---

2.33 pm

Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): There appears to be a reluctance to debate nuclear weapons, their use, the circumstances in which they would be used and their so-called benefits. I should therefore like to remind hon. Members of some past statements by prominent Members about the role of nuclear weapons.

Some years ago, I initiated a debate on the future of the non-proliferation treaty. In 1995, when the Leader of the Opposition was a Back Bencher, he said:

"The possession of such weapons is of no use unless we have the will to use them. If we possess nuclear weapons, we must make it clear that we are prepared to use them; otherwise we might as well not possess them."—[Official Report, 3 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 247.]

In another debate on defence in February 1996, I asked the Liberal defence spokesperson, Sir Russell Johnston:

"If nuclear weapons were a part of our defence and if the hon. Gentleman were in a position of power, would he, if the crunch came, be willing to press the button to start off those nuclear weapons? If he did, could he anticipate some of the devastation that they would inflict on the environment and on the people of this planet?"

He replied, after a fashion, that

"the matter does get theological. I know perfectly well that there is a contradiction, but one prays that one will never have to use those weapons. I shall not go beyond that."—[Official Report, 1 February 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1164.]

The leader of the Labour party, now Prime Minister, said early in 1997 at a press conference that he would be willing to press the button to launch a nuclear attack.

Mr. Blunt: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the Prime Minister, will he tell us when the latter ceased to be his colleague in the parliamentary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?

Llew Smith: It is not my place to defend the Prime Minister's position. I am a member of CND now and I

16 Oct 2003 : Column 296

was a member some 40 years ago. I campaigned and demonstrated with my predecessor, Michael Foot, one of the great peace campaigners of the 20th century. Michael has not changed his position, I have not changed mine, but if the Prime Minister has changed his, he, not I, must justify that.

Mr. Ingram: What about Nye Bevan?

Llew Smith: If the Minister bothers to read Nye Bevan's speech on resigning from the Government, he will realise that one of the reasons for his resignation was the exorbitant amount of money that we were spending on the arms race at that time. I therefore advise the Minister to read history. If he reads the history of that period, he will become far wiser about the subject that we are considering.

Last year, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he would be willing to press the nuclear button. He replied:

"The United Kingdom would, in the right conditions, in extreme circumstances of self-defence, be prepared to use nuclear weapons."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 30W.]

I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he agreed that the most practical way of demonstrating to India and Pakistan that nuclear weapons undermined their security was for Britain to take a lead by ridding ourselves of our weapons of mass destruction. In his reply, he let slip:

"I went on the Aldermaston march when I was 12, and I think that I am entitled to change my view between the ages of 12 and 55. Indeed, I was nearer to 12 than to 55 when I changed it."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 731.]

Many would argue that he was correct when he was 12. I suppose that the comments prove that people do not always grow wiser as they grow older.

Sadly, it is clear that the leadership of all the major political parties in the House is prepared to commit mass murder with our weapons of mass destruction. That is chilling. Even if the hugely destructive weapons of mass murder were never used in anger, they have already caused the people of this country dearly in their taxes. They have cost others their environment. That applies to the lands of native American Indians in Nevada, where British nuclear warheads have been tested on sacred land, and the original uranium for nuclear warheads was obtained from Namibia, leaving a legacy of uranium miners with terrible respiratory diseases and cancers.

There is also a financial cost. The Secretary of State for Defence admitted on 8 September that the total estimated cost of Trident was approximately £15 billion. How can we always find the money to go to war and to produce weapons of mass destruction when, at the same time, we find it difficult to fund the peace, and to provide the pensions that our senior citizens deserve, free university education, and the kind of public services that communities such as my own in south Wales depend on?

The £15 billion being wasted on Trident is an obscenity. Not only could the financial resources have been better deployed, but the skills and talents of our designers, engineers, computer experts, construction workers and many more have been diverted from socially useful employment into developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

16 Oct 2003 : Column 297

In 1953, shortly after becoming President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower—not a wild-eyed left wing revolutionary but a right-wing Republican—said something that we can all learn from:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who are old and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . This is not a way of life at all in any sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron".

Sadly, our diplomats, as well as our politicians, try to hoodwink the global public over our nuclear weapons of mass destruction. For example, Britain's representative at the 2002 non-proliferation treaty preparation meetings, ambassador Peter Jenkins, announced that the UK had

"unilaterally reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads, which represents a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our deterrent since the end of the Cold War."

But as CND's excellent briefing points out, the 70 per cent. reduction in the explosive power of British nuclear weapons has been achieved largely by replacing older, higher yield warheads such as Polaris and WE177 with the lower yield but more flexible Trident warhead. We should remember what that much-despised but ultimately wise US President, Jimmy Carter, said in his final speech to the American people as President in January 1981. He said:

"In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall. A World War II every second—more people killed in the first few hours than all the wars of history put together. The survivors, if any, would live in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilization that had committed suicide."

We should listen, and if we do, we shall learn.

Even the current US Secretary of State, Colin Powell—while still Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff—at Harvard university in June, 10 years ago, could say:

"Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when that number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place."

Sadly the Bush Administration, of which Powell is now a part, are going in the opposite direction.

We must continue the campaign against all nuclear weapons, in this country and in all other countries that possess them, or aspire to possess them, just as Michael Foot—my predecessor in Blaenau Gwent—is still, at 90 years of age, rightly raging against the madness of nuclear weapons. Yet while the Government argue in favour of British nuclear weapons of mass destruction, they were seemingly willing to go to war against Iraq, with all the suffering and death that that brought, because that country was supposedly trying to obtain such weapons.

Meanwhile, Israel's ownership of nuclear weapons seems acceptable to our Government, as it obviously is to the Government of the United States. In the debate on Iraq in September last year, I reminded the House that the former Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordecai

16 Oct 2003 : Column 298

Vanunu, had been rotting in an Israeli prison for the past 17 years, when his only crime—if it can be so described—was to tell the truth and to inform the world about Israel's nuclear role, when all around him were lying. Sadly, my own Government have done almost nothing over those 17—now 18—years to obtain the release of Vanunu, who is a giant of the peace movement.

Under our current policy of insane possession of nuclear weapons, we make ourselves and the rest of the world even more insecure, as other countries misguidedly seek, at huge financial and environmental cost, to copy our own nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion—and in the opinion of CND and the wider peace movement—that is unacceptable. I say on behalf of all people with a grain of common sense that the march towards nuclear destruction must stop.

2.46 pm

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): It seems curious to have a defence debate but no Defence White Paper. Like many hon. Members, I feel that today's debate is perhaps a softening-up exercise for the issues that we might discuss in a week's time. Nevertheless, recent events have clearly had an impact on British defence strategy. As the Government appear to have abandoned the strategic defence review, they certainly have some explaining to do. Today and next week will provide them with the opportunity to do that.

I join other hon. Members in remembering the bravery of those who lost their lives and of those who are still in Iraq, whom we wish a safe and swift return home.

The forthcoming Defence White Paper will have to strike some careful balances—the Secretary of State tried to tiptoe his way through that minefield earlier—so the sooner it is published the better. The longer the rumours about infantry cuts or procurement troubles are allowed to persist, the more morale will suffer.

The Secretary of State was careful to stress that, as the Ministry of Defence learns the lessons from Iraq, it should be careful not to learn simply how to fight the last war. I hope that he sticks to his own advice. He also said, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) repeated it, that it was highly unlikely that the United Kingdom would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States. As a nation, we occupy a vital position as a key ally of the US, a central player in NATO, a member of the UN Security Council and an important member of the EU and the Commonwealth. Additionally, we still have commitments to our overseas territories. I do not need to remind the House that the US was not overly helpful during the Falklands crisis.

---