Nuclear Disarmament (Hansard, 20 June 1995)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we have already made significant reductions in our nuclear forces and made clear that we would join multilateral negotiations for the global reduction of nuclear weapons when reductions by the United States and Russia bring their forces to a level comparable to our own minimum deterrent.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in signing the non-proliferation treaty and in order to make it permanent, the Government, as a nuclear power, reaffirm their undertaking to pursue: in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament"? What action, other than the measures which the Minister has already mentioned, are the Government taking or proposing to take in pursuance of that undertaking?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we are doing just that and we are pursuing such measures in good faith. But as I made quite clear, we see little point in reducing further our nuclear deterrent, which has already been reduced by some 59 per cent. in terms of the total explosive power of the warheads since the early 1970s. It is at a minimum and we see no case for reducing it further until we see further reductions on the part of the nuclear superpowers.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, as a matter of strict accuracy, does the Minister agree that the non-proliferation treaty makes no reference whatever to complete nuclear disarmament? Does the Minister also agree that complete nuclear disarmament—leaving advanced conventional weapons and other weapons of mass destruction untouched—would be a very dangerous process? Is not the correct goal general and complete disarmament under international control, however distant and Utopian that might be?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. I believe that he refers to Article 6 which talks about pursuing such matters in good faith, which we shall do. However, it also talks about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. As the noble Lord implied, that is possibly a Utopian goal. But it does not stop us pursuing it.

§ Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has just been extended for another five years. However, with the collapse or near disintegration of most of the Russian navy, army and airforce, the only forces which are still doing extremely well are the Russian strategic forces, which have no intention of cutting down; nor, may I say, do the Americans. Therefore, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is definitely not the moment for our Government unilaterally to disarm our nuclear deterrent?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps I may assist her and add that the non-proliferation treaty has been extended indefinitely and not just for a period of five years. As I made clear in my original Answer and as I have made clear on many occasions when answering the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we believe that it is necessary to maintain just a minimum nuclear deterrent.

§ Lord Howell
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the view that the Government take of the announcement by the United States' Government that they intend to resume nuclear testing underground and that of the French Government that they intend to do the same in the Far East? In view of the fact that those nations signed up to the nuclear test ban treaty, do the British Government regard those announcements with the same dismay as, apparently, do all the other nations? Further, can the Minister assure us that, despite pressure from British scientists, the Government have no intention at all of resuming nuclear testing, which is unnecessary given the facilities now available for doing so by computer in the laboratory?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the French themselves to decide whether or not they wish to test. Obviously, the main objective is to conclude the comprehensive test ban treaty. We welcome the fact that 149 the French are still committed to that treaty. As regards the Americans, I am aware of press reports to that effect. However, we are in fairly regular contact with the United States on nuclear matters. We have no reason to believe that they have any intention of abandoning their moratorium on tests. We have no plans to test while their moratorium is in force. But we have made clear that, while working for a comprehensive test ban treaty which will seek to ban all nuclear weapon tests, we reserve the right and have made clear the fact that we must be allowed to take adequate steps to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.

§ The Earl of Kimberley
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if Afghanistan had had a nuclear bomb once upon a time, it is highly improbable that the Soviet Union would have invaded that country?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I suspect that that is unlikely. However, that is a hypothetical question. The point is that we would prefer not to see a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons in states which are possibly not quite as stable as the states in which we have the fortune to live.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on this side of the House, we do not believe that the French decision to resume nuclear testing is one for the French alone? Indeed, it is a matter for the world. Does the Minister agree that, if the United States were to open up the Nevada desert for further testing, it would give the British Government the opportunity—should they wish to take it—to test again in the Nevada desert facilities? Will the Minister give the House an absolutely categorical assurance that the British Government will not avail themselves of that opportunity?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second question, the answer is no. In response to the first question, I have to say that, unlike the party opposite, I am not the French Government. I believe that it is a matter for the French Government and not for us.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has reiterated the fact that he is concerned with the minimum nuclear deterrent? However, a minimum deterrent is often defined as one capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on a possible adversary. Many people would say that a dozen warheads would be enough for that. Why then are the Government insisting on 20 or 30 times that number of warheads?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I believe that we are insisting on what is a minimum deterrent; that is exactly what we are setting out.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I included the word "complete" in my initial Question, because it does in fact appear in the United Nations' document, but that I did not, if I recall correctly, include it in my supplementary question? Does the Minister agree that, if complete disarmament in the however distant future does take place, it will of necessity include nuclear disarmament?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it is possible that I was not careful enough in noting the precise distinction between the noble Lord's original Question and his supplementary question.