The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Press Statement on Nuclear Testing – 10 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press statement on nuclear testing, issued on 10th November 1995.

    GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE:

    THE UK’S POSITION ON THE COMMONWEALTH AND DISARMAMENT ISSUED ON 10TH NOVEMBER

    The Prime Minister made clear in the Heads of Government Meeting that the United Kingdom could not associate itself with the fifth paragraph of the statement on Disarmament.

    The fifth paragraph reads:

    “Heads of Government noted the widespread anger caused by the current programmes of nuclear weapon tests. The overwhelming majority of Heads of Government condemned this continued nuclear testing which was inconsistent with the undertaking given by the nuclear weapons states to exercise utmost restraint so as not to affect the ongoing negotiations for the conclusion of the CTBT in 1996. These Heads of Government urged the immediate cessation of such testing.”

    In the British Government’s view, this paragraph is both factually inaccurate and seriously misrepresents an important subject.

    The British Government’s position, which the Prime Minister has explained to the Heads of Government Meeting, is that:

    – nuclear deterrence has preserved security and stability over the past half-century.

    – Those who hold responsibility, as acknowledged nuclear powers, for maintaining the deterrent have a duty to ensure the safety and reliability of their weapons.

    – There is a continuing threat of proliferation.

    – Until security can be assured by other means, and the threat of proliferation removed, it is essential to maintain effective nuclear deterrence. The existing nuclear powers should take the decisions necessary to achieve this.

    – Britain, as a nuclear power in the Commonwealth and one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, understands public concern about nuclear testing and is actively working for the conclusion in 1996 of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New Zealand – 10 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland, New Zealand, held on Friday 10th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy that they acknowledge the other side of the argument but I think what they have got in their statement is factually inaccurate, intellectually inconsistent and unbalanced and I haven’t signed up to that and they know that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you sitting on the fence, Mr Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sitting on the fence on the question of nuclear testing. I have made it perfectly clear I think the view that has been expressed by our Commonwealth colleagues is just plain wrong, just plain wrong. That has been my position right the way through and it remains my position now.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa, made in an interview on 9th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Nigeria could stay in the Commonwealth following the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a bad trial, a bad judgement and an unjust sentence and the Commonwealth will make that point very clear to Nigeria when it asks for clemency, but my principal concern at the moment is to save the lives of the people who are presently under threat and we will use all our endeavours to do that. I don’t think going beyond that and uttering threats of what might happen subsequently is a helpful way of securing that primary interest – saving the lives of the people who are at present at risk.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if anyone else could exert pressure on Nigeria].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a number of countries can exert influence, certainly the leaders of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, President Mugabe of course, President Mandela self-evidently and others will all have a particular role to play and I believe they will play that role.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about whether Nigeria’s actions would just be forgotten about].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course not but one needs to remember that the Commonwealth concern about Nigeria and other countries was on our agenda before the sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues; it isn’t something that has just blown up at a result of that particular trial and those particular sentences, it was on the agenda beforehand and has been for some time so self-evidently we will be looking to see what can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Auckland – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Regent Hotel in Auckland, held on Thursday 9th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Mrs. Clarke, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Perhaps first I may thank you both for your very warm and very pleasant welcome to Auckland. Norma and I have long wanted to visit New Zealand. As you both said, it is far too long since a British Prime Minister was here and nothing I have seen or heard since I have come is likely to delay my return though of course there are two or three days still to go! [Laughter]

    Some of you may be a touch surprised to hear me say this but I think the timing of this visit is exactly right. There are important issues that we need to discuss and I think we should discuss those issues face to face and not through the distorting prism of long-range soundbites and I believe that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have a longstanding relationship that will enable us to do that.

    Both of our countries have changed quite remarkably in recent years. In both, the economy and the structures of Government have been transformed and in each case our countries have emerged the stronger for it. Inevitably, our relationship has changed, it is now more modern, certainly more equal but that shouldn’t exclude ties of history, of personal friendship and of shared interests.

    Though we won’t always adopt identical positions, the New Zealanders and the British need to understand one another’s viewpoints and it is in that spirit that I wish to say something today about three issues that are in the headlines and which matter: the Middle East, nuclear weapons and Northern Ireland.

    I came here last evening not from London but from Israel and I would like to say just a few words first about Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

    He was a warrior, a man who fought and led in several wars in defence of his country’s interests, but as Israel’s Prime Minister he fought with equal courage for a lasting peace in the Middle East and for that a few days ago he gave his life.

    Whether we are from Britain or from New Zealand, it is in the interests of all of us to see a settled peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours. A peace settlement won’t remove all threats to stability in the Middle East, it will emphatically not resolve the problems posed by Iraq, posed by Iran, posed by Libya or the fragility of Algeria but it will defuse the sharpest issues in the region and allow new relationships to grow.

    In the Mount Herzl cemetery on Monday, leaders from West and East, and most remarkably from a range of Arab nations, shared the grief of the Israeli people. That could never have happened even a few years ago and it showed more powerfully than any words that could be uttered that a stable peace can be achieved if Prime Minister Rabin’s work is carried on, as I passionately believe it will be by his successor.

    I know that here in New Zealand you’d wish to join with me in remembering his life with gratitude and the achievements that he produced towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.

    Let me now turn to another issue of some importance mentioned both by the Prime Minister and by Mrs. Clarke, an issue that arouses strong emotions, the issue of nuclear weapons.

    It is not in the style of New Zealanders and the British to be other than direct and open with one another so let me tackle nuclear testing head on because to judge from some of the comments I have read and heard over recent weeks the British position is not properly understood here in New Zealand so let me set out the position for you.

    We, like you, wish to see a complete end to nuclear testing. We, the British, have no plans to carry out further tests or need to do so. We, like you, want a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We, like you, want to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and we are working for controls on fissile material and to eliminate chemical and biological weapons.

    We, the British, were one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were instrumental in achieving its indefinite extension earlier last year.

    In all this, I suspect Britain and New Zealand are united but there is a difference between us. Britain is a nuclear power and New Zealand is not. As Prime Minister, I have the ultimate responsibility for the use, the control and the safety of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. I hope and pray that it need never be used but until I am sure of that, sure of that beyond doubt, we will keep the deterrent and keep it in working order.

    Some say the world no longer needs deterrence. I must say I don’t agree with that point of view. Nuclear deterrence gave Europe security and stability. It would in my judgement by irresponsible to discard it before there is a better means of preserving stability to put in its place.

    Let me cite for you the example of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was developing – and might still be planning – nuclear weapons. He developed hideous forms of biological warfare and stockpiled enough biological and chemical weapons to wipe out the world’s population several times over. We cannot ignore such threats; that is one and there are others.

    As a Permanent Member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom is insisting on the full disclosure and elimination of these Iraqi programmes and strict monitoring to ensure compliance. We have at times come under pressure, often rather hard pressure, to soften our stance but we shall not do so. With the evidence that has now come to light, I believe we are right not to soften our stance. It is also right to keep our nuclear capacity and we will do so for as long as we judge it is needed for Britain’s protection and, if necessary, for the protection of our friends around the world.

    France, too, is a nuclear power whose weapons contribute to deterrence in Europe. Unlike Britain, France still needs to conduct some tests before signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In this situation, it would have been very easy for me to come here this week and join the chorus of disapproval about French nuclear tests, I have no doubt it would have provided me with some easy plaudits and a very nice, free ride during my visit here to New Zealand. I could have done that. After all, we declared eight years ago that the United Kingdom would abide by the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, we accepted the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and three weeks ago we announced that we would sign the Protocols in the first half of next year in the company of the United States and France and we, the British, worked for this triple undertaking at the specific request of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, so I could have taken that free ride had I chosen to do so but I must say to you I am not prepared to do so because if I had, I believe it would have been hypocritical.

    I know the responsibility of being a nuclear power, I understand the difficulties that faced the President of France and I am not prepared to condemn him for discharging those responsibilities and if I had, I must say to you as friend to friend I would have fallen short of the honesty and frankness that New Zealand has a right to expect from the United Kingdom. Upon this issue, to my regret, we must agree to differ.

    Finally, Jim, you mentioned Northern Ireland, a matter very close to my heart and my Government’s policy. You, Prime Minister, are one of many in New Zealand with Irish antecedents.

    Northern Ireland has changed dramatically since Albert Reynolds and I signed the Downing Street Declaration just two years ago. Fourteen months of ceasefire have seen life there returning step by step towards the sort of normality which you in New Zealand can take for granted. As the threat of terrorism has diminished, we have been able to relax the measures necessary to combat it and now, throughout the Province, there are no military patrols, we have relocated large numbers of troops back to their home bases; there has been a surge in the economy, unemployment is dropping, trade and investment are rising and tourism has hit record levels.

    We now want to move forward as soon as possible to negotiations which will embrace all of the parties in Northern Ireland, including those parties previously associated with terrorism. Our aim is a lasting political settlement fair to all parties and fair to both sides of the community.

    Such a settlement can be achieved. With the active partnership of the Irish Government and valuable support from the United States, we have opened the way to a democratic future for all the people of Northern Ireland but there are still many problems to overcome. We still have to overcome the legacy of suspicion and the mindset of violence. Though shooting and bombing have ceased, the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries both retain their arsenals and continue the hideous practice of so-called punishment beatings.

    Let me say this to you today: a democratic society can neither accept muttered warnings by political leaders of a return to paramilitary violence nor the spectacle of thugs smashing teenagers’ legs with baseball bats.

    For the past ten months, through patient negotiation we have been trying to bring Sinn Fein into the democratic arena. Last Friday, we published new proposals for representatives of the paramilitaries to discuss with an international body how their arms and explosives could be taken out of commission while parallel talks took place to prepare for all-party negotiations. I hope that Sinn Fein will respond positively to our proposals. I hope they will catch the tide of peace self-evidently flowing so strongly amongst all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Once the paramilitaries start consigning their weapons to history, they can make a full contribution to Northern Ireland’s democratic life on precisely the same basis as all the other constitutional parties.

    Jim, when you next visit the land of your fathers, I hope you will go once again to Northern Ireland. You will find there an atmosphere transformed out of all recognition even since your last visit just two years ago.

    Let me return finally to where I began. My visit here today is about keeping in touch. For all our family ties, for all our connections in sport and education, in culture and in trade, for all the links which see 100,000 New Zealanders come to Britain each year and even more Britons come to New Zealand, we mustn’t take each other for granted because of those long historic links so I was delighted with your announcement this morning that more young Britons will be allowed to come here as working holiday-makers. We, for our part, are going to mount a special programme of events in 1997 to show young New Zealanders why the link with Britain remains relevant to them in the 1990s.

    You and I, Prime Minister, have worked together in a way that the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have traditionally worked together. We have spoken openly as friends, bluntly from time to time when that was necessary and we have listened to what the other had to say. We have a great deal to learn from each other. I believe that Britain and New Zealand, with that close link that has been there for ever, have both gained from that and will gain from it in the future.

    We have watched from the United Kingdom with interest and admiration the reforms of the public sector that you have undertaken, reforms whose implementation, as we have seen in our own experience in the United Kingdom, can sometimes be very painful but which are now bearing fruit in a revitalised economic performance.

    Whenever you asked me to take up issues on New Zealand’s behalf, I have invariably done so. Equally, let me say to this audience today how much I value your Government’s support over Northern Ireland and your decision to send a contingent to serve with distinction alongside British troops with the United Nations in Bosnia. We shall work just as closely together, I believe, over the next few days to ensure the success of the Commonwealth Meeting under your Chairmanship.

    The Commonwealth, as I have seen on countless occasions, generates a unique spirit and on this occasion it has provided the happy circumstance of bringing Norma and me here today to see you and Joan once again, to enjoy your generous hospitality, to meet friends old and new and to see a country we have always wished to visit. It is a visit we will cherish and we are delighted to be here and most grateful for your hospitality. [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Specialist Advisers

    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) specialist advisers and (b) press or public relations officers are employed by his Department; and what is the total annual salary bill for (a) and (b).

    The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in (a) the Prime Minister’s Office or (b) the Cabinet Office are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    The number of officials within the Cabinet Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry is five and their direct annual salary cost is approximately £140,000. There are no officials employed on Scott inquiry-related matters within my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s Office on a full-time or part-time basis, although some will inevitably be involved from time to time. There are also no external consultants or advisers employed on such matters by the Prime Minister’s Office or the Cabinet Office. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office relating to the Scott Inquiry; and if he will list such persons.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

     

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list where appropriate for each Nolan commissioner his or her most recent public salary.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. Lord Nolan receives his judicial salary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) receive their parliamentary salaries. They receive no emoluments as members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Of the remaining seven members of the committee, six were paid an honorarium of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995 and subsequently an attendance fee of £155 per day and one, who was then in receipt of a salary from public funds, was not. All seven are now entitled to the daily attendance fee.

    Five of the seven have previously held full-time positions paid at public expense. Two members of the committee hold other current part-time appointments paid from public funds. Sir Martin Jacomb is chairman of the British Council, for which he receives an honorarium of £10,250 per year, and Diana Warwick is a lay member of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, for which she is paid an attendance fee of £186 per day.

     

    Sir Gerald Warner

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific functions in the Cabinet Office of Sir Gerald Warner; and what are the terms on which he is remunerated.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Sir Gerald Warner is employed in the Cabinet Office at grade 2 level as the intelligence co-ordinator. As such, he advises the Secretary of the Cabinet on the co-ordination of the intelligence machinery and its resources and programmes. He chairs various formal and informal groups charged with intelligence management. He has particular responsibility for reviewing the United Kingdom’s intelligence requirements and for advising on the allocation of the resources to enable the intelligence agencies to meet them. He is remunerated within the civil service grade 2 range.

     

    Private Finance Initiative

    Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by type of project (a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with New Zealand Prime Minister – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, held in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995. [Jim Bolger was Prime Minister of New Zealand from 2nd November 1990 – 8th December 1997]

    MR BOLGER:

    We do have to be short because I have to go across the road to escort Her Majesty through the building where the conference is going to be held.

    Can I just open these comments by saying that Prime Minister Major and myself have covered both bilateral issues and of course the CHOGM issues.

    On the bilateral front there is a warm reciprocity of views and we have no outstanding issues between us. We have agreed, however, that New Zealand will enhance the opportunity for young Britons to visit New Zealand on working arrangements. Currently that is limited to 500 per annum, we are going to quadruple that to 2,000 per annum, and that is in recognition that young New Zealanders of course can go to Britain on working arrangements with no limit. So it brings some reciprocity but clearly not to the extent that the British offer to New Zealand youngsters that go over there.

    On the issue of CHOGM, there is clearly the nuclear question where there are differences between the Prime Minister and myself, they are well known so I will not reiterate them here this morning. The issue of good government and how that might impact on some of the countries you described as [indistinct] states, that is going to be, I think, the most difficult thing at the conference – how do we respond as a group of 52 nations to assist countries to pursue the ambitions stated in the Harare Declaration. And that is where we will be putting substantial time during the conference.

    So that is what we have been discussing this morning and it has been a good morning.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a word or two about that. As the Prime Minister says, there is a very close, very long-standing, very detailed bilateral relationship that I think is in extremely good shape and I am delighted at the Prime Minister’s announcement about extending the Young Persons Scheme this morning. That will be very welcome and I have no doubt that a lot of young British people will be delighted to come and spend a year in New Zealand. I am very pleased that it will be far more than did in the past.

    We have discussed a number of other CHOGM issues this morning. As the Prime Minister says, even amongst the best of friends there are sometimes points of difference and although we share a determination to see a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we do have one point of difference that is well understood by all of you here, it is a point of difference that between friends can exist and we both acknowledge that point of difference does exist at the moment.

    We also spent some time this morning discussing something else of concern to us both, and that is not just the general question of the Harare Declaration and good government in the Commonwealth, which will certainly be a key part of our discussions over the next couple of days, but I think both of us are very concerned indeed at the confirmation by the Ruling Council in Nigeria of the death sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his associates. It seems to me, and I believe the Prime Minister shares this view, that that was a flawed judicial procedure. The sentences are not just.

    And I now speak for myself – the Prime Minister may wish to add his own thoughts – but I believe the Nigerians should exercise clemency, I very much hope they will exercise clemency, and I would be very surprised indeed if that were not a general view amongst colleagues in the Commonwealth.

    MR BOLGER:

    I am sure it will be a general view of colleagues. The local media here will be aware that I met the young Mr Wiwa yesterday, who asked me to see whether the Commonwealth could express a view to the Nigerian authorities to exercise clemency on behalf of his father and the other 8 who were sentenced with him. And the confirmation overnight that their sentence has been confirmed of course heightens our concern that the authorities in Nigeria may be moving to an early execution. That, we believe, would be quite appalling given that this is a key issue in the Commonwealth and to flout the Commonwealth in that way would certainly send all the wrong signals.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you believe that the bilateral relationship between New Zealand and Great Britain has been affected by the nuclear issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In countries that have been friends for a long time there is scope occasionally for disagreements. If there isn’t disagreement between countries then they have no great issues to discuss. Of course there is occasional disagreement. I don’t think that is going to affect the long term relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. There have been many occasions over the past 5 or 10 years when the United Kingdom, on behalf of New Zealand, have taken up matters in the international fora of the world. That will happen again in the future. I think we can stand the occasional disagreement without a great degree of difficulty.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] opposition to the British position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British position, I think we ought to get this correct. It is not Britain who are carrying out nuclear tests. Britain does not have to carry out nuclear tests. But we are a nuclear power. France is our next door neighbour. The French President has had clear advice that he should carry out those tests and as their next door neighbour I am not in the business of condemning them. That is the point.

    QUESTION:

    But do you understand that New Zealanders might disagree and might have expected more from Britain as a leading member of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I can understand how other people feel, it is a very emotional issue – nuclear weapons. But we are a nuclear power. We have a very close relationship with New Zealand, we also have a very relationship with France. I understand, perhaps better than non-nuclear powers, the particular problem faced by a nuclear power.

    The President of France has had clear advice, as I understand it, that it is necessary for him to test his weapons. I can understand that since I myself have responsibility for a nuclear weapon. And on that basis I am not in the business of condemning the French. That is the point of difference between us and I have repeatedly said so.

    QUESTION:

    Young people from this country died in your country when your environment was threatened, how can you come here when our environment is threatened and refuse to condemn the French testing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There have been over 2,000 nuclear tests over the last few years. We are a nuclear country, the United Kingdom are a nuclear country. We think that is necessary for deterrence and for security. That security is there for the United Kingdom, it is also there for our friends.

    MR BOLGER:

    We disagree on the issue, we accept we disagree on the issue, we are not seeking at this late moment to persuade each other to a different viewpoint. I think that is where it rests. Naturally Prime Minister Major would prefer that I agreed with him and I strongly would prefer that he agreed with me. But it doesn’t happen that way and that is where it is.

    And turning to Nigeria, obviously this is a key issue for the conference and I will be talking during the course of the day to leading African leaders – President Mugabe, President Mandela and others, Prime Minister Mahatir from Asia, a leading Asian leader at the conference, to see what the conference can do as a collective body to convey its concerns and to offer what assistance we can to get all governments to adhere to the principles set out in the Harare Declaration. That, I believe, is going to be the substantive challenge of this conference.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Keating is heading over this evening and he says he wants to give you a slap on the knuckles. Are you concerned about that, will you be meeting him, do you want to talk with him about nuclear issues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have known Paul for many years, I have no doubt that we will be meeting during the course of the next few days and I shall look forward to our exchanges.

    MR BOLGER:

    I will meet him tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Auckland (II) – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you feel that your back is now against the wall as far as the nuclear affair is concerned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t remotely feel as though my back is against the wall on that or any other issue. We know well what the feelings are about nuclear weapons in different parts of the world, the British position is well understood. No-one is in any doubt about my position. I have stated it many times and it hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have no regrets that it is only you and China that have not condemned the French nuclear testing and don’t you fear that it could give a boost to Republican resentment in Australia and New Zealand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t have that feeling at all. We have worked very hard for there to be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is, partly as a result of the work that Britain has done, going to be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty next year. It probably would not have happened without the British influence and other people’s work as well. We are a nuclear weapon country. We don’t have to test, we are not going to test. The French feel that they have to. That is a decision for France, France have made that decision, it is for them to make and I am not about to condemn them for doing so.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have any sympathy at all with the anger that is being expressed on the streets of New Zealand and there will be more anger now that you are here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am sure you will see that there is. I understand the way people feel about it, but that is a decision that is for France. France has taken that decision. I am not going to join in the general condemnation of that. I have indicated that in the past, I am not proposing to change my mind about that. Taking decisions like that is not an easy decision. I doubt that President Chirac took it willingly or easily. He decided that he felt it necessary that he had to take that decision.

    Well, since I have the ultimate responsibility for the British nuclear deterrent, I can imagine the advice that was put to him. And upon that basis, our position is that we are not going to condemn France. I have said that repeatedly and it remains the position.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to back tougher action against Nigeria if there is not an improved record on human rights? And what will you try to do for Ken Saro-Wiwa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are concerned about Nigeria. We had some contact with Nigeria recently about the trial that concluded some time ago and we are concerned about the nature of the trial with Mr Saro-Wiwa, and of course the outcome of the trial, and that is certainly a matter that I shall wish to discuss with other Commonwealth Heads over the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    What about action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to discuss that over the weekend. I think it is wise to have the discussion before we reach the conclusion. I have absolutely no doubt that strong feelings will be expressed about that. We will express our own view about it. It will be discussed in the next few days and no doubt, by the conclusion of the meeting, our action will be clear.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Auckland – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you what specific action you would like to see CHOGM take in an effort to pressure the Nigerian authorities into clemency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, let me say that I think it was a flawed trial and I think it was an unjust verdict and the sentences that have been feared, and sadly, I hear, confirmed, should not be carried out. I will certainly be asking the Nigerians for clemency and I imagine many others will at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. What action will be taken subsequently I think is a matter we will have to discuss over the next day or so.

    QUESTION:

    Will you seek a specific meeting with the Nigerian representative here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will make sure that they are aware of our view and aware of the fact that we believe clemency should be offered.
    QUESTION:

    Do you think the time is approaching when there should be consideration of suspending Nigeria from the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing to do is to determine precisely what can be done to help Mr Saro-Wiwa and the other defendants who are at present under sentence of death. I think that is the matter most on my mind at the moment. Subsequent action will have to await and see what happens as a result of our appeals for clemency.

    QUESTION:

    Does not their action though deserve pariah status, as Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son suggests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son is performing magnificently on behalf of his father. I don’t think that he can do much more than he is and he has my support in what he is doing. But for the moment I don’t think it is helpful to anyone other than to concentrate on making sure these sentences are not carried out.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there is a particular onus on black African leaders to attempt to exert influence on Nigeria in this situation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had the chance of meeting my fellow Commonwealth leaders from Africa yet in this conference. But I would be very surprised if they did not share my views.

    QUESTION:

    In particular Mr Mandela perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Mandela will speak for himself. But I would think most of our colleagues from Africa will share exactly the views I have just expressed.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Unemployment (European Union)

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.

    Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.

    Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour’s proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.

    Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions–it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.

    Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform–because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night–or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

     

    Social Chapter

    Q3. Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year’s intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker’s allowance.

    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year’s time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week’s newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent. will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.

    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain’s investment potential.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Remploy Consortium

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the trade union side secretary of the Remploy Consortium; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have received one such representation, which will be responded to in due course by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Education and Employment.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 2 May, Official Report, columns 167-68, what progress is being made towards repealing those regulations identified as unnecessary burdens to business;

    (2) if a compliance cost assessment has been completed on each regulation to be repealed; and what is the estimated saving to (a) small businesses and (b) the public funds from the repeal of each regulation.

    The Prime Minister: We have identified over 1,000 regulations for repeal or amendment and are on target to have dealt with over half of those by the end of the year. The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations imposing additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden. However, to take an example, simplification of the food temperature control regulations will help small businesses and generate savings of about £40 million a year for the industry as a whole without removing any necessary public health protection.

     

    Overseas Aid Budget

    Ms Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from hon. Members since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year;

    (2) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from non-governmental organisations since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year;

    (3) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from members of the public since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter over the past 12 months.

     

    President Chirac

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library (a) a copy of the memorandum on defence and security co-operation agreed with President Chirac of France on 30 October and (b) the text of the press conference he jointly hosted with President Chirac on 30 October.

    The Prime Minister: I have already done so.

     

    Quebec (Ex-premier’s Remarks)

    Mr. Mates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it clear to the ex-premier of Quebec Her Majesty’s displeasure at his remarks about ethnic minority groups and the recent referendum.

    The Prime Minister: The outcome of the referendum is a matter for Canadians in Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister has called for reconciliation. We wish the Canadian people well in the task of working together to this end.

     

    Official Inquiries

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the official inquiries he and his department have undertaken over the last five years indicating the dates they were initiated and the date when the findings were released to the public.

    The Prime Minister: I have set up no further inquiries since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 25 May, Official Report, columns 717-20.

     

    Marriage

    Mr. Patten: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps Her Majesty’s Government have taken to help married families since April 1992;

    (2) what steps Her Majesty’s Government have taken to strengthen the institution of marriage since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister: The Government are fully committed to supporting the institution of marriage. Marriage is the bedrock of family life. Stable families are good for our children. They are a source of love and discipline, and of support for weaker members. However, we recognise that marriage is also a personal matter. We have taken several steps to support marriage, while at the same time respecting the privacy of personal relationships and choice.

    This Government believe that married couples should receive recognition in the tax system. Married couples therefore receive tax treatment on both income and capital. They pay nearly £260 per year less in tax than most single people on the same income, at a total cost of £2.7 billion in 1995, and are treated more favourably for capital gains and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax reliefs for married couples are alone worth around £950 million in 1995-96. We also believe that people should have access to help to overcome problems in their marriages. The Government have therefore given £8.5 million to marriage guidance and research organisations since April 1992.

    To take this further, an interdepartmental group on marriage was set up in April this year to identify how Government can develop additional services to help couples who are considering marriage or whose marriages are in difficulty.

    Housing is a crucial issue for married families. Our White Paper “Our Future Homes” sets out the aim of ensuring that a decent home is in reach of every family. We want to make sure that the allocation of social housing includes the need to support married couples who take a responsible approach to family life as an important objective. We want to take away as many barriers to marriage as possible. For this reason, the Government supported a private Member’s Bill in 1994 which widened the choice of venues for couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony.

    Government Ministers meet representatives from the Churches and other organisations supporting marriage on an on going basis to discuss the scope for further initiatives.