The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Nuclear Tests

  • 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 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].

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects the report by the National Radiological Protection Board into the effects of radiation on veterans of British nuclear tests to be published; how this relates to the original envisaged publication date; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The National Radiological Protection Board anticipates that a report will be sent for peer review to a recognised scientific journal in the late summer or early autumn of 1993, with a view to publication as soon as possible thereafter later in the year.

    Delays have been caused by changes in scope made by the National Radiological Protection Board to update their final report. These changes include the incorporation of all deaths of participants up to 1 January 1991 rather than 1 January 1989 as originally envisaged and of a detailed case study into the effects of emigration and a more complete check of mortality and cause of death.

    The Government are not aware of any evidence which would change the conclusions of the National Radiological Protection Board report published in 1988 that the overall incidence of cancer among nuclear test participants is no greater than that among the population as a whole.

     

    Child Migrant Trust

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister when he received the letter of 4 May from Nottinghamshire county council regarding the Child Migrant Trust; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The letter was received on 6 May and was acknowledged.

     

    Ms Beata Brookes

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what reference he has made to the public appointments unit in relation to the appointment of Ms Beata Brookes as chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council in 1991; what account he has taken of whether the chairman of the Wales area of the Conservative and Unionist party carries out executive duties; and how his policy on such appointments has changed since his answer of 28 November 1991, Official Report, column 608.

    The Prime Minister : The public appointments unit is consulted in seeking nominations for all appointments to public boards, including the chairmanship of the Welsh Consumer Council, as are a number of other bodies. As chairwoman of the Wales area of the Conservative and Unionist party, Miss Brookes is not an officer carrying out executive duties in the party. Her role does not, therefore, conflict with the long-standing and now publicly available guidelines for members of public boards on political activities. This is in line with the answer I gave on 28 November at column 608.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report of the review of public appointments.

    The Prime Minister : I will arrange for a copy of the latest report of the review of public appointments (1989) to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish the report of the Central Policy Review Staff in 1973 on the system of public appointments.

    The Prime Minister : I do not know of such a report. The hon. Member may have in mind an inter-departmental working party of officials in 1974 which studied certain aspects of appointments in the public sector. Their advice recommended the establishment of the public appointments unit. I will arrange for a copy of the working party’s report to be placed in the Library of the House.

     

    Non-departmental Public Bodies

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those non- departmental public bodies which (a) have been abolished since 1979 and (b) have been established since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : A full list of non-departmental public bodies in existence for each year since 1979 is available in the following publications : “Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies” (Pliatzky Report, Cmnd 7797, January 1980), “Non-Departmental Public Bodies : Facts and Figures 1980”, “Non-Departmental Public Bodies : Facts and Figures 1981”, and “Public Bodies” published annually from 1982. Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

    For each year since 1986, a press notice has listed separately public bodies which have been created and abolished. Copies are being sent to the hon. Member, and to the Libraries of both Houses. Such summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 do not exist, and could be reconstructed only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Coal Industry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 25 March, Official Report, column 1223, if he will set out a detailed itemised breakdown of the annual expenditure of £18 billion invested in the British coal industry since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : Grant aid made available to the coal industry since 1979 is set out in the table :

    Grants<1> to British Coal and payments under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme<2>

    Financial year |Deficit & Deficiency Grants |Operating Grants |Social & Restructuring Grants |Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme |Total

    |£ million |£ million |£ million |£ million |£ million

    ————————————————————————————————————————————-

    1979-80 |159 |30 |62 |15 |266

    1980-81 |149 |26 |79 |15 |269

    1981-82 |428 |27 |120 |48 |623

    1982-83 |374 |12 |134 |80 |600

    1983-84 |875 |- |270 |190 |1,335

    1984-85 |2,225 |- |189 |200 |2,614

    1985-86 |50 |- |513 |563 |1,126

    1986-87 |288 |- |594 |610 |1,492

    1987-88 |200 |- |477 |295 |972

    1988-89 |0 |- |297 |168 |465

    1989-90 |6,153 |- |1,090 |126 |7,369

    1990-91 |0 |- |141 |93 |234

    1991-92 |0 |- |457 |61 |518

    1992-93<3> |0 |- |622 |43 |665

    |——- |——- |——- |——- |——-

    Total |10,901 |95 |5,045 |2,507 |18,548

    <1> Grants to British Coal are at outturn prices, on an accruals basis, taken from British Coal’s Annual Report and Accounts.

    <2> Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. Figures exclude administration costs.

    <3> 1992-93 figures provisional.

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 467, if it is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy that a cessation of United Kingdom underground nuclear tests is dependent on the negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    The Prime Minister : Our policy has always been to keep our testing programme to the minimum necessary to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent. In the absence of a comprehensive test ban, whether we continued to test would naturally depend on our needs at the time, and whether they could be met by means other than testing. We believe any restraints on testing should be negotiated and verifiable.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom of legal and other restrictions applying to states to prevent their conducting nuclear tests.

    The Prime Minister : The effect would depend on the scope and nature of such restrictions. If backed by effective verification and inspection mechanisms they could play a useful part in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In our approach to these issues we shall be seeking an outcome which ensures this objective is achieved, but which enables us to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent.

     

    Council Tax (Care Homes)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what consultation there has been between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health on the imposition of council tax on charitable residential care accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The two Departments have discussed a number of representations which have argued that residential care homes should be exempted from the council tax. Care homes will receive a number of reliefs, which will together mean that their council tax bills will be small. These bills represent a reasonable contribution to the cost of the local authority services from which care homes and their residents benefit.

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s third annual report, for 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have properly exercised their powers under the Act and that the arrangements in force for ensuring that the service discloses information only in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act are working satisfactorily.

     

    Interception of Communications

    Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of the right hon. Sir Thomas Bingham’s first report, covering 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his report. I note in particular his observations that the Secretaries of State take great care to satisfy themselves that the warrants are necessary for the purposes stated in the Act, and that the system for the issue of warrants is working as intended by Parliament.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Foreign Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to reject any proposal for a common EC foreign policy or for foreign policy co-ordination which would impinge on the United Kingdom’s relations with other Commonwealth countries or restrict the right of the United Kingdom to work with other Commonwealth countries on any matter of Commonwealth concern.

    The Prime Minister : We shall not accept any treaty text which would impair our ability to maintain and develop our relations with other Commonwealth countries.

     

    Livestock Premiums

    Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinate the payment of livestock premiums so that all farmers in Great Britain receive payments at the same time.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 14 May that it was hoped to pay the majority of first advances under the sheep annual premium scheme no later than early autumn. This target was comfortably achieved in all parts of the United Kingdom. Payment of the second advance is already under way. Each agriculture department aims to make payments under the livestock schemes as quickly as possible. Producers’ interests would not be best served by co-ordinating payments in the way suggested.

     

    Traffic, Parliament Square

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons why all traffic was stopped from entering Parliament square at 15.05 hours on 19 November.

    The Prime Minister : The management of traffic in London is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand however that traffic in Parliament square was held up for a short period at 15.05 hours on 19 November to facilitate the passage of the President of Hungary to the Palace of Westminster.

     

    Homelessness

    Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to co-ordinate the activities of the Department of the Environment in dealing with homeless people and the activities of the Resettlement Agency in funding replacement bed spaces for closed resettlement units.

    The Prime Minister : Regular discussions are held between Ministers and officials of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security and the Resettlement Agency. At a local level, the agency holds detailed discussions on the provision of replacement beds for resettlement units which have closed or are to close with local authorities and the voluntary organisations in the area concerned.

     

    Nuclear Testing

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to the answer of 5 November, Official Report, column 43, he will publish the text of the letter from Her Majesty’s ambassador in Washington to the Chief of the Shoshone Nation regarding the continuation of British nuclear testing in Nevada.

    The Prime Minister : I have arranged for the text of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to the reply of 5 November, Official Report, column 43, he will publish the text of the letter on nuclear testing from his Australian counterpart.

    The Prime Minister : Any decision to publish the text of the letter is one for the Australian Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Latham : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the conflict in the Gulf.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made earlier today.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister at what times on 22 February Her Majesty’s Government first obtained the text of (a) the first Soviet plan and (b) the revised Soviet plan for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait ; and from what source this text was obtained.

    The Prime Minister : In the evening of 18 February I received a personal message from President Gorbachev in which he set out the proposals he had put to the Iraqis. Details of the revised plan were received in the morning of 22 February from Moscow ; the Soviet Government put it to the United Nations Security Council in the morning–New York time–of 23 February.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what communications he or his officials had with his counterparts in member states of the allied coalition in the Gulf on 22 February ; and what matters were discussed.

    The Prime Minister : We had extensive consultations on 22 February with partners in the allied coalition, and with the Soviet Union, predominantly on the terms under which Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait and comply with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration was given to the effects of the damage done to bridges and roads in Kuwait and in southern Iraq by the allied bombing sorties when the time period for Iraqi military withdrawal from Kuwait was set on 22 February.

    The Prime Minister : The allied deadline took account of circumstances at the time and was intended to ensure that Iraq ended its occupation of Kuwait in the shortest possible time.

     

    Kuwait

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to submit proposals to the United Nations and to the allied Governments for the establishment of a free and autonomous nation, with a democratic government, in Kuwait on the completion of its liberation.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 26 February at column 463.

     

    Nuclear Test Ban

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), Official Report, 17 January, column 572, he will set out the proposals that have been submitted by the United Kingdom to the conference on disarmament in Geneva in each year since 1979 on the matter of nuclear testing.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom has participated fully in the relevant ad hoc committee and in the group of scientific experts which is considering the subject.

     

    Mr. Ian Richter

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what information he possesses on the present health and whereabouts of Mr. Ian Richter, a British citizen held in jail in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. Richter was last visited in Abu Ghraib prison by Her Majesty’s consul general in Baghdad on 2 January shortly before the withdrawal of our staff from Iraq. Mr. Richter was then in good health, had sufficient supplies to last some time and well understood why the embassy staff were withdrawing.

    We are using all possible channels, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, to check that Mr. Richter is safe. We remain in close touch with his family.

     

    Norwegian Prime Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West concerning the meeting with the Norwegian Prime Minister, Official Report, 21 February 1991, column 223, what matters were raised during the discussions on developments in Europe.

    The Prime Minister : Mrs. Brundtland and I exchanged views on NATO, the European Community and on the negotiations toward a European economic area.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 28 February.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Saudi Arabia

    Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised with the Saudi Arabian Government during his recent visit the issue of British citizens missing since the tunnel disaster of 2 July 1990.

    The Prime Minister : No. The British embassy in Riyadh remain closely in touch with the Saudi authorities who are continuing their investigations to try to trace the three British pilgrims still missing. We have provided finger prints of two of the pilgrims for comparison with those taken of victims before burial.

     

    Departmental Budgets

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister by how much the budget for the Department of Social Security will be decreased and the budget of the Department of the Environment will be increased for 1991-92 in respect of (a) hostels, (b) housing and community charge benefit subsidy and (c) care in the community.

    The Prime Minister : For the 1991-92 financial year there will be no transfer of funds between the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment in respect of care in the community; but in drawing up the proposed local government financial settlement for England for that year full account was taken of some £16.35 million in respect of hostels. Similarly, the effect of the £86 million reduction in direct subsidy for housing benefit and community charge benefit in 1991-92 was fully taken into account in drawing up the proposed local government financial settlements for that year.

     

    Nuclear Arms

    Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now reconsider Her Majesty’s Government’s refusal to commit the United Kingdom to negotiate a complete ban on nuclear tests and to accept annual mini-reviews on the progress of effective reduction of nuclear weapons, as proposed by Mexico and other non-aligned nations at the review conference on the nuclear non- proliferation treaty in 1990.

    The Prime Minister : We have made clear that we support a comprehensive test ban as a long-term goal to be reached on a step-by-step basis. Because our security will depend for the foreseeable future on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons, we have a continuing need to test our nuclear weapons to ensure they remain effective and up-to-date. We believe that the conference on disarmament at Geneva provides the most appropriate forum for discussion of progress on nuclear testing issues.

     

    European Community

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what treaty amendments beyond those in the conclusions of the Rome European Councils are being considered by Her Majesty’s Government for submission to the European Community.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have already tabled draft treaty amendments on EMU. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his speech to the House on 6 December to a number of areas in which the Government would seek improvements in the treaties in the context of the inter-governmental conference on political union. All these are covered by the conclusions of the Rome European Councils.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of the allies towards Iraq should the present regime be militarily defeated in the event of war.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 15 January at column 814. I have nothing further to add.

     

    Public Records Office

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the findings of the report on the future of the Public Records Office prepared by the civil service efficiency unit published in December 1990.

    The Prime Minister : I understand that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has received the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the Public Record Office. The report has not yet been published. I understand that the Lord Chancellor intends to make a statement very shortly.

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list in full the military objectives of the allies if war occurs in the Gulf.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s objectives since the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 have been and remain those of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

     

    Advertising

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister whose responsibility it is to ensure that departmental Ministers observe Government conventions on the use of paid publicity and advertising ; what process of scrutiny is currently in operation ; and by what process departmental Ministers are held to account for the actions of their Departments in this regard.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 January 1991] : It is the responsibility of individual Ministers to ensure that the conventions on Government publicity and advertising are observed by their Department. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 December 1990

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th December 1990.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Minister for Industry

    Sir John Farr : To ask the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Minister for Industry, and appoint a Minister designated with the specific task of recovering the disappearing presence of home industry on the world stage.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Government are pursuing policies to promote an environment in which business can flourish. The United Kingdom’s share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised after decades of decline, and is set to rise in 1990 for the second year running.

    Nuclear Weapons Treaties

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies to be advanced by the United Kingdom delegation to the non-proliferation and nuclear test ban negotiations starting on 7 January.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom delegation to the partial test ban treaty amendment conference will make clear our view that war is best prevented by keeping a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons which would present any possible aggressor with risks out of proportion to any possible gain. If United Kingdom nuclear forces are to be a sure deterrent they must be kept effective and up to date : that requires nuclear testing.

    D Notices

    Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister how many D notices have been issued since August and how many involved (a) terrorism and (b) the Gulf.

    The Prime Minister : None.

    Health Service Pay Report

    Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister when the second supplement to the seventh report of the review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions applied to medicine will be published.

    The Prime Minister : The review body’s second supplement, which deals with the pay of senior nurses and midwives after the introduction of a new pay structure on 1 January 1991, is being published today. The Government are most grateful to the review body for the additional work they have undertaken to prepare this report. The report recommends that the pay spine and pay ranges under the new structure should be as proposed in joint evidence by the staff and management sides of the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council, and that the rates of London weighting payable should be the same as those which senior managers currently receive. The Government have decided to accept the review body’s recommendations.

    Government Functions

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), Official Report, 30 November, column 504, if he will now answer questions concerning (a) the membership of Cabinet sub-committees, (b) the internal workings of Government and (c) advice given to Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 30 November at column 504.

    Press Briefings

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), Official Report, 3 December, column 44, whether he will set out the reasons for continuing the confidential daily briefings for journalists by his press secretary.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 3 December at column 44.

    Minister for Science

    Dr. Bray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Science, Technology and Research with responsibility for the co-ordination of government science and technology policy, the science budget, the research councils, common service research organisations including the Meteorological Office, and for the representation of Britain in European Community and other international science councils.

    The Prime Minister : No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 December at column 330.

    Opinion Surveys

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply that he received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, earlier today.

    The Gulf

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will visit Jordan to discuss ecological problems of a Gulf war;
    (2) if he will visit Iran to discuss ecological problems of a Gulf war;
    (3) if he will visit Yemen to discuss ecological problems of a Gulf war;
    (4) if he will discuss with EEC leaders the possibility of a group of Prime Ministers going to Baghdad to discuss the human and ecological effects of a Gulf war and Iraq’s view of middle eastern boundaries and ethnic questions.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so.