HL Deb 22 June 2004 vol 662 cc1118-20

3.5 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the negotiations with the United States for the renewal of the mutual defence agreement have been concluded; and whether there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate its terms.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)

My Lords, the amendments to the mutual defence agreement were signed on 14 June by US and UK representatives. Yesterday these amendments, along with an explanatory memorandum, were laid before Parliament in accordance with normal procedures for amendments to such treaties. The amendments have also been put before Congress, where they will lie for 60 days.

At present, I cannot undertake to find government time for a debate. In accordance with their undertaking in 2000 to the Procedure Committee of another place, the Government will give due consideration to any request from the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Liaison Committee for a debate. A debate in your Lordships' House will, of course, be a matter for the usual channels.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that somewhat startling Answer, can he confirm that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the nuclear powers have undertaken to negotiate in good faith for the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Given that the mutual defence agreement is specifically intended to facilitate the transfer of information and materials between the United States and the United Kingdom in order to augment their nuclear capabilities, would it be surprising if the rest of the world perceived our position as, at best, schizophrenic—or is proliferation what other countries choose?

Lord Bach

My Lords, it would be surprising. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in its entirety. Movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; hence they do not contravene the treaty. So far as concerns the United Kingdom's record, we are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. Indeed, we can claim to lead the world in our commitment to neutral, balanced and verifiable reductions. Since 1992, the UK has given up the Lance nuclear missile in artillery roles, our maritime tactical nuclear capability and all our air-launched nuclear weapons. Trident is now Britain's only nuclear system and we maintain fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads. We are the only nuclear power that has so far been prepared to take such an important step on the route to nuclear disarmament.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, will the Government undertake in future to produce in advance a full list of agreements with the United States in the defence field? That will enable this House, if the Government are not prepared to give the time, to bring forward debates to discuss these issues. Can the Minister say whether the treaty has been changed to deal with the issues raised by national missile defence?

Lord Bach

My Lords, to the last question the answer is no. So far as concerns the first question, if the suggestion is that the Government are trying to avoid proper scrutiny, I refute it emphatically. This is a longstanding agreement and its renewal does not involve any consequential change to UK legislation. The Government have laid amendments before Parliament in accordance with the Ponsonby rule—that is, they are laid before both Houses of Parliament for 21 days. A copy of the command paper and the accompanying explanatory memorandum will be sent to the relevant Select Committee, in this case the House of Commons Defence Committee. As I said in my original Answer, in accordance with our undertaking made in 2000 to the House of Commons Procedure Committee, due consideration will be given to any requests for a debate from the Defence Committee or from the Liaison Committee.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, following on from the Minister's reply, the confidential intelligence contents of the MDA have never been disclosed to Parliament. Does the Minister agree that this long-established practice should continue?

Lord Bach

My Lords, yes, I agree that that practice should continue because of the necessity for great confidentiality and because of the use that such information would be to other would-be nuclear states. In other words, it might well assist proliferation.