Nuclear Weapons Arsenal (Hansard, 8 February 1994)

§ 5. Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal following the ending of the cold war.

§ Mr. Aitken
The Government have already announced substantial reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear forces and weapons, including a cut of more than 50 per cent. in our sub-strategic stockpile.

§ Mr. Cohen
Instead of the Government's creative accountancy in the area, will the Minister consider how other countries view Trident? Especially since the non-proliferation treaty is coming up for extension next year, would an equivalent Minister of another country consider doubling the strategic warheads, as 96 strategic warheads per Trident submarine have replaced 48 per Polaris submarine? Has not the Home Office recently disbanded the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation which existed to detect nuclear blasts and radiation, travelling around the country in the course of its work? Has the Home Office disbanded it because it believes that there is no need for it—and if there is no threat, why do we need Trident?

§ Mr. Aitken
The House is used to listening to the unreconstructed voice of old-fashioned unilateralism from the hon. Gentleman. When it comes to accountancy matters, the hon. Gentleman has his figures seriously wrong. When the Trident submarines are fully in service, the explosive power of Britain's operational total of strategic and sub-strategic nuclear inventory will even then be substantially lower than before the Berlin wall came down. It would be a reduction of more than 25 per cent.

§ Mr. Booth
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past year, £27 million of British taxpayers' money was spent in Russia on dismantling nuclear equipment and transporting it away? Is that not an example of the generosity of Britain and the good sense of the Government which deserves credit?

§ Mr. Aitken
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, with which I agree. It was an imaginative gesture by the Government and we gave slightly more to the Government of Russia than my hon. Friend suggested—some £35 million in total—so that they could build, or have built for them by GKN in Britain, safe carriers to move their nuclear weapons to places of safety.

§ Mr. McAllion
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State personally received the petition handed 132 to the Ministry of Defence on 27 January by Grandparents' Action Against Trident? Will he also confirm that the Secretary of State has read the petition and understood the arguments against what the grandparents call Trident madness? Does he especially understand the basic point that it is unsustainable for the Government to argue that nuclear weapons are essential to the national defence of this country while, at the same time, arguing that nuclear weapons should be outlawed for the defence of almost every other country?

§ Mr. Aitken
My right hon. and learned Friend's private secretary received the petition and has given it to my right hon. and learned Friend. On the second point, I simply cannot agree. It is still an uncertain and dangerous world and a minimum nuclear deterrent is essential ultimately to safeguard Britain's security.