Asked by
The Lord
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
reconcile differences between nuclear possessor states and
non-nuclear possessor states at the Review Conference of the
Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom recognises its responsibilities as a
bridge builder among nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states
at the 10th review conference on the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. To support discussions, we
are submitting working papers on transparency, verification and
peaceful uses. We will host side events including a joint P5
event on doctrines and policy.
The Lord
I thank the Minister for his response and wholeheartedly welcome
the recent P5 affirmation of the Gorbachev-Reagan principle. But
in an unstable world where nuclear proliferation is a growing
threat and widespread arsenal modernisation is a reality, these
words must be backed up by actions—since the grand bargain of the
NPT is that non-proliferation can be successful only if pursued
in tandem with disarmament. Would the Government consider
initiating a P5+ process to allow nuclear weapon states and
non-possessor states to work collaboratively on key areas of
concern? Mindful of the upcoming TPNW first meeting of states
parties, will he explain the strategy for engaging constructively
with the concerns underlying the TPNW in preparation for the
forthcoming NPT conference in the common cause of disarmament?
(Con)
My Lords, within the NPT, as the right reverend Prelate will
know, there are three key strands: disarmament,
non-proliferation, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Like
him, I recognise the importance earlier this month of the P5
declaration. The UK was instrumental in getting that over the
line. We are looking forward to the review conference of the NPT,
which was unfortunately delayed because of Covid, but I
understand it will now take place in August. On the issue of
nuclear against non-nuclear states, through the P5 format we are
engaging directly with those countries. With the exception of
four or five countries, everyone else has signed up to the NPT
and we have a structured programme of engagement. On the TPNW
specifically, the UK firmly believes that the only way to achieve
a world without nuclear weapons is through gradual multilateral
disarmament, and the best way to do that is through the NPT.
(Lab)
Picking up that last point, can the Minister explain how the
Government support multilateral disarmament initiatives while
announcing in the integrated review an increase in the number of
nuclear warheads the UK can hold?
(Con)
My Lords, the announcements that we made in that respect are
totally consistent with our obligations under the NPT. Specific
elements and aspects within the NPT ensure that we meet those
obligations. Requirements within the NPT ensure that all
countries that have signed up to it fulfil their obligations, and
the United Kingdom does just that.
(CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept how welcome it was that the
Government —perhaps a little belatedly—agreed to the P5 statement
that
“a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”
which was issued last week? What do the Government intend with
regard to the strategic dialogue among the P5 for achieving a
reduction in the risk of nuclear war? What is the timetable for
further meetings and what content are the Government putting into
that dialogue?
(Con)
My Lords, first, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The United
Kingdom was actually central in its convening role in pushing for
the P5 statement and we were delighted that all countries
committed. Notwithstanding many of the issues that we debate in
your Lordships’ House, there needs to be a recognition that all
five countries signed up to this, and we take direct
encouragement from that. We work in a structured way with other
P5 members in relation to other countries. For example, we work
closely on issues that are currently under way in Geneva, through
the JCPOA discussions on Iran, and on issues around the DPRK to
ensure that we focus particularly on the non-proliferation
element.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, every hour of every
day and every night, somewhere in the world one of our Trident
submarines is on patrol, ready to respond should our supreme
national interest so require? And I mean “on patrol”, not on the
way out or on the way back.
(Con)
I am sure that I share with my noble friend and everyone in your
Lordships’ House a real admiration for all elements of our
military, including our naval assets. Of course, I cannot discuss
specific operational aspects, but I can say to my noble friend
that we have one of the best militaries, and indeed navies, in
the world.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked the Minister how he
could justify the increase in the number of warheads. He says
that that is in line with our commitments under the NPT. If that
is the case, what actions are Her Majesty’s Government actually
taking to look for disarmament? The Minister said that we support
multilateral disarmament, yet we seem to be increasing our
armaments. So what, in practical terms, are we doing to meet our
commitments?
(Con)
My Lords, on the specific point about our own capacity,
ultimately of course we retain our defensive capacity. Referring
back to the P5 statement, it was encouraging that all countries
have underlined the importance of the defensive nature of being
nuclear states. On specific aspects of what we are doing, we
have, for example, recently had discussions with other countries,
including the likes of New Zealand, specifically looking at
elements of the NPT. We also ensure that we look at issues of
disarmament through regular reviews, ensuring that bodies are set
up to review the capacity of countries to develop nuclear weapons
and ensure that they do not do so. We work together with our P5
partners to ensure that that remains the case.
(LD)
My Lords, exactly how are the Government proposing to meet the
cost of the 40 additional nuclear warheads referred to in the
integrated review—or are they to be funded out of the already
overstretched defence budget?
(Con)
My Lords, on the specifics of that question, I will of course
defer to my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence and will write
to the noble Lord. But, as he will be aware, in the recent review
that took place we increased our defence spending, and that was
long overdue.
(CB)
My Lords, Nikita Kruschev said that, in the event of a nuclear
war, the living would envy the dead. The noble Lord has said that
the P5 have rightly said that there should be no first use of
nuclear weapons and that this would lead to mutually assured
destruction. Having said that, the noble Lord has also referred
to rogue states, such as North Korea—the DPRK. Can he tell the
House more about its development of hypersonic missiles, its use
of submarines and the threats that it is making to its
neighbours?
(Con)
My Lords, first, on the P5 element, all countries have sustained
their position on nuclear weapons being a defensive mechanism —I
stress that point again. The noble Lord rightly raised the
current issues in the DPRK. It is clear that the missile test
that recently took place was in direct contravention of the UN
Security Council resolutions, and we are undertaking discussions
on that element directly with our UN colleagues.
(Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the reason we have not
had a world war since 1945 is nuclear weapons? Would he also
agree that we should have some pride that our nation has only one
system for nuclear weapons and have reduced them to an absolute
minimum—to such a scale that I think we had to say that we would
get some more weapons while we were doing a changeover? However,
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we really must get
methods of engaging with countries such as Russia because,
otherwise, something will go wrong. The nuclear clock is moving
towards midnight, and we must really strain ourselves to get
links with these countries so that something does not go wrong.
There is no doubt that, for example, if we did not have nuclear
weapons at all and Russia had them, with Mr Putin there, it would
go ahead and do what it wanted. We really have to make that
effort.
(Con)
My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and
Lord West, I agree that we must continue to engage. As the
Minister for the United Nations, I recognise that where we have
issues of disagreement with other nuclear states, including
Russia, it is vital that we continue to engage, and we are doing
just that. While they are specific not to the nuclear issue but
to the wider security situation in Europe and Ukraine, we are
today holding meetings through our NATO partners. My colleague,
Minister Cleverly, is present. He will meet, among others, the
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister to discuss security issues.
On the noble Lord’s first point, that nuclear weapons have
ensured that we have kept peace in Europe, and on his second,
that we have the best forces, my answer to him is yes and yes.
(GP)
My Lords, the P5 statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and
must never be fought is of course hugely welcome, but it did not
repeat a phrase used in earlier, similar statements that
reaffirmed denuclearisation as an “unequivocal undertaking”. Does
the Minister agree that that is the case?
(Con)
My Lords, what I can say to the noble Baroness—and as the noble
Lord, Lord West, has pointed out—is that the primary aim of
nuclear weapons being in the armoury of any country, including
our own, is to be a deterrent. We have achieved that objective,
but we must work together as P5 members to ensure the key
elements: that for those countries that have nuclear weapons we
look towards disarmament and that for those countries that do not
have nuclear weapons we look at non-proliferation.
