HC Deb 20 June 2000 vol 352 cc143-5
5. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)

What discussions he has had with his US and Russian counterparts following the conclusion of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. [125208]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain)

We continue to maintain close contact with both the United States and Russian Governments on nuclear non-proliferation issues.

Mr. Savidge

I congratulate my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government on the role that they played in the success of that conference. May I urge the Government to work together with other nuclear weapons states to fulfil the spirit and the letter of the obligations entered into there, particularly on the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties and on progress with nuclear disarmament?

Mr. Hain

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that Britain played a pivotal role in achieving a successful outcome to the non-proliferation treaty conference. We did so because after my speech in New York, I had discussions with the new agenda coalition—in particular the Irish, the New Zealanders and the South Africans—to say that we would work with the P5 nuclear states to try to achieve a common position. For the first time, an absolutely unequivocal declaration was given by the five nuclear states, Britain included, to work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and for progress on all the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred, including, crucially, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the fissile material cut-off treaty; and we will work vigorously to achieve entry into force of both treaties.

Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire)

What is the Government's current attitude towards the United States national missile defence programme?

Mr. Hain

The Government's stance has been well stated. We are waiting to see what proposals the United States has for national missile defence and then we will make a judgment. I was, however, encouraged by the discussions between Presidents Clinton and Putin in Russia only a few weeks ago in which they agreed to discuss this matter and see whether they could find common ground. It is vital that whatever is done, the anti-ballistic missile treaty is not damaged but kept alive and in force, and that Russia and the United States continue to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and to co-operate, whether NMD—which is an untested, unproven system—develops or not.

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

Does the Minister agree that while welcoming any Russian initiatives to bring about nuclear disarmament, we do not support Russia's plans to re-use plutonium taken from warheads to make so-called MOX nuclear fuel? Does the Minister agree that that would be both dangerous and environmentally damaging?

Mr. Hain

Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and close expert interest in this matter. We remain very concerned about the use to which nuclear material is put in Russia, because a huge amount of it is available. It is important to world peace that the use of such material is properly monitored and regulated.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)

The Minister knows that on national missile defence, the American Administration have made an informal request to know what the Government's position will be on upgrading the radar tracking facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. The House will want to know what the Government's response to that has been to enable the United States to deploy NMD if it decides to do so. Will the Government arrange to have an early debate in the House on this issue, which is of huge importance and comparable with the deployment of cruise missiles in the 1980s? The House will be keen to know on which side of the debate Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members such as the Minister will be.

Mr. Hain

I remain on the Government's side of the debate. Indeed, I speak for the Government on these matters, and am doing so at present. As for the Government's attitude to national missile defence and any proposal that has not come in any specified form from the Americans so far, the difference between us and the Conservatives is that they will say yes to anything, even before they know what it is. The system has not been tested; it is vulnerable to decoys and all sorts of other technological devices. I urge the Conservative party to be cautious here. If and when the Americans decide to proceed with the system, we will consider it.

As I have said, we shall urge negotiations with the Russians to achieve consensus. How can we adopt an attitude, as the Conservative Opposition have done, to a system and a policy that are not at all clear, and on which the Americans have made no decision?