HC Deb 29 March 1990 vol 170 cc671-6 3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about Government action with regard to Iraq following the seizure of nuclear detonators at Heathrow airport.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

The House will wish to congratulate the Customs and Excise on its successful operation yesterday to stop the illegal export of nuclear material to Iraq. This was an effective demonstration of our commitment to carrying out our responsibilities to stop proliferation and of co-operation between the British and United States authorities.

Three people have been charged with offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. The House will understand that I am not able to speculate on the details of the matter which are now sub judice. The question goes wider than law enforcement here and no doubt that is why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tabled it.

There are two international instruments which are relevant. Under the non-proliferation treaty, nuclear suppliers undertake not to transfer nuclear devices or technology and the other parties undertake not to receive them. All exports of nuclear material by suppliers who are states parties to the NPT including Iraq, are subject to safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The second instrument is the missile technology control regime which was established in 1987 by the summit 7 countries. The MTCR is intended to prevent the spread of technology that could be used to develop nuclear-capable missiles. Both instruments are important.

In Geneva, we are urgently consulting other parties in the western group to the NPT in order to find ways in which to minimise the risk of evasion of the treaty. We are in the forefront of those working to expand the membership of the MTCR. We shall urge our European Community partners and other Governments to join the MTCR without delay. The Soviet Union has similar controls that apply to the export of missile technology and we hope that it too will adhere to the MTCR guidelines.

Iraq is not the only power in the middle east with nuclear ambitions. This episode underlines starkly the dangers for the whole world from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It shows that vigilance pays off. It also points to the vital need to solve by negotiation the wider conflicts in the middle east that undoubtedly acts as a spur to the proliferation of weapons in that region.

Mr. Kaufman

May I, on behalf of the Labour party, congratulate Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United States authorities on the brilliant success of their operation? The whole world owes them a debt, for what we have seen is the prevention of a crime that would have menaced world security. However, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his response to my question, that the action that he has announced does not bear comparison with the efficiency and determination of the authorities that detected and defeated the nuclear smuggling ring.

There are a number of questions to which the House requires an answer. Why did the right hon. Gentleman's Foreign Office spokesman last night describe the seizure of the detonators as only a criminal matter which need have no bearing on our relationship with Iraq"? Is not that a culpably complacent reaction? If our relationship with Iraq is not affected, why did the Foreign Office call in the Iraqi ambassador? Is it a matter of no concern to us that a regime such as that of Iraq has got so far along the road to building a nuclear weapon? If the seizure has no bearing on our relationship with Iraq, why was an Iraqi national arrested on the point of boarding a plane for Baghdad?

If, as the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman said, this is only a criminal matter, why was the decision made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deport a man on grounds which were: reasons of national security and … other reasons of a political nature connected with attempted breaches of legislation governing the export of strategic goods from the United Kingdom"? Why was a decision made to deport the man at all, especially at a time when two British subjects are being held in wrongful imprisonment in Iraq? Why has the man not been held, why is he not to be charged and why has he been sent home to safety and no doubt applause? Given that the whole Iraqi operation was clearly inspired at the highest level in Baghdad, can the Minister say whether the Iraqi embassy in London has been involved? Should the Iraqi ambassador be allowed to remain in London? After the murder of Mr. Bazoft, Opposition Members called for the expulsion of the Iraqi ambassador. Is not such action more appropriate than ever now?

If there is concern about possible Iraqi reprisals against British nationals in Iraq, will the Government now advise British nationals to leave that country in the interests of their own safety? Will the Government now place a ban on all technological exports to Iraq that could have any connection with nuclear or any other armaments? Will the Government reconsider their attitude towards export credits for Iraq? As Iraq is now clearly in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which it is an adherent and to which the United Kingdom is one of the principal signatory parties, will the Government now call for the International Atomic Energy Agency to use its powers under article 3 of the non-proliferation treaty to go to Iraq and carry out an inspection, as it has the right to do under the treaty?

Will the Government urgently consult our European partners and the United States on concerted action? As the Iraqi action is clearly a threat to world peace, will the Government raise the issue without delay at the United Nations Security Council? The Government must take action with the utmost urgency, because the maintenance of international stability and the threat to peace make this an issue of paramount importance.

Mr. Hurd

This is a deeply important matter; I do not dissent from that. It is a criminal matter, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right not to press me on that aspect of it.

The Iraqi ambassador was called in so that we could explain our concern, the steps that were being taken and the reasons for them. Which charges were brought is not a matter for me. My right hon. and learned Friend decided to deport Mr. Latif because his continued presence here was considered to be against the public interest. That is a perfectly normal procedure with which the House is familiar.

The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the stance of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) after Mr. Bazoft's death, but he did not do so wholly accurately. I believe that he was in Sweden at the time. As we did then, we have considered the presence of the Iraqi ambassador and our diplomatic relations with Iraq. There is a considerable risk of damage in breaking off diplomatic relations, with no actual advantage. I do not want to get into the position that we not only leave our citizens, including our two prisoners which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, without protection, but do not have an embassy in the middle east between the Khyber pass and the Mediterranean. We have two empty embassies in two important middle eastern countries, and I do not want to add to that number unless there is a clear advantage in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman has not urged that advantage.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear. We covered the issue of exports during our previous exchanges. Exports of nuclear technology and arms are covered by the restrictions I mentioned. It is clear from yesterday's events that those are effectively policed, and will continue to be.

The right hon. Gentleman urged me to consult our partners and allies, which is absolutely right. I have told the House that we are doing so. I do not exclude action in the Security Council, but I am not, at present, clear whether it would he profitable or lead anywhere. What are important are the two instruments I mentioned—the two international regimes—which are not perfect but offer the best hope of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the missiles which could carry them. We are right to concentrate our international effort in following up this serious event by trying to sharpen and improve the effectiveness of those two regimes, which are designed for that purpose.

Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the coup effected by the Customs and Excise in London, which the whole world will applaud. However, there are many participants in this unsavoury act who should be brought to account. It is worrying that West Germany, China, France and the United States are involved. Will he consider extending the COCOM net, which already exists for some of those countries, to control the exports of such vital equipment to unfriendly territories, and the need to ensure that the world co-ordinates its efforts to stop the proliferation, rather than rely on existing treaties which simply do not work.

Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend is on exactly the right tack. Appended to the NPT is the Zangger list of products. That is one instrument, the other is the missile control arrangement, which I described. We are anxious not only that the original summit seven members should belong to that, but that all our EC partners, and other countries, should join it so that that control becomes more effective. I entirely agree with that, and we shall continue down exactly that path.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the missile control technology regime and the non-proliferation treaty. Does he agree that the effectiveness of both those regimes will always depend not only on the good faith of their signatories, but on the policing available to ensure that they are followed? Having regard to the position in the middle east, and the continuing unrest there, does he accept that it is time for the launching of a substantial political initiative, of which the Government should form part?

Mr. Hurd

There are different middle east disputes. There is the Iran-Iraq war, on which I am in close touch with the secretary-general, who carries the peace-making banner, and there is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which we have often discussed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows our stance on that. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) which I did not answer, I can tell him that the Iraqis have a nuclear research establishment based on a French-supplied reactor which was inspected under the IAEA procedures in April 1989.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of the affair is that security arrangements have been so sloppy that people such as the Iraqis could get their hands on such bits of equipment? Surely the most urgent thing of all is to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mr. Hurd

My right hon. Friend has been in the business long enough to know that such questions arise when one has a success. If the Customs had not been sucessful, the question would not have arisen. The episode shows that there is vigilance and effective co-operation. The shipment was prevented, but that is not a reason for complacency, rather for doing what we have proposed to do, which is to draw more and more people into more and more effective arrangements.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a disturbing incident. What does the attempted export of the nuclear triggers tell us about the advance of the Iraqis towards producing a nuclear device of their own? Can he assure the House that he will give a full report of our findings and exploration into the matter to the IAEA in Vienna so that it can seriously consider taking much more effective action than seemed to be forthcoming having listened to the complacent interview on the BBC at 1 o'clock with the representative of the Vienna authority?

Mr. Hurd

I had better obtain a transcript of that interview. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The specification of the material confiscated yesterday suggests that the capacitors were intended for use in the trigger mechanism for a nuclear warhead, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not follow that all the other pieces are in place. No such deduction can be drawn, but that is not a reason for complacency.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the fact that, if any group of terrorists seeks illegally to export such nuclear devices, they can apparently be brought to justice only under a somewhat obscure statutory instrument, the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which carries the maximum penalty of a £1,000 fine or a two-year sentence of imprisonment? Is that an adequate deterrent to those seeking to blow up the entire middle east?

Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend will not expect me to trespass by commenting on the case or what may follow, but I note his point.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Iraq, with its dangerous regime, were to obtain nuclear potential, it would present a menace to peace? Does he recall that on a previous occasion others who were concerned about that took practical and effective action which was condemned in the House, I believe wrongly? Is he prepared to say what Her Majesty's Government and their allies will do to prevent the need for such action again?

Mr. Hurd

We shall continue to take the action that was taken yesterday. That is the most effective way of ensuring that proliferation does not take place. I would be disturbed if any state proliferated in that way, particularly if it was in an area of a good deal of tension and long-standing disputes. The first thing to do—I am not just talking about the middle east—is to persuade as many countries as possible to join the NPT so that they are subjected to inspection. But that in itself is not enough, as this incident shows, and that is why we need to strengthen the regime and make it more effective.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Is not the excellent operation yesterday evidence that the best way of controlling international terrorism is by international co-operation? Will my right hon. Friend now ask the Foreign Office to update its previously held view that there is no evidence that Iraq is developing a nuclear capability?

Mr. Hurd

I am not sure about that previously expressed view. We keep a pretty wary eye on threats of proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere. It may prove to be a rather healthy reminder that, as one threat to our security diminishes—the Soviet threat with which we have lived most familiarily—there are other perhaps more sinister threats. We have to be equally vigilant and prepared to deal with them.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that we have business questions today and an important debate that has to end at 7 o'clock, so I shall allow two more questions from either side and then I am afraid we must move on.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)

While no one in their right mind wants any new countries to acquire nuclear weapons, is the Secretary of State aware of the offence that is felt in the Arab and Islamic world at the assumptions which seem to lie behind such a hue and cry—that it is all right for some countries such as South Africa, Israel and ourselves to have nuclear weapons, but it is somehow fundamentally wrong for Arab countries and other Muslim countries such as Pakistan to have them? Will the Secretary of State amplify the point that he correctly made in his earlier remarks—that Iraq is not the only country in the middle east seeking a nuclear capacity and, thanks to Mr. Vanunu—we should not forget his incarceration—we now know that Israel has a battery of nuclear weapons pointed at countries such as Iraq?

Mr. Hurd

The non-proliferation treaty distinguishes between those who were nuclear powers at the time and the remainder. That is the basis on which 139 countries have adhered to the treaty. It is not a distinction between Arabs and other non-nuclear powers; it is a distinction between the original nuclear powers and the remainder. I draw that distinction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned South Africa. I hope that all the countries of southern Africa will sign and adhere to the NPT.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

May I commend my right hon. Friend for resisting the calls to break diplomatic relations? Are not our troublesome relations with Iraq just where we need diplomatic expertise? Is not the main point to be learned from yesterday's episode that in recent years the arms race has been on the increase in the middle east while the peace process has been on the decrease there?

Mr. Hurd

The peace processes—my hon. Friend knows that we are talking about more than one dispute—are extremely important. There is no doubt that the existence of the Iran-Iraq war—there is a truce and there is no fighting, but there is no formal end to the war—acts as a spur to some of those activities. I agree that we all have a responsibility for urging forward the peace processes. At the same time, we also have a responsibility in that case for preventing the flow of arms and, in all cases, for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East)

Is not it true that Israel and Iraq either have or are about to have nuclear weapons and that the history of both those countries has shown that they will not hesitate to use a pre-emptive strike if it suits their purposes? Is the Foreign Secretary content with that situation, which may mean war, and does he anticipate its prevention?

Mr. Hurd

That is the oldest and I think the emptiest argument in the world. Because one country may have thought of that argument, it takes actions which produce exactly the same feelings among its neighbours. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the only sane answer is that we have treaties in place which may not be perfect and we should work with our friends and allies who see the dangers to make them more effective. The success yesterday showed that they are effective, but we cannot be satisfied, because the incident also showed the continuing need and the continuing danger.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally unacceptable for Israel to have nuclear weapons as it would be for Iraq to have them? Will he confirm that the Government have been as assiduous in preventing the flow of nuclear munitions, or parts for them, to Israel as they would be to other countries?

Mr. Hurd

I have tried not to get drawn into the preferences of right hon. and hon. Members for different states. There is an occasion for doing that, but today is not it. We are talking about a number of non-nuclear states in an area continuously full of tension and bitterness. In my answers, I think that I have covered what we think is the right remedy.