asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the recent responses by the Government of Iran concerning their nuclear programme fully meet the United Nations Security Council requests.

My Lords, Iran has yet to respond substantively to the proposals made by the E3+3. These would give Iran everything that it needs to develop a modern civil nuclear power generation programme while meeting international concerns. We hope that Iran will take the positive path that is being extended, and we look forward to an early response. My Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss Iran with her counterparts from the other G8 nations in Moscow today.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The atmosphere was very positive when Javier Solana presented his proposals on 6 June in Tehran and, indeed, some of the more provocative American comments have faded away somewhat since then. However, is the Minister confident that the success of the EU3 negotiating team and its capacity to exercise supervision and oversight in the longer term will be fully maintained, linked to the UNSC 5+1, bearing in mind the very narrow dividing line between civilian and military enrichment activities?

My Lords, there is every intention to superintend this process rigorously. The aim of the Iranians at the moment is probably to delay making any kind of response until after the G8 meeting in St Petersburg. The aim of the international community as a whole—and I mean "as a whole"—is to ensure that there is a response much earlier than that, in weeks rather than months.

My Lords, there must surely be a suspicion that the elites in Iran, with strong popular support, have made a strategic decision that it is in their national interest to acquire a military nuclear capability and that they are prepared to pay a high price for that, including condemnation at the UN, international isolation, sanctions and benefits forgone. Can my noble friend give any evidence to refute that suspicion?

No, my Lords, I cannot provide evidence to refute that suspicion. Iran has only one nuclear power reactor under construction for which it already has a 10-year fuel supply contract and a commitment from Russia to supply fuel for the entire lifetime of that reactor. There are no other reactors under construction or even approaching construction. To rush ahead and master enrichment technology and to continue towards the construction, on an industrial scale, of an enrichment facility has no rational basis if one looks at it simply in terms of fuel creation.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Iran is clearly not very good at replying promptly to letters and obviously does not want to reply until after the St. Petersburg summit? Indeed, it has said that on 22 August it might deign to reply. Obviously, we must keep pressing all the time. Does he agree that it is very important to keep Russia—particularly Russia—and China on side in maintaining the pressure on Tehran and, therefore, that attacks on Russia's democracy of the kind that Vice President Cheney delivered a few weeks ago are not very helpful in the circumstances and should perhaps be discouraged? Does he agree that China and Russia should take a positive lead, despite the arrival of Condoleezza Rice in this grouping, I gather, from Afghanistan?

My Lords, the Iranians do not always reply by return of post, unlike my own department. I certainly have no comment to make on what we could or could not encourage Vice President Cheney to do, but I agree with the broad thrust of the sentiment. In Vienna, the E3+3 agreed, in principle, that there should be efforts to draft a Security Council resolution so that it could be adopted very rapidly if Iran rejects the request. It is absolutely critical that Russia and China, which have been cautious, are and continue to be on board in that process. That must be where we direct our efforts.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be more difficult to hold Iran to account under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were Her Majesty's Government to decide to upgrade Britain's Trident nuclear system, which would arguably conflict with Article 6 of that treaty?

My Lords, I do not agree with that proposition. Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, to which it is a signatory, are plain. We are a registered nuclear power under the treaty, and it is right and within our responsibilities to sustain that role should we choose to do so.

My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that force will not be used in relation to Iran without the sanction of the Security Council?

My Lords, it is premature and potentially even dangerous to explore all the options that may occur in extremis. We are solidly locked into the process of the Security Council and of trying to keep the international obligations that the E3+3 have established for everybody as the basis for everything. Nobody should go into any negotiation with the supposition of failure and what would follow from that. The task must be to make this negotiation a success.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the Iranians suspend enrichment and a dialogue gets underway, it will have to go a lot wider than merely nuclear issues and will have to address Iran's security concerns, some of which are legitimate and all of which must be discussed if we are to get on to a sounder and sustainable footing with that country?

My Lords, the negotiations are bound to go further and wider. I say that with a caveat: the first obligation under the non-proliferation treaty is to cease the enrichment programme, which might lead to the creation of nuclear weapons. Everybody needs to feel confident about their security but nations should not impede the potential security of other nations in their region, and more widely.

My Lords, we on these Benches assure the Government that we strongly support the efforts they have made with the French and German foreign ministers to maintain a dialogue with Iran. Can the Government assure us in return that they are well aware of the broader regional context in dealing with Iran? Iran has Afghanistan, Iraq and Azerbaijan as neighbours, and minorities which overlap its frontiers. We must ensure that, in dealing with an important country in the region, we think about the broader context for Western policy and the region as a whole.

My Lords, it is precisely because of that more general context that such effort has gone into sustaining a proper negotiation, recognising that there must be a degree of satisfaction in the outcome from everybody's point of view. I have no fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord's proposition.