The response by the UK Labour Government to the failure of a United Nations (UN) nuclear non-proliferation conference to reach a consensus has been criticised by a wide range of UK and international experts and campaigners.

The government had sent a minister to speak at the UN in New York at the start of the 11th Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which took place from 27 April to 22 May 2026.

Initially, the government chose not to comment when the Canary reported on the failure of the review conference to reach consensus on an outcome document. They have now provided a response to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, a Liberal Democrat peer, who asked an oral question about the conference in the House of Lords on 9 July 2026.

Miller’s question

Miller is one of five co-presidents of the international non-governmental organisation called Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

She asked the government “what diplomatic steps” it intended to take “following the absence of consensus at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) minister of state Baroness Chapman of Darlington responded, saying:

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.

Speaking after the debate to the Canary, Miller said she asked the question because she has:

been concerned about the threat nuclear weapons pose for decades.

She added:

That threat is increasing, not decreasing. The lack of progress of the NPT agreements toward disarmament and the P5 modernising and upgrading nuclear weapons means we face a terrifying threat.

The P5 are the five nuclear weapons states (NWS) who are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the US, Russia, China, the UK and France.

She also highlighted the fact that the Doomsday Clock has been set at its all time worst position – just 85 seconds to midnight.

“Genuinely disappointed”

Miller also said she hoped that the NPT review conference would agree on:

risk reductions, new treaty discussions to cover the gap left by [New] START’s demise.

She also said she thought the government was “genuinely disappointed” by the failure of the conference to agree on an outcome document.

In February, the UK Labour government was accused of “sitting on the sidelines” of international nuclear weapons risk reduction diplomacy following the expiration of New START (New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty). The treaty limited the number of nuclear weapons the US and Russia could hold.

Reflecting on the government’s response to her question, Miller said she thought it was:

adequate, but not very energetic compared to the threat posed.

She added that she hoped the government would step up to:

be a leader amongst the P5 to ensure new treaties are put in place and to ensure diplomatic channels are open so as to avoid nuclear accidental misunderstandings.

First review of the TPNW

Towards the end of 2026, the UN will host the first review conference of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which goes further than the NPT in pushing for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

It is supported by half of the world’s nations, but no nuclear weapons states have joined it.

Miller told the Canary that she wished the P5 would engage with the TPNW. She said:

After all, the final goal of the NPT is disarmament. However, successive UK Governments have been clear that, for them, the NPT is the only Treaty they will engage with.

UK Government breaching the NPT and uninterested in disarmament – anti-nuclear campaigners

Responding to the debate, Nuclear Information Service co-director Okopi Ajonye told the Canary:

This session is yet another example of how the government’s support for disarmament is more rhetorical than real, as the UK Government seems far more interested in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy than in furthering nuclear disarmament.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) general secretary Sophie Bolt told the Canary:

Simply expressing disappointment at the failure of the review conference rings hollow when the government is replacing Trident, developing a new nuclear warhead and expanding Britain’s nuclear capabilities by purchasing F-35A’s. Those actions undermine the very trust the Government claims it wants to rebuild. In fact, it is total nuclear hypocrisy.

Bolt also argued that the UK should bring confidence back to the NPT by reversing its “disastrous nuclear expansionism”.

Government deflections

International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) advocacy coordinator Florian Eblenkamp gave his reaction to the debate to the Canary. He said:

What stands out is how much of it was deflection. Chapman didn’t know a new Commons committee scrutinising nuclear spending even exists. She had ‘nothing new’ to say on New START, the last bilateral arms control treaty between the US and Russia, having lapsed in February.

During the debate in the House of Lords, Conservative peer Lord Bellingham asked:

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.

Responding, Chapman said:

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.

Eblenkamp criticised the UK’s and other nuclear weapons states’ “performance” of compliance, rather than real compliance, with the NPT.

He also demanded that the UK Government sends officials to attend:

meetings of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as an observer, rather than treating the treaty that bans nuclear weapons and has support of a global majority as something to be ignored.

He added:

None of that requires the UK to disarm unilaterally tomorrow. It requires the government to stop answering with ‘nothing new’ when asked about arms control efforts in parliament.

Eblenkamp concluded by saying:

The UK has surpassed Russia as the world’s third-largest spender on nuclear weapons. In 2025, the UK alone spent $12.6bn (£9.34bn) on modernising its nuclear arsenal; that’s a 17% increase from the year before. Nuclear weapons will make up close to 25% of the UKs national defence budget going forward.

And yet, there is no genuine sense of security from perceived threats. At what point do we call out nuclear deterrence as an expensive dogma rather than a defence strategy?

UK Government must find its voice and call for disarmament – nuclear policy expert

The European Leadership Network (ELN) describes itself as:

an independent, non-partisan, pan-European network of over 450 past, present and future European leaders working to provide practical real-world solutions to political and security challenges.

ELN head of programme on nuclear and multilateral disarmament Oliver Meier told the Canary:

Disarmament only comes up in the debate once, the focus is squarely on nonproliferation. This neglect of disarmament in the debate is indicative of the nuclear weapon states’ approach to the NPT.

As the majority of states have emphasized again and again in New York, progress on disarmament and nonproliferation are interdependent and intrinsically linked. So the UK also needs to ask itself how its own actions are affecting that broader issue of the salience of nuclear weapons.

Meier called on the UK Government to find its voice on disarmament and to call out the US – alongside Russia and China – for its actions on nuclear escalation.

He said:

UK (and France) as European nuclear weapon states have to find their own voice on disarmament and nonproliferation. They will continue to speak out against irresponsible actions and rhetoric by Russia and China’s nuclear build-up.

But they also need to speak clearly on irresponsible US nuclear threats and actions and violations of international law, including the attacks on Iran. Otherwise, their credibility towards the majority of the international community will suffer.

UK should be more transparent about its nuclear weapons policy – UN expert

The United Nations Association – UK (UNA-UK) says it works:

to strengthen the UK’s commitment to the UN and for foreign policy rooted in international law, human rights, peace and international cooperation.

Reflecting on the debate in the House of Lords, UNA-UK campaign manager Lauren Muir told the Canary:

Given the UK’s position as both a Nuclear Weapon State under the NPT and a recognised leader in nuclear verification research, there is scope for it to exercise greater diplomatic leadership in addressing this widening credibility gap.

Muir called on the UK Government to do more to further the cause of nuclear disarmament, saying:

UNA-UK would like to see the Government focus more on practical measures that demonstrate progress on its nuclear disarmament commitments.

This means being more transparent about UK policy, providing clearer reporting on progress under the NPT, continuing to support international nuclear verification work, and taking a more active role in developing measures that reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and build trust between states.

The Defence Investment Plan (DIP) includes significant funding for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme, so it appears unlikely that the UK Government will work towards the type of nuclear deescalation called for by experts.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

From Canary via This RSS Feed.