Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons (Hansard, 29 March 1990)

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, we are very concerned about the danger of a nuclear arms race developing in the sub-continent. Pakistan has, however, always asserted that it does not possess or intend to develop nuclear weapons. We take every suitable opportunity in our contacts with the Government of Pakistan to stress our continuing concern. As a depositary power the UK is strongly in favour of universal adherence to the non-proliferation treaty.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware— I am sure he is— that since this Question was tabled it has become even more apparent that even when the treaty has been signed, as in the case of Iran, it is not being enforced? What steps are the Government intending to take to ensure more universal extension and, more importantly, the enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the non-proliferation treaty came into force in 1970, since when 139 states have become parties. The fourth review conference will be held in Geneva from 20th August to 14th September and will be of particular importance as it is the last conference before the treaty comes up for extension. As a depositary power the United Kingdom is working actively for a successful outcome to the conference.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is not the central point that neither Pakistan nor India subscribes to the treaty, and will Her Majesty's Government not take steps to persuade both those countries to do so? This is a particularly favourable moment to do so now that Pakistan has become a member of the Commonwealth.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, we have in the past urged Pakistan to accede to the non-proliferation treaty, and the Pakistanis have made it clear that they will accede when India does so. We take every opportunity to encourage the Indians to reconsider their position, and we continue to encourage Pakistan to set an example by acceding first.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, have the Government taken further steps to that end since India became a member of the Commonwealth? Is this not an appropriate moment for Her Majesty's Government to take a positive initiative to get both these members of the Commonwealth together again?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, this matter was last raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon with both the Pakistani and the Indian authorities during his visit to the sub-continent in February.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is it not a major problem that a signature to the treaty is manifestly not enough? Iraq is a signatory of the treaty. Is it not further sad to hear from the international inspectorate that it had no evidence whatever that Iraq was building a nuclear weapons facility? Does not that strengthen the view that the best way forward might be the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is the noble Lord aware that the two nations who are, above all, preventing that are the United States and the United Kingdom?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, in raising the question of Iraq, the noble Lord goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper, though I can understand why he should wish to do so. Iraq is a party to the non-proliferation treaty, as he said, and as such has undertaken not to develop a nuclear weapons capability. We expect Iraq to abide by its international legal commitments.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, do the Government remember after all these years— 20 years— that the non-proliferation treaty is in the nature of a compact between the haves and the have-nots? While the have-nots agreed not to obtain nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons powers, including this country, agreed to proceed to multilateral nuclear disarmament. Is it realistic to expect everyone on the other side of the fence to observe the NPT while we do not do very much about it on our side?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I believe it is generally recognised that the non-proliferation treaty has been successful in discouraging states from developing nuclear weapons and declaring themselves as nuclear weapon states.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, how can the Minister say that with any conviction with the knowledge, according to the latest press reports, that Iraq, which is supposed to be a member of the treaty, is developing nuclear weapons and doing so rather well? What does the Minister have to say about that?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to table a Question on that aspect, I shall be glad to answer it. I do not think that I can add much more to what I have already said.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, in my first supplementary question, I believe that I referred to Iran when I meant so say Iraq; though the difference between the two countries is not all that great in this respect. Is the noble Lord aware of the old adage that example is better than precept? The Government's efforts might be more successful if we were to show ourselves that we are not very enthusiastic about nuclear weapons and are ready to begin the process of divesting ourselves of them. Would it not be a good idea not to proceed with Trident?

§ Lord Reay
No, my Lords, we do not believe that the situations are comparable. The position of the United Kingdom with regard to disarmament remains that if the United States and Soviet arsenals were substantially reduced, we would consider how to contribute to the nuclear arms control process.