HC Deb 19 May 1976 vol 911 cc1388-90
1. Mr. Thorne

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on halting nuclear proliferation.

5. Mr. Cryer

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in halting nuclear proliferation.

8. Mr. Clemitson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on halting nuclear proliferation.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

We believe that the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 remains the best available means of halting the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives technology. We have taken active steps to encourage the widest possible membership of the treaty and are constantly in touch with other Governments to promote further non-proliferation measures.

Mr. Thorne

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity while in China to discuss with the Chinese Government their probable agreement to the treaty and participation in the spirit thereof. If so, will my right hon. Friend give us any details of those discussions?

Mr. Hattersley

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about my right hon. Friend's visit to China, which he is answering himself. I am sure it is important that this matter should be dealt with then by him.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

Is the Minister aware that the present British Government and past British Governments must bear their share of responsibility for the spread of nuclear weapons, in that they have not given a lead in renouncing them? Is he further aware that the British Government have not even implemented the policy of the Labour Party, as declared at its own annual conference, in regard to Polaris?

Mr. Hattersley

The hon. Gentleman significantly leaves out of his question one word, "unilateral", in speaking of renunciation. It is not and never has been my view that unilateral renunciation would promote peace in the world.

Mr. Cryer

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's efforts in halting the spread of nuclear proliferation would be helped if there were a Minister specifically appointed for disarmament here in the House of Commons, as was promised in 1964? Should not the Prime Minister be concerned to make that sort of appointment from among those with a long history of work in the Labour movement rather than appoint a hack from The Times or consider various dubious people in the City and make them Lords?

Mr. Hattersley

All the questions that my hon. Friend asks about ministerial responsibilities are not only unrelated to the Question but 14 years out of date.

Mr. Cryer

Disarmament is never out of place.

Mr. Hattersley

The Government should be judged by what they have achieved rather than by who is responsible for those achievements in Ministries. If my hon. Friend will look at our achievements in the nuclear proliferation field, he will see that they are considerable.

Mr. Clemitson

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards concerning trade in nuclear materials and nuclear installations to ensure that recipient nations do not develop nuclear weapon capability?

Mr. Hattersley

I can speak only for the United Kingdom and our policy on these matters, and certainly we accept all the safeguard régimes proposed to us. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his previous capacity, gave a very long answer to the House describing how we insist on safeguards being applied before we co-operate in any of these multilateral affairs.

Mr. Goodhew

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend that the previous Labour Government had a Minister for disarmament in Lord Chalfont but found him redundant because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Defence, did all the disarming on his own unilaterally?

Mr. Hattersley

I agree that it was difficult to recognise Lord Chalfont in the description given by my hon. Friend in his question, but much more important than that—if there is a serious content to the hon. Gentleman's question—is the fact that the Government are wholly committed simultaneously to the policies of defence and disarmament. Those two things have to go hand in hand. Detente and deterrence cannot be separated, and we are wedded to both those concepts.