Trident (Hansard, 11 January 1995)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the basis of their belief (Official Report, 12/12/94; WA 109) that Trident is a stabilising force while operating under British control but would become "dangerously destabilising" if acquired by another country.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
My Lords, in Europe we have a stable deterrence environment which has been established over a period of many years and the United Kingdom Trident force will make an important contribution to maintaining that. The proliferation of nuclear weapons outside such a stable deterrence system would pose great dangers.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, but is not the noble Lord aware that it may be difficult for the 173 Government to reconcile the position which they adopt with their allegiance to the non-proliferation treaty? I believe that an important conference to discuss that treaty will be held in April. Is it not the case that the Government will perhaps be seen at that conference as advising nuclear disarmament for everyone else but themselves?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the conference that is looking to further renewal of the non-proliferation treaty, which was first agreed to, as I think the noble Lord knows, in 1970 and was to last for 25 years. We are committed to securing an unconditional and an indefinite extension treaty at the conference that will start in April and we believe that an extension will be of benefit to all parties whether they are nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states. I would accept, with the noble Lord, that under the existing treaty we are committed under Article 6 to work towards nuclear disarmament in a context of complete and general disarmament. However, we do not believe that that is a practical or realistic policy goal in either the short or the medium term.

§ Lord Carver
My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he means by "stable deterrence system"?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I take it that the noble and gallant Lord would accept that in Europe the deterrence between the two great powers has been stable for a number of years and will continue to be stable. I think any changes that we might make unilaterally as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, could endanger that stability. It would be unwise to do it unilaterally. It might be that we could work towards these things by means of further talks.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that it is rather peculiar that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should have put down this precise Question, since the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which he was an ornament, and perhaps still is (if the campaign exists—the noble Lord obviously does) used to urge upon us the fact that the nuclear weapons held by ourselves and our allies were terribly dangerous whereas the nuclear weapons held by the Soviet Union were, if anything, benign?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Of course I cannot speculate on the motives which inspire the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to put down his Questions and why he puts them down in a form which might even seem to imply that we should encourage other nations to acquire nuclear weapons. That is something that I would not agree with, and I presume that the noble Lord would not agree with it.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, will the Minister accept that we rather resent some comments from noble Lords on the other side of the House on the motives for putting down Questions? There is no doubt that my noble friend has put down this Question as a serious inquiry about the non-proliferation treaty. I am glad to see that the Minister, unlike some of his colleagues on those Benches, is treating it as such.
174 The noble Lord said that there is a European deterrent system. Is it not the case that Trident and the Trident force is assigned to NATO and therefore that this is a NATO arrangement rather than a purely European arrangement? Is it not further the case, as I think the noble Lord himself has conceded, that, without a further definition of the purpose of NATO, it would be very difficult in the new conference which is to take place in New York in April/May to persuade those outside NATO that they should not have similar weapon systems to those which exist inside NATO?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as regards the first of the points which the noble Lord raised, as I made quite clear, I do not speculate on the motives of noble Lords in putting down Questions. Similarly, I do not speculate as to why my noble friends ask various supplementary questions.
As regards the conference on the next non-proliferation treaty I said, and I maintain, that I believe it will be of benefit to all parties, whether nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states, to see an extension of that treaty. As long as our security depends on the possession of nuclear weapons, we are committed to maintaining an effective and up-to-date minimum deterrent. That is perfectly consistent with our non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Turning to the final part of the noble Lord's question as to whether Trident is assigned entirely to NATO, the noble Lord is correct, in that it contributes to NATO's strategy in terms of war prevention but it is also the ultimate guarantee of our own national security.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that an air-portable and air-launched nuclear weapon capability is essential to maintaining the strategic deterrent credibility of our Trident system?

§ Lord Henley
No, my Lords. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, the number of WE 177 airborne free-fall bombs has been reduced and we have announced that we shall not be replacing them. Thereafter we shall depend entirely on Trident for both our strategic and non-strategic nuclear capability.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, while I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House probably agree that the United Kingdom will use the power resulting from its possession of nuclear weapons responsibly, does the Minister agree that that view may not be held by the majority of non-nuclear signatories of the non-proliferation treaty? Does he not realise that they feel that we should comply with Clause 6 of that treaty by reducing our nuclear armaments rather than increasing them?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it may be that they will argue that particular case, but we shall strongly argue our case that it is to the benefit of all, both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, to further the treaty.
As to whether we ourselves have made any progress, I can assure the noble Lord that, with the abandonment of our maritime surface tactical nuclear 175 capability, our nuclear artillery and the Lance missiles, and the announcement that I have just repeated that we shall not be replacing the free-fall WE 177 bombs, by the time Trident is fully operational our nuclear arsenal will be some 25 per cent. less powerful than in 1990.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether it will be possible for Trident to be used without the consent and assistance of the United States? Further, can it be targeted independently of any advice and assistance which the United States may give?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, Trident is an independent deterrent which belongs to Her Majesty's Government.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is not Trident assigned to NATO and therefore targeted according to NATO requirements?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I have already answered that question. It is the ultimate guarantee of the United Kingdom's own security.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not mind what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says? There are occasions when what he says is worth listening to.
Is it not the case that the Government and I share a common objective here? Both the Government and I are committed to the ultimate disappearance of the nuclear weapon. We may have different ideas as to the speed with which that is accomplished or as to the method which should be adopted, but, oddly enough—and some noble Lords may not appreciate the fact-—our ultimate aim is the same. However, the Government do not mention as frequently as I do the necessity of getting rid of the nuclear weapon.
Having regard to the fact that we have that object in common, will the Government not consider the possibility that the notion which I believe will come up at the forthcoming conference that the West is on one side and everybody else is on the other is dangerous and one which they should do their best to avoid?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord may say that he and I are in agreement on a number of matters, but our disagreement on the question of timing is fairly crucial to the arguments here.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the answer which the noble Lord gave me. He said that the Trident weapon was independent. Can he then confirm that it can be used without the United States' consent and assistance and can be targeted independently of United States' assistance?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, like its predecessor, Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent. That means exactly that. I can go no further.