked the present Secretary of State and told him where he was going wrong. There have been wide dissensions on European issues.As the hon. Gentleman has pushed me, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record the Labour party's position on nuclear deterrence. We believe that the best method of enhancing Britain's security is through the achievement of properly inspected and verified international disarmament treaties. The case for further discussions on nuclear disarmament talks is strong, and that has already been recognised by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
In a joint statement on 1 June 1991, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed that
"reducing the risk of outbreak of nuclear war is the responsibility not only of the USA and the USSR and that other states should also make their contribution towards the attainment of this objective. In particular, in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons they call upon all states to consider the new opportunities for engagements in mankind's common effort to remove the risk of outbreak of nuclear war world wide."
We have considered the new opportunities to reduce the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war, and we wish to make our contribution. We know that more work is required, but hope that working with other nuclear powers we can begin talks on a START 2 agreement. We believe that British pressure could act as a catalyst for START 2. President Mitterrand has indicated French willingness to participate in the disarmament process. In addition, the French have committed themselves to signing the non-proliferation treaty. Given a sufficient weight of world opinion, the Chinese could also be persuaded to begin disarmament discussions. Once those discussions are under way, Britain should participate until they are successfully concluded with an agreement by all nuclear powers completely to eliminate those weapons.
Complementary to that work will be the need to strengthen the non- proliferation treaty. Controlling the spread of nuclear weapons needs to be tackled at two levels. First, we need to take steps to make it more difficult to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. In particular, the inspection and verification measures need to have more teeth. Secondly, we must address the motives of states seeking to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. There are understandable reasons for such attempts, which relate to regional security concerns. The United Nations should be much more involved in attempts to resolve such regional problems.
There have been a number of proposals to ban nuclear testing, although it must be said that some of them have been made after the proponents of that line have just completed a nuclear test programme. The Labour party does not recognise a need for nuclear testing. Other methods, apart from full- scale nuclear testing, can be used to ensure the technical effectiveness and safety of British nuclear weapons. Testing the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, computer simulation modelling and other forms of non- destructive testing could be used to provide satisfactory evidence of the technical effectiveness
Column 936
and safety of British nuclear weapons. The only real need for testing would be in the development of new warheads, which is not likely to happen under the START process.Anti-ballistic technology also needs to be studied. The spread of ballistic missile technology to many countries is alarming. The Government must not only strengthen the missile technology control regime, which is designed to limit the spread of ballistic missile technology, but consider their position on that technology. 3.55 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : This has been a short, but interesting, debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on raising the important subject of nuclear deterrence. He pointed out that in 1987 Labour's manifesto was unilateral. Labour believed in nuclear disarmament and believed that Britain should get rid of its nuclear weapons without any corresponding gestures from other countries.
Since then, there has been a slight adaptation of that policy in the 1989 document, "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change", which basically said that Britain should negotiate away its nuclear weapons. There was a flaw in that argument. If there had not been any START 2 talks, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred, we would have negotiated away our nuclear weapons and only a small part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have been reduced in return. That would have left Britain with no nuclear deterrent and the Soviet Union with enormous numbers of such weapons.
As I understand it, "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change" was approved by a two thirds majority at a Labour party conference. If any Labour Member would like to correct me, I should be grateful for that. I believe that the Labour party conference is responsible for making Labour party policy. If a policy were to be changed, it would be necessary for the party conference to approve it. Is that the position? I am more than happy to give way to any Labour Member who wishes to answer.
Mr. Rogers : I would bow to any right hon. or hon. Friend who wishes to correct me, but, as I understand it, the conference makes a policy recommendation to the leadership of the Labour party which then constructs a manifesto upon which the election is fought. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the position is quite different from his description.
Mr. Hamilton : As I understand it, a Labour party conference makes recommendations to the Labour party leadership, which can ignore them or take them up, if that happens to suit the leadership. Is that the position? Even if a two thirds majority is in favour of a motion that has been passed at the party conference, that makes no difference, because it can be overridden by the leadership. It is important to understand the position taken on these documents.
Mr. Rogers : How does the Conservative party arrive at its policy?
Mr. Hamilton : The Conservative party has never been tied to conference motions, so we are in a different position. I was not responsible for changing the constitution of the Labour party. I thought that the Labour party believed that policy should be decided by the
Column 937
party conference. It is interesting that that party is moving from that position and now says that the party leadership can ignore any motions made by the party conference, even if there is a two thirds majority. It is important to discover where we stand on all this.Mr. Cryer : It is interesting that the Minister is exploring the democracy of the Labour party. I suggest that he looks to the democracy of the Tory party which is notable for its absence. "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change" was carried overwhelmingly at the Labour party conference. There was not a card vote on it, so there may or may not have been a two thirds majority. No one can say that with any authority. The Labour party conference does the groundwork for the compilation of an election manifesto in a democratic way, and long may the Labour party's democracy continue--in stark contrast with the authoritarian, elitist regime of the Tories.
Mr. Hamilton : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Where do we now stand? "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change" was an important document. It received the overwhelming support of the Labour party conference, but that policy now seems to have been changed.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on nuclear deterrence and the undesirability of nuclear weapons. I do not agree with his arguments, but he feels them strongly. I should have thought that the changes in Labour party policy to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred must put him in a rather difficult position, but perhaps we can explore that later.
Conservative Members have come to realise the importance of nuclear deterrence. War in Europe has been prevented by a range of deterrents, conventional as well as nuclear, but many of us feel that the nuclear component is the most important, bearing in mind the fact that we have in the past been faced with the enormously superior numbers of forces of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which we have been unable to match on the ground. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out if we ever were invaded has long been one of the principal reasons for our avoiding war in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham spoke of the INF deployment--a significant move, backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and President Reagan, to deploy cruise and Pershing in Europe. The deployment of those missiles was one of the most significant things that forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and resulted in the first significant treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which started the whole business of negotiating away large amounts of nuclear arsenals between the Americans and the Soviet Union.
It is significant that the deployment of cruise and Pershing was robustly opposed by the Opposition throughout and there has been no act of contrition since then admitting that this was a good policy and that the Labour party was wrong. That policy produced remarkable results in terms of subsequent arms reduction negotiations. The Government have always taken the view that it is important that we have our own independent nuclear deterrent. It was becoming apparent that Polaris could not
Column 938
go on indefinitely and needed to be replaced by a decent system. That is why we are investing in the Trident system which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says is extremely expensive. However, the figure will be taken over a number of years and, when I last looked, it was on average about 3 per cent. of the defence budget. Compared with other forms of defence spending, in terms of deterrent effect the Trident system is good value for money. The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a robust and interesting speech which did not seem to quite tie in with the latest pronouncements on Labour party policy. He said that there has never been a threat from the Soviet Union. That view is not supported by any military analysis of the fact that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have in the past practised exercises for making serious inroads into western Europe and across the inner German border. We have been aware of several of their plans which have posed a serious threat.The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to weaknesses in the Soviet system which, he said, made it impossible for the House to take the Soviet Union seriously as a military enemy. For a long time there have indeed been serious weaknesses in the Soviet economy, but they never seemed to extend to the Soviet defences, which seemed almost the only part of the system that really worked. The Soviets have produced massive numbers of submarines, missiles, tanks, and so on. The general view is that they have a sophisticated defence manufacturing industry and a great capability in terms of producing equipment and of training service men.
Mr. Cryer : When discussing the long-term weakness of the Soviet Union, I was paraphrasing a speech made by a Minister of State, Ministry of Defence in March 1981.
Mr. Hamilton : I have made it clear that the military capability of the Soviet Union has exhibited great strengths. We should not think that the whole place was so inherently weak, corrupt and rotten to the core that it posed no military threat.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked with great vehemence about mass extermination. The hon. Gentleman always goes on about how nuclear weapons are the only form of weapon that can kill large numbers of people. During the last war--in which, I agree, atom bombs were dropped on Japan--the fighting in Europe seemed to account for a very large number of service men being killed. They died in their tens of thousands, and millions of civilians died at the same time. It is naive to propose that only nuclear weapons kill people in large numbers. There is no evidence that large numbers of people are not also killed in conventional wars.
We want to avoid war. The question is how that can best be done. The massive destructive power of nuclear weapons has been an important component in ensuring that we have had no war in Europe since 1945.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil. As he said, the same applies to Denmark and Norway. It is worth pointing out, however, that Canada, Denmark and Norway have all signed up to the NATO treaty and at meetings of NATO Ministers they have accepted the importance of nuclear deterrents as part of NATO's arsenal. So the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians are in the fortunate position of being able to come under the
Column 939
protection of other countries' nuclear deterrents, even though they have decided not to have them on their own soil. NATO has collectively benefited from the nuclear weapons held by the Americans, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the French.The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the United Kingdom had done nothing under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has always been understood that the onus is on the Soviet Union and the United States, which have the most weapons to negotiate away. We look to them to start the negotiating process, as they have in fact been doing. The United Kingdom has a minimum nuclear deterrent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the capability of the Trident system is greater than that of Polaris, but, as a percentage of overall warheads, it does not give any great increase. At a time of increasing sophistication, Trident is the minimum that we need to be able to say that we have a nuclear deterrent. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that we should negotiate away our minimum deterrent when many other countries still have nuclear weapons.
Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that the Labour party has changed its policy or that it is radically different? Does that conflict with his membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to allow his membership of CND to lapse and I gather that other Opposition Members are being encouraged to do the same. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that his membership of CND totally conflicts with Labour party policy or does he think that Labour's policy has not changed very much? The hon. Gentleman spoke vehemently on the matter and I shall give way if he wants to tell us where he stands.
The hon. Gentlemen is typical of many Opposition Members, because about 140 of them are members of CND. Will they allow their membership to lapse? If they do, it will raise the question why they joined in the beginning. I thought that membership of CND stemmed from great convictions about the evil of possessing nuclear weapons and was not the sort of strong moral conviction that one simply allows to lapse.
Mr. Rogers : The Minister seems determined to drivel on at this time of the morning. Before he finishes drivelling, can he say how many Conservative Members were once members of the National Front?
Mr. Hamilton : The National Front has nothing to do with this, and I should be very surprised if any Conservative Members were ever members of the National Front. No Conservative Member has ever been a member of CND, and the Conservative party has been united in its resolve to have an independent nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Cryer : The Minister should be careful about saying that there have been no supporters of CND in the Tory party. I well remember going to a CND demonstration at Lakenham and seeing a group of Conservatives holding a large banner saying, "Conservatives against nuclear weapons". Perhaps those people have been scoured from the Conservative party. Labour is a very democratic party and encourages discussion and argument. In a democratic party there is always room for policy changes and movements. Many people in the Labour party are anxious to see a Labour Government, because they believe that such a Government will be far more sympathetic than the
Column 940
present Government to implementation of the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. I am staggered that the Minister should dismiss in a couple of sentences his Government's total inactivity on that treaty. That is absolutely appalling.Mr. Hamilton : I am a little bemused by that, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke vehemently about the matter and his membership of CND seemed to be important to him. There comes a time when one's party changes its policy so radically on some issues that the only course that an honourable person can adopt is to reject the Whip. The hon. Gentleman seems to be changing his position on the issue and falling in behind the non-proliferation treaty. He either feels that the changes are not very substantial or that they are substantial but he is prepared to live with them. His attitude does not quite tie in with the vehemence of his speech, which seemed to come from the heart.
Mr. Conway : My right hon. Friend is prodding a sore in a way that some Labour Members would prefer that he did not. Did he see the deputy leader of the Opposition being interviewed, admittedly at a late hour, on Channel 4 last Thursday? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was asked about unilateralism. In the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), he made some arrogant but failed attempts at humility, and said that while he stayed soundly in the multilateral camp, his party had moved way across to the left in the 1987 manifesto, and had come back in a full circle to his position. Is not the difference the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about individual members of the Conservative party who held no office and certainly were not Members of Parliament? No member of the parliamentary Conservative party holds a unilateralist position, and Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The House is debating the Adjournment. The hon. Gentlemen can make only one speech.
Mr. Conway : That is so. I am reminding my right hon. Friend--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentlemen was intervening at too great a length.
Mr. Hamilton : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of those facts. The Labour party is in great confusion over this, and the embarrassment is clear for all to see.
The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the need for properly inspected and verified treaties under international control, saying that that was what the Labour party now stands for, that START 2 should take place, and that British presssure was needed to bring this about. That may be the understatement of the year. I have not heard from the Americans that people want START 2, and a great deal of pressure would be needed to begin the talks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great ideal moment when there would be agreement by all nuclear powers to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is a problem about that, in that one has strong suspicions that there are some countries which have nuclear weapons but do not admit to having them. Will those countries be included in the treaties ? Will they be talking about the nuclear weapons that in theory they do not have ? Will they be gathered up
Column 941
in the talks or shall we impose external verification or inspection on them, even when they say that they do not have nuclear weapons ? We must establish whether Labour party policy is to keep our independent nuclear deterrent if we cannot be confident that the talks will produce the miraculous result that no other country has nuclear weapons, as the hon. Gentleman thinks that they might. I cannot see a point at which we could be confident that that had happened. I also do not think that the scenario suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South--that if we got rid of our nuclear weapons, other countries would follow suit--would materialise. Many of the countries that one suspects have nuclear weapons have them for their perceived security interest, not because they feel threatened by super-powers with nuclear weapons.Mr. Cryer : My argument was that we should strengthen the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty--that other countries would miraculously follow our example and get rid of their weapons. Does the Minister regard it as desirable that we should try to reduce nuclear weapons stakes?
Mr. Hamilton : Absolutely--that is one of the essential parts of our policy, and has been for a long time. We entirely support the non- proliferation treaty. We must, however, be completely confident that no other country holds nuclear weapons, before we negotiate away our own independent nuclear deterrent. The same is true virtually everywhere in the world. At a time when we had good reason to believe that other countries were holding nuclear weapons, negotiating our deterrent away would have put Britain's entire defence in jeopardy and would have been a great mistake.
The debate has taken us a little way towards finding out what Labour's policy is. In the autumn, the Labour party conference may give us a chance to see whether the so-called new policy has any support among the rank and file, who pride themselves on being so democratic in their decision-making. Perhaps they will support the policy change--if, indeed, it is a change. However, we should all be much happier if we could be convinced that if the negotiations that Labour constantly talks about do not come to fruition, a Labour Government would definitely keep our independent nuclear deterrent and we would continue to possess Trident.
Column 942
High Court Judges
4.20 am
Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : I am grateful, despite the hour, for the opportunity to air this issue. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, and to the Solicitor-General and his hon. Friends, for their long vigil. This problem is causing some disquiet and the debate may enable some misunderstandings to be resolved.
At the Lord Mayor's dinner for the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice said that the Government had failed to respond to repeated calls for more High Court judges, particularly in the Queen's bench, and that the system was near breaking point. The Lord Chancellor, in what was widely taken to be a reply on the launching of the court services annual report, announced that he had no plans to appoint more Queen's bench judges. It was reported in The Guardian on 17 July that judges were being asked to complete time sheets to measure their output, in order to reinforce the case for more judges. On 15 July the matter was raised in another place, in the form of a question from my noble Friend Lord Mishcon. The Lord Chancellor said that, while waiting times for some types of case were considerably longer than he would wish, there had been some reductions. With respect, however, that is not the real cause of concern. I understand that, in the non-jury list, it is possible to secure a fixture in about a year. That is no matter for congratulations, but it certainly does not represent crisis point. Those who are content to take their place in the queue for the warned list may have a hearing in as little as eight weeks.
As Lord Ackner pointed out, the real measure of concern relates to the number of deputy judges who are required on a regular basis to man the Bench. At any one time, it appears that nearly half the Queen's bench judges are out on circuit or hearing criminal cases at the Central Criminal Court.
There will now probably be four courts sitting in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, requiring probably four Queen's bench judges. There will probably be two judges dealing with the jury list, judges hearing commercial cases and judges dealing with the Crown Office list ; and there will need to be judges sitting in chambers. By the time we come to the non- jury list, there are not many left. It appears that, when the Lord Chief Justice spoke, some 58 per cent. of cases in the non-jury and chambers lists were being heard by deputy judges. By October, there could well be no High Court judges available to try cases in the non-jury list.
Of course, no one can predict with accuracy how many judges will be available at any particular time. If two long commercial cases are settled, two additional judges may suddenly become available, but the likelihood is that all non-jury list cases will be heard by deputy judges.
As the Lord Chancellor said in the other place, it is true that for many years cases have been allocated to senior silks sitting as deputy judges, chiefly in order to test their suitability for appointment to the High Court. The Times , in a leader on 11 July that fell short of its usual reflective standards regarded that as a complete answer to the argument. But that is not the present position. Senior silks have been sitting regularly for long periods as deputy judges. If there were any likelihood of their being appointed High Court judges, their appointment might have been expected long ago. Judges who have passed
Column 943
retirement age are recalled to sit as deputy judges. Circuit judges sit regularly as deputy High Court judges. That is now a regular, standard feature of our legal system.I intend no personal reflection on any deputy judge. Some of them are extremely able and try cases with a competence that cannot be faulted. We may wonder why some of them have not received High Court appointments. However, there are aspects that give rise to anxiety. The first, as Lord Oliver pointed out, is that section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits the appointment of High Court judges only as a temporary measure. For how long can a deputy judge continue to sit, week in, week out, as an integral part of the system, with that situation continuing to be described as temporary? If it is not temporary, cases are being heard by judges for whose appointment there is no statutory authority.
Secondly, litigants may feel that their concerns are of sufficient importance to them to merit being heard by a judge. The consideration of their case may have been of an impeccable standard, but they may leave the judgment seat with a feeling of dissatisfaction. Recently I heard the question asked : what if a disgruntled litigant challenged the judgment on the ground that the judge had not been properly appointed under statute?
It has been remarked that some of the cases in the non-jury list may involve sums amounting to more than £1 million. I confess that I have never subscribed to the view that the importance of a case can be measured wholly in financial terms. To someone who, by reason of industrial injury, will never work again, the sum of £60,000 may represent the difference between total penury and a degree of comfort. Working people are as entitled to have their cases considered by the best judicial minds as is a commercial company. But the point is well made that these are all cases of the greatest importance to those involved.
We may be told that the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is only now about to become effective and that we should wait to see the effects of the Act, particularly the proposals for moving more work to the county court. However, I am bound to feel some scepticism about that. Many cases involving sums of up to £50,000 have been transferred regularly to the county court for some years. I am not sure that appreciably more cases will in practice be heard in the county court, particularly since it became apparent during our debates on the Courts and Legal Services Bill that county courts are far from ready to take on much additional work, and we were assured by the Solicitor-General that no more work would be sent there until they are ready.
The next reason for anxiety relates to the strains that are being applied to some categories of case that at present are being heard by High Court judges and which may suffer if this trend continues. One area where it has been suggested that fewer High Court judges may be available is for work on circuit, particularly criminal work. Some cases, such as murder trials, are normally heard by High Court judges, although at some centres specific circuit judges are empowered to hear them. I know of no reason to complain that those cases are not properly and fairly disposed of, but I have heard anxiety expressed that if the stresses on High Court resources increase further that practice may be extended until fewer High Court judges travel the circuits. One day, it may be said that as the circuits manage quite well without High Court judges, why not withdraw them altogether?
Column 944
It is sometimes pointed out that if a substantial case does not occupy the court for as long as was predicted, a High Court judge may find himself trying cases that would not normally be brought before him. That is no bad thing, because he sees how the circuit goes about its less dramatic business and can make appropriate comments. Perhaps the greatest value of High Court judges visiting circuits is that they come back, they meet in London and visit other circuits. The presiding judges of the respective circuits meet together and the justiciary is a co- ordinated whole. A series of self-contained, isolated geographical centres without co-ordination would be far less capable of drawing attention to problems that occur over a wide area or countrywide or, where necessary, of monitoring the resources being made available by the Executive or of expressing the criticisms that are being made.Indeed, judges who went out from London to the localities under Henry II and his successors changed the patchwork of local customary systems into the common law and brought about a central government, just as in the early 19th century, the circuit riding judges of America forged the federation into a nation. It would be appalling if that process were reversed.
One of the other concerns relates to the Crown Office list, which includes a wide and increasing range of cases on housing, education, the health service, immigration and the poll tax. Judicial review is being used for more grievances. If High Court judges were not available to hear them, and quickly, individuals would suffer. I entertain the unworthy suspicion that some Ministers and officials might not be greatly distressed if that were to happen. But I say at once that I am not alleging any deliberate policy to bring that about. I do not believe that there is any deep-laid conspiracy, and if there were no one who knows the present Lord Chancellor would believe that he would have any part of it.
The shortage of High Court judges derives more from Treasury policy and from the financial valuation that is placed on an effective legal system than from any plans for reviving the new despotism. I do not believe that the current situation resulted from any conscious action. It has crept up on us, although not wholly unnoticed and unheralded. We need to review it, lest it extend further. We may need to reassess what classes of case are heard by High Court judges. There may be room for a reappraisal, but, if so, let there be a reappraisal about which we are all told and where those who wish may express a view. Indeed, I thought that that was what the civil justice review was intended to be. I believe that the outcome of any reappraisal would be to confirm the need for more High Court judges.
That brings me to the greatest cause for concern. Whatever else may be said of deputy judges, one thing is certain--they do not have security of tenure. If it is suggested that that is an academic point, we should reflect that generations of students of our constitution have been informed as a matter of the greatest importance that our senior judiciary have security in office. They cannot be dismissed by the Executive, as happens in some countries, with results with which we are tragically familiar.
It may be argued that there are situations in which there should be less difficulty in removing judges from office. If so, that is a matter to be fully debated, and a clear and precise procedure should be laid down. If, as we have always declared, it is a matter of the greatest importance
| Next Section
| Home Page |