§ 3 p.m.
§ Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they will advise that a state visit be paid to Israel before Israel signs the non-proliferation treaty.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, there are many competing bids for outward state visits, but there is no reason why one should not be paid to Israel in due course. We shall continue to urge Israel, and other non-members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to allay suspicions about its nuclear activities and accede to the treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply; but will she bear in mind the somewhat equivocal background to the position? The Israeli Government said that they will never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. That does not make sense, first, because they have already done so; and, secondly, before they did so, the Americans, ourselves and probably also the French did so. Beyond that, Israel proclaimed its desire to be the first country to propose a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. That too is nonsensical because such a zone was proposed for many years by Egypt and Iraq and is now proposed also by Iran.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, along with many others, we have been concerned for some time, as the noble Lord knows, about reports that Israel has a nuclear weapon programme. However, we have no verifiable evidence of that. The noble Lord went on to say that others have been talking of the creation of a nuclear weapon-free zone hut do not mean it—I believe that that was the sense of his question. We support the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone; but the most effective way for states to demonstrate their 10 commitment to non-proliferation is to join the NPT. That is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spent some time last Thursday with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, urging him to make progress with Egypt. That means allaying international suspicions and acceding to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state as soon as possible.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that Iran recently repeated its threat to annihilate the state of Israel? So far as we know, it is on the path to securing nuclear weapons. Iraq is very much of the same mind. Therefore, would it be reasonable for any government to ask the state of Israel not to retain at least the possibility of deterrence to those major threats to its very existence?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the difficulty is that both Iran and Iraq are not just a threat to Israel; they are a threat to peace in the Middle East and the wider world as a whole. That does not mean that we should not seek, where we can, to stop nuclear proliferation. That is why this important non-proliferation treaty and the forthcoming review conference is so much in the news at the present time. I understand my noble friend's anxieties in regard to the position of the state of Israel. I believe that signing the non-proliferation treaty is something we should be encouraging worldwide, not only with Israel.
§ Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider going to the national non-proliferation treaty review conference later this month with a clear commitment to make no increase in the number of warheads on Trident over and above the number on Polaris? Would that not be an encouragement to countries such as Israel which, regrettably, refused to be party to the treaty? It would encourage them to take a more responsible position in relation to that treaty.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, we shall do all we can to halt proliferation. That is why we shall take a positive position at the review conference.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, I understand and share the anxieties which have been expressed regarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Does not the Minister agree that the object of the non-proliferation treaty is to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons? Does she agree also that four—possibly five—countries in the Middle East other than Israel either already have nuclear capability or are on the brink of acquiring it? They are also on the brink of acquiring the capability of other weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, and are about to obtain the capability to deliver them by ballistic and air-breathing missiles. In the light of that, is it not strange to be concentrating upon the activities of one country in the Middle East?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, there is genuine anxiety about all countries which have not signed the non-proliferation treaty as well as some of those who have, like Iraq. However, at least if they have signed the NPT there is a legal basis for taking them to 11 task, whereas for countries which have not signed the non-proliferation treaty there is no such basis. The solution to all these problems must be to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Authority's ability to detect undeclared activities, to extend the nonproliferation treaty and also to ensure that the treaty not only enshrines commitment to negotiate nuclear disarmament, but also extends its influence over those countries mentioned by the noble Lord.