Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP

Secretary of State for Defence

Dear Michael,

On July 7^th 2017, the United Nations finalised negotiations and adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by 122 votes to one, with one abstention.  As you are no doubt aware, this treaty was negotiated pursuant to UN General Assembly resolution 71/258 (2016) for a "legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination".  Negotiations were open to all UN Member States.

This was the culmination of a humanitarian initiative arising from concerns and commitments contained in the consensus conclusions and recommendations adopted by the 2010 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the treaty was therefore negotiated with a view to fully implementing the NPT's essential nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation obligations.

 When Parliament debated the next stage in the replacement of the Trident system a year ago, the motion put before MPs made reference to the “Government’s commitment to continue work towards a safer and more stable world, pressing for key steps towards multilateral disarmament”.

 During your own speech winding up that debate you said “We certainly want to see a world free of nuclear weapons^[1]”. In an earlier debate in January 2015 you had underlined that the government “also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.^[2]”

I hope you will agree with me that the majority of countries in the world coming together at the United Nations is a shining example of multilateralism.

In that context, it is incredibly disappointing that the UK voted against UN resolution 71/258, and then chose to play no part in this year's negotiations at UN Headquarters in New York, even though the sovereign right of all countries to decide if and when they will accede to a treaty remains valid whether or not they have participated in the actual negotiations.   The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was strengthened by proposals made by The Netherlands, a fellow member of NATO.  At the end, the Netherlands exercised its democratic right to call for a roll call vote and register its vote against adoption of the treaty on grounds that it was not compatible with their current defence doctrine, which includes membership of a military alliance that deploys nuclear weapons. 

Instead of simply boycotting these important UN multilateral negotiations from the beginning, the UK could have contributed constructively, engaged with other governments and civil society experts, listened to people from many countries who have been directly affected by nuclear weapons, and made proposals to address Britain's concerns about the treaty. 

 I was at the UN talks last month, and saw for myself the power of countries working together on this most crucial issue.  I was saddened and ashamed to see the empty UK seat in the UN Conference room.  This was a lost opportunity for the UK Government to show leadership among nuclear armed states in bringing about a world free of nuclear weapons.

Despite the UK's refusal to participate, the treaty was negotiated and adopted by two-thirds of the United Nations – twice the number of states in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament.  It will be opened for signature on 20 September 2017, during the High Level segment of the UN General Assembly, and is expected to enter into force within the next two years.

In addition to prohibiting most, if not all the activities associated with replacing and deploying Trident, the treaty enshrines some basic principles for how nuclear-armed states and participants in doctrines of nuclear use or deterrence can join and implement the treaty.  Whether the UK intends to sign in September or at some future date, it is necessary now to undertake an in-depth assessment of the likely and potential impacts of this nuclear weapons prohibition treaty on UK defence and nuclear policies, including steps towards signature and accession.

 I hope that this will be given active consideration across your Government and that the UK will take a lead amongst NATO and NPT members in ensuring compliance with these related non-proliferation and disarmament treaties is actively discussed and pursued

 In the meantime, as Chair of Parliamentary CND and on behalf of colleagues who are members of the group, I’d like to request a meeting so that we might discuss the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty with you and learn more about the UK’s proposed response. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,