Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Hansard, 26 May 1993)

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the first meeting of the preparatory committee for the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension and Review Conference was concerned with organisational issues and the committee made a satisfactory start to its task of preparing for the conference. The UK delegation leader delivered a statement reaffirming our aim to secure the treaty's unconditional, indefinite extension in 1995 and our commitment to support continuing progress towards nuclear disarmament.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. I hope that she will permit me, for the sake of accuracy, to quote from an article in the Washington Post which states: If America resumes testing, Russia and France will probably follow, and perhaps China. That would greatly reduce U.S. leverage to persuade North Korea and others not to go nuclear. The have-nots have always said that a universal test ban is a necessary preliminary to meaningful agreement on nonproliferation". Does the noble Baroness agree with that article?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I have read an article in the Guardian which was written by three of the newspaper's journalists. The United States policy review is still in progress. No final decision has yet been taken. The article I read queried whether the UK had lobbied for resumption. I can tell the noble Lord that we have told the US of the importance that we attach to the three tests allowed to us under the current legislation. I believe that the noble Lord asked my noble friend Lord Cranborne about this matter yesterday at Question Time. Indeed, the noble Lord has raised it with me on many other occasions. It is important that we obtain an extension of the non-proliferation treaty but we should not use that as 281 a means of achieving other measures. If a ban is to be effective, we shall have to engage in some time-consuming negotiations to go further down the route that the noble Lord favours. Regardless of what progress is made towards a comprehensive test ban, we still need to secure the NPT extension. We must work for that now.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I wish to pursue the question that my noble friend has just put, as I do not believe that the noble Baroness entirely answered it. Is the Minister aware that nuclear threshold states such as Korea and Iran would be far more likely to stop developing nuclear weapons if the Western states, including the UK, were to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I do not believe that that is necessarily true. As I have explained in this House on many occasions, the most important matter we must tackle is to work for an extension of the NPT. If it is decided that work can continue towards a comprehensive test ban, that should also be pursued. However, one should not give up working towards the NPT, which needs to be extended in 1995, simply because there are people who fail to agree with it, who seek to withdraw from it or who are being awkward about it at the present time.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that, with regard to heading (b) of this wearisomely repetitious Question, reprocessed plutonium from commercially operated power stations is not suitable for weapons manufacture?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is so to the best of my knowledge. We are extremely careful as regards reprocessing, whether of plutonium or of any other dangerous substance.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether she feels we are likely to find many allies among the 156 signatories to the treaty for our policy of go-slow on a test ban treaty and our apparent intention to increase our strategic nuclear capability?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I assure the House that there is no go-slow. We have always supported a comprehensive test ban as a long-term goal. We are consulting with others on how we might move towards that end, but we also need to take into account the implications of an end to testing as regards our ability to maintain the safety of our nuclear weapons over time. We must also bear in mind the importance of ensuring that any ban on testing contributes as effectively as possible to nonproliferation. One cannot separate the issues and one must keep working towards an extension to the non-proliferation treaty.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, the American Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, recently made a remark which seemed to me to be directly relevant to what the Minister said. Again for the sake of greater accuracy perhaps I may quote him. Mr. Aspin said: International co-operation is at the core of nonproliferation efforts … Co-operation is going to be difficult if the United States continues insisting on nuclear testing". 282 Is that not exactly what my noble friend on the Front Bench said today?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am not responsible for what is said by the United States Defense Secretary or, for that matter, any Secretary of State for Defence other than our own. It is very important that we do not give up the pressure that we have been maintaining on others to sign the non-proliferation treaty. It is also important that we move forward as quickly as we can down the path of getting rid of nuclear weapons. However, we should do so only when it is safe to do so. In the meantime it is the Government's responsibility, as it has been of previous governments, to ensure that we have viable defence in this country.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, do the Minister and the Government draw a distinction between testing for safety and testing for development?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the logical answer must be yes. I do not believe that my right honourable friends in another place are anything but logical in deciding an issue of such importance.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, as the Minister said that to some extent she is responsible for what our Secretary of State for Defence intends to do, will she say whether the Government intend to resume testing in July?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I need to make a correction in your Lordships' House. I am certainly not responsible for the Secretary of State for Defence. Obviously, in working with him on these important matters we talk together and have a common policy. While under the current legislation there is the opportunity for the UK to conduct three tests between July 1993 and September 1996, which will allow us to complete important safety-related work—and it is safety-related work—I do not necessarily know whether we will or will not take up the opportunity.