| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nuclear Weapons
14. Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): What progress has been made to date in achieving a nuclear weapons-free world. [83513]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): United States and Russian arms control agreements have brought the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers down dramatically from the cold war heights. The Government last year announced substantial reductions in our own nuclear deterrent. In 1997, Britain and France became the first nuclear powers
to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The entry into force of that treaty, and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, are among the highest priorities.
Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. At the nuclear proliferation treaty preparatory committee discussions currently under way at the United Nations in New York, the head of the British delegation stated that we have a clear view of our goal of global elimination of nuclear weapons, and that we know how we want to achieve it. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Foreign Office intends to achieve the aim of ridding the world of nuclear weapons once the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations have been successfully concluded?
Mr. Lloyd: Britain has already taken significant steps. Announcements made in last year's strategic defence review mean that we have the lowest number of nuclear deterrents of any of the nuclear weapons states. We have also introduced new transparency into nuclear deterrence, and more is known about our nuclear weapons systems than has been known of any nuclear power in the history of nuclear weapons. Those are important steps.
While the fissile material cut-off treaty is the next step on the way to dismantling nuclear arsenals, we have not yet arrived at that point. One of our ambitions at Geneva is to ensure that an ad hoc commission on the treaty is assembled and gets to work. We want equally to be among the states that have ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty that will come together to put pressure on states which have signed but not ratified, and to persuade states that have not signed to do so. The two treaties could be significant steps on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton):
The Minister said that more is known about British nuclear weapons than ever before. That may be so, though perhaps not for the reasons that he meant. Can he comment on the loss of information about Trident to the Chinese in the recent spying incident? Can he reassure the House that the Trident nuclear deterrent is safe in his hands?
Mr. Lloyd:
The hon. Gentleman would not seriously expect me to comment on security matters. The deterrent is safe in our hands, and allegations about leaks are not allegations about actions by the British Government.
15. Ms Claire Ward (Watford):
If he will make a statement on the funding for the next three financial years of the British Council. [83514]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
As a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have been able to secure for the British Council £133.1 million in the first year, 1999-2000, rising to £136.1 million in the second year and £138.9 million in the third year. That means a real increase of about £2 million for each of those years. The British Council now has the resources to continue the excellent work that it does and to develop further programmes in line with the FCO's and its own objectives.
Ms Ward:
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the British Council and the BBC World
Mr. Hoon:
I do agree with my hon. Friend and, for that reason, I am particularly pleased that the comprehensive spending review settlement has been able to secure for the council a real increase in line with the FCO's own settlement uplift of about 2 per cent. That will give the British Council a period of stability and some real money with which to plan ahead. Clearly, at the end of that CSR period, the Government will consider further funding again.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
Would it be possible for the Minister to agree that more resources ought to be given to the BBC World Service at this time to assist it in the work that it is doing in Serbia to bring the true story of the NATO action to the Serbian people, and to assist it in its interlink programme, the aim of which is to link refugee families who have been split up throughout Europe and among the three receiving nations?
Mr. Hoon:
I agree; that is precisely why the Government have been concerned to ensure the stability of funding for the British Council so that it can plan ahead in the way that I have described.
17. Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
If he will make a statement about relations with Albania. [83516]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
Our relations with Albania are good. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Albania today. We are grateful to the Albanian Government for their support for the current NATO air strikes and for their humanitarian relief efforts.
Mr. McNulty:
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Can he assure me that real contingency plans are being put in place to recognise Albania's efforts in dealing with the refugees and the impact on the country's economy of the conflict in Kosovo? Will he assure me
Mr. Lloyd:
The Albanian Government have taken the biggest number of refugees--it now stands at 430,000--and their efforts have been prodigious. They have been widely welcomed not merely in the region but throughout the world. There is no doubt that the strain on Albania's fairly weak economy has been enormous. In recognition of that fact, the European Union has already transferred significant sums of money both for the balance of payments and for the direct pressures on budgets.
Of course, in the longer run, one of the realities of the situation in that part of Europe is that we must look for new and quicker ways to lead all the parties--Albania, of course, and Yugoslavia itself--towards greater stability, which will lead them to ever-closer relations with Europe. That is the ambition of the stability pact that the European Union has already begun to discuss.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
Would the Minister draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the sayings of the Albanian President, Mr. Berisha, as reported in The Times today? Mr. Berisha, as well as saying that the KLA are a bunch of feuding gangs and racketeers, recommended that NATO should negotiate with Mr. Rugova. However, the House will be shattered to learn that, shortly after that, Mr. Rugova's henchman, Mr. Fehmi Agani--of course, all those names will be familiar to the Foreign Secretary--was assassinated. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Berisha attributed the murder to the KLA.
Do not all those facts illustrate that another civil war is building up in Albania? When that war breaks out, to which side does the Foreign Secretary wish to provide an air force?
Mr. Lloyd:
It is difficult for me to give the right hon. Gentleman a history lesson, but Mr. Berisha has not been President of Albania for some time. As one who knows about feuding gangs of racketeers in his own party, he may be the right person to give advice on such matters. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary heard him directly, I need not comment further except to say that we will work closely with the Government of Albania to achieve the stability that Europe needs.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett):
With permission, I would like to make a short business statement. Following the events of yesterday, the business for Thursday 20 May will now be as follows: consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, followed by the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken at a later date.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
Last night, the Government panicked and ran. Their arguments on bereavement allowances were mauled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government could take no more punishment. Will they use the time between now and Thursday to reflect on their incapacity benefit proposals? Does the right hon. Lady really believe that the time now proposed for debate is sufficient for all the important issues that remain? In particular, will the House have an opportunity to debate amendment No. 10? Are not the Government losing support in the House, their friends outside and now their nerve?
3.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |