China: Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton’s untiring work and commitment in the field of nuclear disarmament. He has made a powerful case for intensified discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament with China.

The Chinese economy has been growing at a formidable pace. Some of its major communities look more and more like Western ones in terms of business, commercial and industrial development and, for increasing numbers of people, in terms of standard of living as well. China, with a significant percentage of the world’s population, is a rapidly strengthening power and is making its presence felt economically, politically and militarily—as Japan and Taiwan, on its doorstep, are only too aware.

A recent report to the US Congress by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission describes China as “the most threatening power” in cyberspace and as being,

“on the cusp of attaining a credible nuclear triad of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and air-dropped nuclear bombs”.

The report argues that the United States should increase efforts to integrate China into nuclear arms agreements. In that regard, I noted with interest the proposition from my noble friend Lord Browne that Russia and China should also host further meetings on the nuclear disarmament discussions to which he referred.

We have a new leadership in China, which might mean nothing as far as change is concerned, but which alternatively could represent a potential opportunity for a significant positive change in international relationships. We, along with other nations, are also facing the prospect, at a time of economic austerity, of further considerable expenditure on maintaining and updating our nuclear deterrent. The question that my noble friend raised is what the Government’s reaction is to these developments, and what is their position on the case for multilateral nuclear disarmament talks involving China.

A nuclear weapon state, as defined in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is one that had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967. As we all know, there are five internationally recognised nuclear weapon states: ourselves, the United States, Russia, China and France. Countries such as India and Pakistan that have developed a nuclear capability since that 1967 date are considered de facto nuclear weapon states. In addition, there are those states which are widely regarded as harbouring nuclear intentions, of which the most notable is Iran.

Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty states,

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.

Attempts have been made, with varying degrees of success, to reduce the dangers posed by existing nuclear arsenals and prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. Treaties and agreements have been sought to bring about the gradual disarmament of the five recognised nuclear powers. However, given the overwhelming nuclear superiority of Russia and the United States, the focus has been on bilateral treaties between these two countries aimed at reducing the size of their arsenals.

Attempts have also been made to restrict the development of new nuclear weapons systems by the nuclear powers, and to seek to limit or halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and know-how by imposing export restrictions on nuclear-related technologies and monitoring civilian nuclear facilities.

Bilateral talks aimed at restricting the nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and the United States began during the late 1960s. As has been mentioned this afternoon, the most recent treaty was signed in 2010 and committed the USA and Russia to a number of disarmament measures. It also provided for a verification regime which includes on-site inspections of deployed and non-deployed systems. It laid down reductions in the nuclear arsenals to be achieved by 2018. Referring to the treaty, President Obama said:

“With this agreement the United States and Russia—the two largest nuclear powers in the world—also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities”.

However, the same degree of progress could hardly be said to have been made at the multilateral level. The Conference on Disarmament was established in 1979 as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. Although not formally a UN organisation, the Conference on Disarmament, which comprises 65 member states, is mandated and financed by the UN, and it reports to the UN General Assembly annually. However, it has achieved little—in recent years, in particular.

China’s initial quest for a nuclear weapons capability was motivated by recognition of the political value of nuclear weapons and a determination to remove what it clearly regarded as its vulnerability to nuclear blackmail. Following its first nuclear test in 1964, China announced that it would adhere to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons and called for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Today, China appears to be the only one of the five original nuclear weapon states that is increasing its nuclear arsenal. Yet in a defence paper last year, China reiterated its long-held nuclear policies of maintaining a minimum deterrent with a no-first-use pledge and shunning any nuclear arms race. China has never defined in quantitative or qualitative terms what it means by a minimum deterrent posture. In the defence paper, China stated that it,

“pursues an open, transparent and responsible nuclear policy”,

but there is no governmental source giving basic information about the size of China’s nuclear arsenal or its future plans.

China’s intentions, particularly in the light of its nuclear weapons proliferation and its growing economic and political clout, is clearly, rightly or wrongly, of concern to the United States—a United States that is turning its attention and resources more and more to the Pacific region and Asia and rather less to Europe. Indeed, the United States believes that the European members of NATO should make a rather more significant contribution to the defence of European interests. The extent to which United States support in some key areas of operational activity was crucial to the success of the action against the former Libyan regime has probably reinforced, not weakened, that view.

Europe should be a significant player, not least in relationships with China, for whom Europe is a major trading partner. However, a point my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton made, as I understood it, is that Britain and Europe are not regarded in China as important players with regard to nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. As far as China is concerned, the United States and Russia are the other nuclear powers. No doubt the fact that treaties and agreements on nuclear disarmament have been largely bilateral between the USA and Russia has contributed significantly to that view. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could in his response talk about the level and extent of our contacts with China on nuclear disarmament questions and about progress that might be feasible. Have we taken any recent initiatives on raising and pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament, and does the Minister believe that recent economic, military and political developments in China represent a growing need as well as an opportunity to seek to pursue multilateral nuclear disarmament talks involving China?

As things stand, we are likely to see a further spread of nuclear weapons, not least among those nations not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Large stockpiles of nuclear weapons remain in the world. Some are being modernised and expanded. The number of nuclear armed states has grown and is likely to continue to grow. A significant number of states who currently hold nuclear weapons or which might develop them are in regions of instability and tension.

If we are to stop this potential further proliferation and expansion, further progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament talks between the main nuclear powers, including China, would seem to be a prerequisite. There surely is a need to go further than bilateral treaties and agreements between the USA and Russia, crucial though they are. There also surely is an opportunity, in the light of the economic and political changes that have taken place and are taking place in China, for Britain to play an important role in seeking to ensure that the prospects for talks and further progress in the field of nuclear disarmament are fully explored and pursued.

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has drawn an important issue to the attention of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a considered response to the points and concerns raised in this debate.

Armed Forces: Redundancies

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as I have already said, we are continuing to recruit, but at a lower level as we adjust numbers. I am told that levels of applications to join the Armed Forces at the present time are high.

[Lord Rosser]

Are these service personnel being made redundant to make savings and keep expenditure within budget, despite the Government being able to afford a reduction in the top rate of income tax, or are they being made redundant because they are not needed to meet current and projected military commitments— namely, that they are surplus to requirements?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have not yet heard the Labour Party come out in favour of a substantial increase in defence spending in future years. If the Labour Party would like to commit itself to such a substantial increase, much of this would be avoided.

Remembrance Day

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, thanks have already been expressed a number of times to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for his opening contribution. Nevertheless, I still wish to take this opportunity to add my own. It is only appropriate that we should be having this debate close to Remembrance Sunday, which the nation observes in the middle of this month because it was on 11 November 1918 that the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and my noble friend Lord Soley have quite rightly reminded us that it was not just British military personnel who have made such sacrifices on our behalf over the years.

Remembrance Day enables us to commemorate in a very visible and dignified manner the sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, made in our name by our Armed Forces, both in years gone by and currently by those on active service at home and abroad. In your Lordships’ House, we admire their commitment, their patriotism and their courage, just as do the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. That feeling is reflected, as has already been said, by, for example, the people of Royal Wootton Bassett and in another way by the determination of the Football Association to ensure that the England team should be able to wear poppies during their match this weekend. This feeling is not reflected in the sickening actions of a handful of people who think it appropriate to strip the metal plates from war memorials with the names of those who have given their lives. I share the hope expressed by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, that action—if necessary new legislation—will be taken very soon to assist in bringing this despicable practice to an end. This practice is particularly abhorrent to the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group, which does such important and invaluable work in remembering those who have fallen by promoting and supporting the protection, conservation and interpretation of war graves, war memorials and battle sites.

We know that other countries are planning to commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of the First World War. I hope that the Government will also be commemorating the centenary in an appropriate and fulsome manner which reflects the significance of the Great War in the history of our nation and the enormous sacrifice that was made by so many. In that regard, I welcome the appointment of Dr Andrew Murrison MP as the Prime Minister’s co-ordinator of the centenary commemoration.

We tend even today to think in terms of men when we talk about the courage and commitment of our Armed Forces. We do not always recognise the major role that women play and have played in the service of our country, a point of which we were reminded in a debate in your Lordships’ House last June initiated by my noble friend Lady Crawley. She asked what steps the Government were taking to recognise the contribution made by women put on active service by the Special Operations Executive in the Second World War. As my noble friend said in that debate, and as the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, reiterated today, the women concerned served in occupied France, acting as couriers, wireless operators and saboteurs, working with the resistance movements to disrupt the occupation and clear the path for the allied advance. Needless to say, many of these brave women never returned. For that reason alone, they must never be forgotten.

In the past day or so, we have read in the press about an apparent suicide pact between an Army veteran and his wife who, among other things, were, it appears, struggling financially with very little to live on. Something in that case—for whatever reason—would appear to have gone tragically wrong. However, that is not the norm. We should recognise the contribution being made by many local authorities in the developing community covenants. The service charities also do tremendous work and it is only right that we should express our thanks to them for their work not only in supporting our veterans and their families—not least with the difficult adjustment that some find making the transition back into civilian life—but also for the support they provide for the men and women of today’s Armed Forces.

The welfare of our Armed Forces, as well as the adequate equipping and training of our Armed Forces, is of paramount importance. The previous Government published a Service Personnel Command Paper which was the first cross-governmental strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel, putting the welfare of our Armed Forces as a mainstream policy commitment through all government departments. Among other things, it doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries; it doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations; and, since housing is an issue that has been mentioned today, it led to increased investment in service accommodation. We now have, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion and a political row, the military covenant enshrined in law to ensure that no disadvantage arises from service. I do not doubt that it is the Government’s intention to seek to adhere to the principles of the military covenant, but it will be through their actions, not their intentions, that they will be judged.

There are three issues to which I should like to refer and which I hope the Government will address. The first concerns the Office of the Chief Coroner, to which a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Glasman, have already referred. The office of the chief coroner has been legislated for, yet it is being abolished by the Government. The Government say that they are concerned about the cost, but arguments that it can be implemented at lower cost have been consistently and resolutely ignored. All bereaved families, and not least bereaved service families, deserve an expert independent coronial system at the most difficult time.

In a letter some 10 days ago to the Minister concerned, the Royal British Legion said that it was mystified by some statements that he had made in the other place some three days earlier. The letter went on to say:

“At this poignant time of year when the Nation pauses to remember, it seems incredible that the Ministry of Justice should be in such a determined rush to take away from those brave families the support they desperately need and so deserve—the Chief Coroner which Parliament, with cross-party support, promised them less than two years ago”.

The Royal British Legion regards this issue of the office of the chief coroner as,

“the first big test of the Armed Forces Covenant since it was written into law and a very important opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant”.

The Royal British Legion is right.

The second issue is military pensions, which have already been referred to by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. The permanent change to a lower rate of indexation will significantly reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. This year-on-year change will disproportionately affect service personnel because they rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else. According to the Forces Pension Society, a corporal who has lost both legs will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. A 34 year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would be almost £750,000 worse off over her lifetime. These are big figures, and this is a change which does not just apply to the current period of deficit reduction but will continue to apply permanently, stretching way beyond the period of deficit reduction.

The third issue relates to cuts in personnel. In October 2010, when the SDSR was published, we were told that 17,000 personnel would have to go across the three services. As of July 2011, however, we were told that 22,000 would have to go. We need to end the uncertainty about the future size of our Armed Forces and we need to know exactly how many redundancies there will be and where. Uncertainty over cuts and the threat of redundancy does not help morale, and service personnel deserve clear answers to enable them to plan for their own and their families’ futures.

Service personnel make many sacrifices, as my noble friend Lord Parekh pointed out. They are often separated from their families for long periods. They often work in extremely dangerous conditions and situations, risking their lives or facing the prospect of suffering life-changing injuries whether physical or mental. Neither are they able to have the same political or contractual rights that apply in other occupations. For those reasons, they should not be treated like other public sector workers but instead deserve special recognition.

Our nation comes together at this time of year in particular to show its respect and solidarity for and with those who serve and have served, and in particular those who have sacrificed their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, has also given your Lordships’ House the opportunity to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that today’s debate, which I know will be further enhanced by the Minister’s speech, has achieved the objective for which he hoped.

Armed Forces: Accommodation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has read the excellent speech that the Deputy Prime Minister gave yesterday morning, which I commend to the House. I am sure that many others will want to read it. We are continuing to work within the MoD budget to see whether we can generate additional funds for purposes such as these. We are being deliberately cautious in making forward projections, in contrast to the overoptimistic, even reckless, forward projections of the previous Administration in defence budgeting.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, when the Secretary of State for Defence made announcements in July and September on the welcome procurement of 14 Chinook helicopters, he did not give details of how they were being financed. Maybe we are now beginning to find out, as it now emerges that the housing improvement programme for military personnel, which was put in place by the previous Government, is being halted for three years. When did the Secretary of State publicly announce these specific cuts in the housing improvement programme, and through which channels? Also, what other cuts directly affecting the welfare of Armed Forces personnel are being made that have not been or will not be announced with quite the same vigour as, for example, the Chinook helicopter programme?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I should pay tribute to the previous Administration for their efforts to improve service accommodation. The current situation is that 96 per cent of service accommodation has now been upgraded. We are talking about some 2,000 service family houses and about the projection that, in two years’ time, there will be a pause in further upgrades. I am told by officials that the majority of the 2,000 houses that have not yet been upgraded will either have been disposed of or will have been upgraded by 2013.