Non-proliferation Treaty (Hansard, 29 March 1983)

§ 13. Mr. Luce
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the nonproliferation treaty on the security of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Blaker
The non-proliferation treaty has been an effective check on the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and has contributed to the security of all countries. We welcome the fact that there are now 120 parties to the treaty and we shall continue to encourage more countries to sign.

§ Mr. Luce
Since the dangers of nuclear proliferation are obvious, does my hon. Friend agree that wider adherence to the treaty can best be achieved if it is clear that every effort is being made by the nuclear powers to obtain multilateral, mutually balanced disarmament? As important talks are taking place in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the British Government are making every effort to seek wider support for the treaty?

§ Mr. Blaker
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am happy to tell him that eight further countries have adhered to the treaty since 1978. The treaty states in article 6 that the parties to it must make their best efforts to secure multilateral nuclear and other disarmament. That is why it is important to support the proposals that President Reagan has made in the INF context and the START negotiations.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
If it is so important for Britain to buy the Trident system, apparently, according to the Government, because it is good for us, why is it not good for other countries to do likewise?

§ Mr. Pattie
That is not relevant to the non-proliferation treaty. [Interruption.] Opposition Members who laugh at that merely show that they have not read the treaty.

§ Mr. Cryer
Does not article 6 place an obligation on the United Kingdom such as to prevent our purchasing Trident? At the 1980 review conference did not many of the non-nuclear powers become extremely critical of nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom for not reducing their dependence on nuclear weapons but rather increasing it? Would not getting rid of nuclear weapons help the non-proliferation treaty and the United Nations? Is that not the direction in which we should go?

§ Mr. Pattie
Our purchase of Trident is no more a breach of the non-proliferation treaty than the modernisation by other countries, including the Soviet Union, of their existing systems. The treaty does not impose an obligation on existing nuclear states to allow their existing systems to decay.