---

Dr. Reid : As far as I can make out, the hon. and learned Gentleman has just created a precedent by telling the House that, in the two wars in which we have been involved, it was--to use his

word--"inconceivable" that the Government would have used nuclear weapons. In what other circumstances would it be inconceivable for us to use nuclear weapons ? Will he elaborate and tell us in what circumstances we would have used them ?

Mr. Hogg : I am surprised to hear a defence spokesman ask that question, because he knows that the two cases to which I referred are covered by the negative security assurances which made the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances inconceivable. If he did not know that, I do not mind him admitting it, but it is extraordinary ignorance on his part.

I deal now with the motion on which the House is shortly to vote. It endorses the long-standing commitment of the Conservative party to the concept of nuclear deterrence, to a nuclear-armed NATO, to Britain's own nuclear deterrent, to disarmament through negotiation on strength and to updating where necessary the weapon systems that the United Kingdom possesses.

All those commitments, which are broadly supported by the country, are expressly denied and excluded by the Labour party's amendment. In every one of those commitments, the Conservative party and Conservative Government have led and reflected public opinion and the

---

Column 903

national interest. The same cannot be said for the Labour party which fought the previous two elections on a programme that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said was disastrous and should have been consigned to the rubbish heap.

I have already said that the success of a Government's defence policies depends on the conviction that those policies and their spokesmen carry in the eyes both of prospective opponents and of present friends. It is therefore right that, when analysing Labour's current declared policy, we should look well at what, until a few months ago, that declared policy manifestly was.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), when presenting Labour's nuclear policy in the House on 22 November, said : "Throughout the 1980s the Labour party was committed to a defence policy which, with regard to nuclear weapons, required the Labour Government to renounce ownership of Polaris and to abandon the Trident programme."--[ Official Report, 22 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 550.]

The hon. Gentleman was somewhat less than full in his description of Labour party policy. In addition to the unilateral measures which I have just described, the Labour party's 1983 manifesto called for the rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil or in British waters, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons. The same manifesto committed a Labour Government to preventing the siting of cruise missiles in Britain and to the removal of any that were then in place. Broadly similar commitments were repeated in the 1987 manifesto.

Seldom has the passage of time so swiftly, effectively and comprehensively destroyed the intellectual foundations of the main plank of a party's defence policy. The truth is that, for the past 12 years, Labour has espoused a defence policy which never had intellectual validity and which, if implemented, would have exposed Britain to grave security risks.

Mr. Winnick : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.

The House must now look with great caution at the policies that Labour now purports to espouse. They have been most recently espoused by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who is not even a member of the shadow Cabinet. That caution is reinforced when one considers the close connection that exists between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the cause of unilateralism, and the Labour party. The constitution of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has one merit : it is clear. The policies are silly and dangerous, but at least they are clear. I quote from the declared aims and policies of CND :

"CND believes that British independent nuclear weapons and American nuclear bases and weapons in Britain do nothing to increase the security of Britain and should be unilaterally and unconditionally rejected and removed."

The key elements of the Labour party manifestos of 1983 and of 1987 are to be found in the CND constitution.

It is not at all surprising that there should be a close identity of interest between the policy and constitution of CND and those of the Labour party, because many Labour Members have been or now are members of CND.

---

Column 904

Let us begin with the Leader of the Opposition. He joined CND 31 years ago. For 30 years, he was a paid-up and apparently loyal supporter of its policies. Until very recently, his public statements were unreservedly unilateralist. In 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989--in seven of the past nine years--the right hon. Gentleman publicly and enthusiastically endorsed key demands and policies of CND. Unilateral disarmament for Britain was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. The closure of nuclear bases, the decommissioning of Polaris and the cancellation of Trident were all his policies.

Then followed what was, for the right hon. Gentleman, a period of unaccustomed silence--until, in July last year, The Guardian reported that the right hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Kinnock had allowed their 30-year membership of CND to lapse. What a way to disclose a change of strategic policy. What had happened during the previous 30 months to cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his apparent convictions of 30 years? Was it that he suddenly realised that his convictions of the past 30 years were false, or did he simply realise that the electorate could not stomach them?

What about the right hon. Member for Gorton? Where did he stand in the past? We certainly do not know where he stands today. I can tell the House something about the right hon. Gentleman : he opposed the deployment of the cruise missile, and of Trident--something that he now says he supports. As recently as 1987, he sacked his adviser, Mr. Richard Heller, for writing an article that stated in precise terms the Labour party's policy of today. With what I can only describe as a cavalier disregard for the obligations of a good employer, the right hon. Gentleman issued a statement which said :

"Mr. Kaufman completely disagrees with the article"--

which, as I said, stated in every respect the Labour party's policy, in so far as it is comprehensible, as now stated.

What about the rest of the Labour Front Bench? There are 18 elected members of the shadow Cabinet, 14 of whom have been members of CND and a number of whom still are. One of them is a vice-president of CND. As late as 1989, three members of the shadow Cabinet signed Tribune 's appeal in support of British unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of the United States bases from Britain. According to Ms. Marjorie Thompson, the chairman of CND, there are now between 100 and 130 Labour Members who support CND and are its members.

There is nothing immoral about being a member of CND, but we must understand that the principles and policies of that organisation are wholly different from the principles and policies set out in the motion. They are completely incompatible with the defence policies of NATO, and cannot be reconciled with Labour's policy as currently declared. I therefore approach Labour's declared commitment to a nuclear-based defence policy with great scepticism. I do not believe that what we have heard today represents a settled statement of policy, or that it is founded upon solid conviction.

My scepticism is reinforced by a reading of the words of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who wound up the debate in November last year. Seeking to explain Labour's defence policies in the 1980s, he said :

"I make no apologies for supporting that policy six or seven years ago. It was a tactic, not a principle--and not an end in itself."--[ Official Report, 22 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 597.]

---

Column 905

I find that an extraordinary statement of policy, because I had always believed that, in so far as it had any justification at all, the Labour party's commitment to unilateralism, to the closure of bases, to the withdrawal from NATO, was based on a principle --on a deeply held conviction that those things were wrong.

That was, and appears still to be, the view of Labour Members ; it is not the view, however, of those who shape policy on the Labour Front Bench. For them the commitments which, as they now admit, would have destroyed our security were never issues of principle but bargaining ploys, chips on the table, mere tactics.

That brings me to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. We shall remember words that he used in an interview with The Independent : "If we have changed our mind to win we can change our mind when we have won. What is wrong with that?" Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland) rose in his place and claimed to move , That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made :-- The House divided : Ayes 199, Noes 345.

Division No. 35] [10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Bell, Stuart

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Blair, Tony

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Doran, Frank

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Flannery, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

George, Bruce

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gould, Bryan

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Hain, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Harman, Ms Harriet

Haynes, Frank

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

---