§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the conference for reviewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, the Conference ended on 30th May. It adopted a Final Declaration, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I believe the adoption by consensus of this constructive Declaration shows very wide support for the essential purposes of this important Treaty.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, although I am a little surprised by it. Would not he agree that the conclusions of this Conference were tragically inadequate and that the Conference itself was saved only by the constructive patience of the Swedish chairman, Inga Thorsonn? May I ask him to answer this question regarding the attitude of the British representative: did he vote for the one basic Motion before the Conference calling on the two super-Powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals and for the suspension of nuclear tests for ten years? Did the United Kingdom support that?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords I cannot agree with my noble friend 306 that this Conference ended as a tragic failure. The United Kingdom view is that we should have liked to have had stronger statements in connection with certain Articles, especially the technical Articles Nos. 3, 4 and 5; but on balance we regard the consensus Declaration—and we appreciably assisted the Swedish chairman in the task of drafting a generally acceptable Declaration—as marking a substantial step forward. However, a great deal needs to be done because this is a highly complex and difficult matter; it is the question of control, indeed of nuclear disarmament, and it will not be achieved at one conference. As to the attitude of the United Kingdom delegation and others to the proposal, as we saw it somewhat simplistic though well-motivated, calling for instant and complete nuclear disarmament by the super-Powers, we felt in all reason that this could only be a propaganda exercise and therefore abstained, calling for a practical approach to progressive disarmament in this field and in a spirit of not wishing to prejudice the very substantial progress already made and likely to be made in the SALT talks.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the conclusions of this Non-Proliferation Conference, several countries have now embarked on nuclear research designed ostensibly for peaceful purposes but with a defensive potential? In view of the international situation—what has happened in Vietnam, what is happening in South-East Asia and what is now happening in Korea, Malaysia and elsewhere—is it not time that NATO considered the warning and increased its nuclear strength for defensive purposes?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that on the whole I would rather leave my two noble friends to argue that one between themselves. However, I concede to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who of course, as a former distinguished Minister of Defence knows a good deal about the difficulties of disarmament, that it is important that there is universal ratification of this vital Treaty. Some 140 sovereign States are involved. So far 95 have signed and ratified, a further 15 have signed only; but 30 have not yet either signed or ratified, and among those latter are two 307 nuclear Powers, China and France, and a number of other countries, as my noble friend has reminded us, who have made great strides in the direction of achieving possession of this technology with all its implications.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell me—I shall quite understand if he cannot—whether it is a fact that any reactor using uranium as its base produces plutonium as a necessary byproduct of its nuclear chemistry? Is it also a fact that, if one once abandons the diffusion process for producing enriched uranium and goes on to a centrifugal process, it is extremely difficult to detect?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I see no reason why I should dissent from the information imparted by a former distinguished Minister of Science.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not entering into a dialogue with my noble friend Lord Brockway, whose genuine convictions in seeking peace I recognise? Is my noble friend further aware from reports which have recently been circulating, that some Latin American countries have ample uranium resources and are contemplating engaging in nuclear research? Why do we not take note of these trends and do something about them?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we do indeed, and we do more than take note. It is a fact, as the House will know, that the International Atomic Energy Authority is the agency which is deputed under this Treaty to ensure that there are proper safeguards, which are at least applicable to those who have signed and ratified, about the disposition and use of nuclear material. I am glad to inform my noble friend that on the initiative of the United Kingdom, the IAEA will almost certainly form an advisory group on this vital matter in the very near future. I wish that I could confirm that it has already decided to do so, but it is sitting today.
On the question of Latin America, like other Continents this is no doubt a source. It is a question of controlling the disposition and use of these resources. Latin America is an outstanding example 308 of the successful creation of a nuclear-free zone.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, can the Minister say what was the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the proposal made at this Conference that the existing nuclear weapon States should renounce the use of those weapons in any future conflict with non-nuclear weapon States? Secondly, could the noble Lord say whether any fresh proposals were submitted for the tightening up of the inspection and control of the use of fissile materials, bearing in mind that the Indians have already succeeded in diverting nuclear materials from the peaceful programme of reactors which they had under way without detection by the IAEA? Does not that indicate that the existing machinery of inspection and control is inadequate, and that further nations will become nuclear weapon States unless there is some tightening up?
Lord GORONVVY-ROBERTSMy Lords, taking the second point first, it is a fact that, under the Treaty, the Authority is not a sovereign Power. The only way in which we can achieve a universal acceptance and observance of the safeguards, which are technically efficient as put together by the IAEA, is through completely universal signature and ratification of the Treaty. So far as those countries which have done this are concerned, I believe that the application of the safeguard provisions is effective. Indeed, the consensus Declaration says so in commenting on Articles 1 and 2. I regret that I do not recall the first point the noble Lord made.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I asked what was the Government's attitude to the proposal at the Conference that existing nuclear weapon States should renounce the use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict with non-nuclear weapon States.
Lord GORONVVY-ROBERTSMy Lords, this is a provision of the original Treaty. The question of the defence of non-nuclear States from nuclear attack by nuclear States is technically a difficult matter. I do not for a moment want to sound frivolous on this matter, but there is a dichotomy here if, on the one hand, one urges the immediate nuclear disarmament of the nuclear States but in the next breath provides nuclear safeguards for the 309 non-nuclear States. These things need to be thought out and set out in an acceptable and effective way. I think the short answer to the noble Lord is this: we are committed to an effective and acceptable method of safeguarding the nonnuclear States from nuclear attack. We as a country still do not know how this can be done, but we are assiduous in seeking a solution.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend, in part agreement with my noble friend Lord Shinwell and endorsing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked, whether he is aware that there are now 20 countries with power centres which are able to make nuclear weapons? If this goes on, how is the human race to be saved from international suicide? In view of the declaration in the Labour Party Manifesto that our Government would seek nuclear disarmament in regard to our own weapons by initiatives in international conferences, I particularly ask my noble friend: what did our representative at this Conference do to carry out that pledge?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I believe that everybody would agree with my noble friend that, unless there is control leading to disarmament in this field, the outlook is extremely serious. As to the best way to secure disarmament in this or in the conventional field, the present Government, his and my Party and, I believe, the whole House are committed to the search for multilateral disarmament. My noble friend quite rightly calls for total disarmament. Total disarmament means not total in one country but total everywhere.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, my noble friend has made many replies to important questions which have been directed to him on this vital matter. Is he aware that the United Nations is faced with one of the greatest humps it has ever had to confront? How it is to get over it is most difficult to assess. France is a country with which we are to be allied in the future. The action which France has now taken certain action about which it has received a formal protest from Australia, and which approach has aroused so much direct opposition on the part of many people within our own 310 shores because of the line it has taken. Can my noble friend say what will be the position about that? How are we to retrieve it? Also, does my noble friend see any possibility of France seeking to apply for re-entry into the orbit of NATO?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, before my noble friend replies may I intervene to suggest that that should be the last question. Some 26 speakers are due to take part in two debates and we have spent a good deal of time on Question Time.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend perhaps sums up the meaning of this exchange. I only hope that there are similar exchanges all over the world. It is no good pretending that progress in this field is as satisfactory as we would wish; neither is it any good pretending that there is a simple and quick answer to these extremely difficult technical and psychological questions. I welcome these exchanges. I share the concern felt in every part of the House. Indeed, the Government feel—as did our predecessors—that this is an extremely dangerous and difficult question. If therefore we take part in a worldwide expression of concern on this subject, I think that we shall thereby he helping to secure better progress in the future.