| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must admit that I find the noble Lord's question a little difficult to follow. However, bearing in mind all that we have discussed on this issue on previous occasions, I believe that the UK, having already made a number of reductions to the nuclear arsenal on a national basis, has shown good faith and it is absolutely right that we should have signed the non-proliferation treaty. Our deterrent is of a
minimum consistent with assessment of our security requirements. Any nation which possesses a nuclear deterrent must have a credible deterrent if it is to deter.I do not believe that the noble Lord yet accepts what your Lordships in general accept; that NATO has a strategy of war prevention. The strategy includes its nuclear element. That is essential to the process of forging the new relationships on international defence agreements.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me and the House and set the record straight. Is it not a fact that when the International Court of Justice was asked by the World Health Organisation to give an opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons it declined to do so? Is it not further a fact that the comment about this being against humanitarian law was contained in a statement by one judge who gave a dissenting opinion? Is it not misleading, therefore, to suggest that that is the opinion of the International Court of Justice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. When the case was referred to it, the court decided that it did not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law in any circumstances. The legality of any such use would depend on all the circumstances of the case. As I said when answering a previous Question in your Lordships' House, one judge dissented, and it is on his view that a few noble Lords and some others have seized.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, but did not the court make it clear that normally the use of nuclear weapons would be in conflict with international humanitarian law and that the exceptions were very rigidly defined? Do the Government take seriously the opinion of the International Court of Justice? Do they propose to initiate any kind of discussions on the implications? Or is the whole matter simply to be left as it is?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as I can see, a large majority in the court found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. That was perfectly clear. We have made it clear that we would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence and in extreme circumstances. That is absolutely clear. The point is that, taken as a whole, the opinion of the court does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamental principles of our nuclear posture. The text of Article VI makes clear that each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures. I do not think there is the lack of distinction which the noble and learned Lord tries to pose.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if no new factors arise from the decision of the international court, why do the Government have difficulty in acceding to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, those are under consideration, as the noble Lord knows.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in these circumstances and if the Minister says that the Government are so reasonable, what is stopping them entering into a convention on the matter? They entered into a convention on nuclear weapons. So why can they not equally enter into a convention to obtain some certainty on this matter which at the moment depends entirely on interpretation? I must inform the Minister that her interpretation and the Government's interpretation are not widely accepted outside the nuclear states.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not think that I have anything to add to my previous answers. We know that the recommendation for an end to nuclear testing has been largely met by the conclusion of the CTBT. We also know that all such matters are reviewed when necessary. We have made much progress on disarmament. In fact, we have led much of it by the elimination of our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and the withdrawal of our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not another serious danger the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union which, according to press reports, are not protected securely by the Russian army? Can anything be done about that situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord should not always believe all that he reads in press reports. Nevertheless, I accept that we do not know enough about the safety of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. It is for that very reason that efforts have been made to get to know more and to help in the safe dismantling of such weapons. We may not be successful in that, but at least the West is trying.
Business of the House: Debate,
12th February
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill, has
consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill offers an important opportunity to the tenants of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to take on ownership of the estates and to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities which ownership will give them. I am grateful for the positive and constructive approach which noble Lords have taken in considering the proposals that we put before the House.
I am especially grateful to those Members of your Lordships' House who joined the Select Committee that took evidence both on Skye and in Inverness. Their contribution was significant. Specifically, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for his expert chairmanship of that Select Committee, and other Members, such as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I look forward to seeing the first proposals for crofting trusts emerge in the near future.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. Happily, I have had to do little work on it because it has all been done by my noble friends Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Thurso. I wish the Bill well. It is a very complex Bill and a great deal of work will have to be undertaken before viable and good crofting estates pass into the hands of workable bodies which can promote their well-being and expand the interests of the area. As I have said, I wish the Bill well, but it will be a long time before all the estates that are now in the Government's hands are in the hands of such bodies.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has spoken, I should like to thank in the first place the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his customary help and courtesy and for his work in helping us with the Bill. We are accustomed to such help and courtesy from him, but that does not mean that he should never receive a word of thanks.
I should also like to put on record my gratitude to the crofters of the Annishadder and Borve estates and of the other estates on Skye which we visited, who gave their time so generously to help us. We learned a great deal from our visits to them and we were all very grateful for their help.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Clause 1 [Extension of s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms etc.]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 12, 16, 27 to 29, 39, 41 to 46, 48 to 50, 52 and 53. The amendments stand in my name and are all minor and consequential. They seek to ensure that visitors with firearm or shotgun permits are treated the same as firearm and shotgun certificate holders in respect of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("small").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page