Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear order and the UK remains fully committed to it. It is a treaty that has kept us safe for over half a century, underpinning international security by constraining the spread of nuclear weapons. Although it is disappointing that consensus could not be reached in New York, the review conference covered a thorough examination of global progress to implement NPT obligations over the past four years so as to identify positive progress and those areas that remain challenging. We will continue to work with partners across the world to strengthen implementation of the treaty across all three of its pillars.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will appreciate that the threat of nuclear war is as great as it ever was. The fact that the NPT did not reach a consensus was very disappointing, as she says. Will the Government continue, with all the energy they have, to pursue the things that they pursued very well before the treaty, including the UK’s capacity in verification science, nuclear safeguards, strategic stability and arms control negotiations, and, in particular, diplomatic engagement? Diplomatic engagement is the absolute prime issue in keeping us safe before we reach world disarmament, which we may never reach.

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I am happy to give her the assurances that she seeks.

My Lords, one of the greatest issues facing nuclear weapons non-proliferation is that of Iran. Both sides of this House are agreed that Iran must never develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s latest assessment of what progress Iran is making towards developing nuclear weapons and the effect of the recent United States strikes on that capacity?

As the noble Lord knows, we are deeply concerned about the behaviour of Iran with regards to its nuclear programme. We are committed to doing what is necessary to prevent Iran ever obtaining the use of nuclear weaponry. As for the current conflict that we have recently seen resumed, we are all concerned about the impact that that is having, and indeed whether or not that is having the effect within Iran that we would all wish to see.

My Lords, commitment is not enough. There is a mood going around the capitals of the world that Ukraine would be in much better shape today if it had kept its nuclear weapons. This has led a number of other countries to say that they want to be in on the NPT existing nuclear power list as well. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly as it is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce these things—at any moment they could be produced by non-state actors and end up in irresponsible hands. Will the Minister put a little more strength into the commitment of this Government—indeed, all Governments—to see that we make sure that the whole NPT system does not crumble under very loose and general pressures now going on?

I am I happy to make that clear. The failure to reach consensus on this occasion, given the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, is not a complete surprise. The President did not put the text for consideration in the end, because it was clear that the US was not going to back it. It was an omission of text, rather than a disagreement over the substance of what was said. That is why that did not happen. It is in no way an indication that the United Kingdom or any of our partners or allies are intending to turn away from this treaty. As the noble Lord said, it is the cornerstone that has prevented proliferation of nuclear weaponry for five decades now, and we are committed to it.

My Lords, will the UK Government liaise with France, which is taking over the chairmanship, to ensure that what has been agreed is maintained and that the technical expertise is also maintained? Can the Minister comment on the committee that the Government are setting up in the House of Commons, sadly with no representation from this House, to scrutinise UK nuclear expenditure? Given that the workings of that committee are going to mostly be classified, how does that help public engagement with understanding the issue, or help to secure commitment to maintaining non-proliferation?

I am afraid that I know absolutely nothing about the committee that is being set up at the other end of the building.

My Lords, I will follow on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about our diplomatic capabilities and technical capabilities, which we have always contributed strongly to this process. The FCDO is in some degree of institutional turmoil, seeing significant regular changes in leadership, and we know that it is expecting significant cuts. Can the Minister assure me that these essential capabilities will be maintained? More than that, do the Government understand that, yes, we have to think about security and our defence, but diplomacy is absolutely crucial to our future security?

I assure the noble Baroness that the FCDO is not in turmoil. The way I look at it is that defence, diplomacy and development work closely together. They are all needed in order to keep this country safe and to ensure stability. We have focus and diplomatic focus, despite the fact that we are making changes to the structure of the organisation, which were left incomplete following the merger of two large government departments. Our commitment to defence, diplomacy and development remains as true as it ever has been.

My Lords, does the Minister not find it slightly embarrassing that she should give the answer that she did to the noble Lord that she knows nothing about a committee formed in the House of Commons in relation to such an important matter?

Not at all. My job is as the Minister with responsibility for development in Africa. I am confident that there are Members of this House who are very able, should they so wish, in order to respond to the suggestions of the noble Lord, to set up a committee to examine these matters and to do so in a more public way than has been deemed appropriate. I am sure Members in the Commons had their reasons for setting their committee up in the way that they did. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of Members of this House to address those issues in the way that they see fit.

My Lords, can the Minister say something about New START, the treaty which was the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the US and Russia, which has expired? What is the future of that treaty? I know that is a slightly separate issue, but it is related.

That might be a question better addressed to my colleague at the Ministry of Defence. My understanding of these issues is that our position remains consistent with that of previous Administrations. I do not have anything new that would be particularly illuminating in response to the noble Lord’s question.

My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister expand on what the Government are doing regarding working with international partners to rebuild confidence ahead of any future discussions?

We are completely committed to this treaty, as are our partners and allies. Consensus was not achieved, which is regrettable—it is always better if you can have that—but the principles and the purpose of this treaty remain supported. It is essential that that remains the case, and we shall do whatever we need to do diplomatically, as my noble friend encourages us to do, to make sure that that is the case.

What diplomatic exchanges have the Government had with Mauritius over the nuclear capabilities of Diego Garcia, in the light of their wish to give the freehold away?

We had extensive discussion and advice on this issue while we were debating the relevant legislation. We are confident that obligations under the relevant treaties on non-proliferation and under the Pelindaba treaty can be met as a result of that decision and that legislation.