Independent Nuclear Deterrent (Hansard, 10 January 1989)

§ 10. Mr. Summerson
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what point in the arms control process the Government will be willing to discuss a reduction in the United Kingdom strategic independent nuclear deterrent.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
Our policy remains as set out in paragraph 222 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", to the effect that if Soviet and United States strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced, and if no significant improvements had occurred in Soviet defence capabilities, we would want to consider how we could best contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat.

§ Mr. Summerson
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Mr. Gorbachev has been in power for only about four years, and the Communist system remains in its entirety? Will the Government bear that fact in mind when considering future changes in nuclear weapons, so that the future defence of this country may be upheld?

§ Mr. Hamilton
It is true that the offensive capability of the Soviet Union remains, and we must have a deterrent to stop any Soviet attack in the future.

§ Mr. Cryer
Is the United Kingdom not obliged, under clause 6 of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which we honour and to which we conform—to get rid of our nuclear weapons? Is it not a breach of that treaty and a discouragement of the 135 non-nuclear nations that signed the treaty to deploy nuclear weapons as we do?

§ Mr. Hamilton
The United Kingdom is not covered by the non-proliferation treaty.

§ Mr. John Greenway
Is it not a fact that Mr. Gorbachev has recognised that the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent is not to be included in the nuclear arms control talks at present?

§ Mr. Hamilton
That is true, but what we are supporting is the strategic arms reduction talks, which propose a 50 per cent. reduction on both sides. There is no question of our deterrent being included in those talks.

Mr. O'Neill
Does the Minister recognise that we are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, but cannot be signatories to the first Start treaty, although we could well be signatories to the second Start treaty? Have the Government given any consideration to making British nuclear weapons available in the second round of arms reduction talks, following the early completion of the present round between the Soviet Union and the United States?

§ Mr. Hamilton
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we put much greater importance on the conventional reductions and the global chemical ban, which we think should come first.
Later—

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question to question No. 10 on the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. The Minister denied that Britain was a signatory to the treaty. Is it possible to allow a correction to Hansard to be made by the Minister because he was incorrect? I know that he is new to the job, but he should be accurate. We are signatories to the treaty. The Minister was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), but the record in Hansard will be misleading. It will show the Minister to be incompetent and will suggest that Britain is not prepared to honour clause 6 of the treaty which obliges us to get rid of nuclear weapons.

§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that Britain was not covered by the treaty; I did not say that we are not a signatory to it.