Category: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 December 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Secretary General of the Arab League the proposal by the Government of Libya to hold a trial in the Hague, under a Scottish judge, under Scottish rules of evidence, of the two Libyans accused of the bombing of Pan AM 103 over Lockerbie.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December 1995.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    GP Fundholders (Lichfield)

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation of general practitioners from Lichfield to discuss the future of fundholding.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Fundholders’ views on developing the success of the scheme are always welcome. Any detailed recommendations will, of course, be considered.

    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that every general practitioner in Lichfield will be a registered fundholder? The reason is that those GPs believe in the Conservative party’s crusade for choice: they believe that it is right for them to be able to choose the consultant and the hospital that are right for them. Does my right hon. Friend realise that they are appalled at the Labour party’s plan to abolish fundholding? Does that not give the lie to Labour’s crusade for schools, which is evidently empty rhetoric– just another empty soundbite?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding has improved patient care and increased patient choice up and down the country. An increasing number of doctors are choosing to become fundholders, and I welcome that, in Lichfield as elsewhere.

    There is, of course, all the difference in the world between a policy that genuinely believes in choice–as ours does in relation to both health and education–and one that believes in choice for marketing reasons. We saw an instance of that this morning.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with all the other users of the Great Western main line from Paddington to south Wales and the west of England, that the signals for railway privatisation are now firmly stuck at red? Now that the consortium Resurgence Railways, led by the Prime Minister’s Huntingdon Tory crony, Mike Jones, has been rejected because it cannot raise the money, and the second-choice preferred bidders–led by the present management team at Western Region–cannot raise the money either, should we not be singing the old song “Let’s call the whole thing off”?

    The Prime Minister: That was rather contrived, I must say. Rail privatisation is going ahead, for one simple reason: it will deliver a better service for rail passengers. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends really think that, over the past 40 years, the public have had the rail service that they would like, I do not know where he has been.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if he appointed Scottish-based Members of Parliament to key Cabinet posts such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Chief Whip, and then proposed to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh that failed to address the West Lothian question, that would be good for the Union of the United Kingdom and for relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

    The Prime Minister: I do, of course, have a number of very distinguished Scots in my Cabinet and in my Government, but I certainly agree with the thrust– [Interruption.] Not at the moment, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is distinguished, but he is not a Scot. The thrust of my hon. Friend’s point is surely right–if the devolution plans proposed by the Opposition parties were to proceed, they would undoubtedly lead to conflict between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, even at this late stage, the parties advocating those policies will consider what they would mean in practice both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom and will decide that extra taxation for Scots alone is not a way to improve the prosperity of Scotland.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree, as the Government’s report “Lifetime Learning” which was published today confirms, that Britain’s skills and education attainments are nowhere near where they should be? Rather than encouraging a small number of children to leave state schools for the private sector, should we not be raising educational standards for the 7 million children who are educated in the state sector, many of whom do not get the education that they deserve?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have produced a whole series of plans to raise educational standards over recent years, many of which, alas, have been strongly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know where in the education sector there is failure, he might look at Hackney for example. [Hon. Members: “Islington.”] I shall come to Islington. The right hon. Gentleman might look at Lambeth, where the secondary schools are so bad that the Office for Standards in Education has to inspect every one of them. He might, of course, look at Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results. What is consistent among all those is that they are all Labour-controlled education authorities.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate SCM Chemicals in my constituency, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group, which yesterday announced a massive expansion of its titanium dioxide plant? Is that not clear evidence that international investment is making my constituency the chemical capital of the world?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for his constituency and his constituents. I hope he will agree that Government policy as well as his advocacy might have played some part in bringing that investment to his constituency.

     

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Cornwall and Devon why they should accept the Government’s conclusions today that Government spending in the region compares favourably with that in the rest of the country, when every independent report shows that spending in the region is 10 per cent. less Department by Department, education to industry, than that in the rest of the country, despite high unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living?

    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a number of measures to deal with those problems in the west country and elsewhere, and it is extremely important that those problems are dealt with. We are determined to address them and to improve the living standards and opportunities for people in the west country. That is what we have been doing and what we shall continue to do. It is pity that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate every effort that is made.

    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the disgraceful intimidation and browbeating that is going on in Hurworth in my neighbouring constituency where the Labour party is trying to prevent a local school from opting out? Apparently, the whole affair is being organised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, aided by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn.)

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of intimidation of parental choice is to be condemned. Parents have a natural and a legal right to decide whether they want the school to which their child goes to opt out and they should be able to exercise that right without intimidation, either by the education authority or by anyone else. If there is evidence of that, I hope that those implicated in it will examine it without delay.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Quin: My question concerns the appalling human rights abuses in Nigeria, together with reports in the press today of confidential information from Home Office files being leaked to Tory central office and thence to the press. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate inquiry into those leaks and further assure the House that there will be no deportations to Nigeria of people at risk from that murderous regime?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, our position on Nigeria is clear and, in company with others, we set that out clearly at the Commonwealth conference. The case in today’s newspaper to which she refers was one where the applicant or his representative had chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Office gave information that was necessary to set the record straight in response to telephone inquiries that it received and, subsequent to the information being given by the Home Office, it was also used by others.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the outstanding success of Operation Christmas Cracker? Is he aware that some 12,000 police officers in 40 force areas today made a number of staggered raids in which more than 2,000 suspects were arrested, and recovered property ranging from bicycles to reptiles? Does he agree that that is one of the best Christmas presents that people could have?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a matter that is of importance to everyone. I certainly welcome the priority given to today’s operation, which involves some 40 police forces and has occasioned more than 2,000 arrests. There is no doubt that, over the past couple of years, innovative policing methods have made a distinct impact on the crime level, and we are now beginning to see the crime statistics fall. It is policing of that sort that can give people considerable reassurance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff about crime falling, but it is a matter of importance to the public out there.

     

    Q5. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen the astonishing reports in the press that the official video of the party conference has been doctored to make the party chairman appear good, and to play down the popularity of the Secretary of State for Defence in the party? If the Conservative party cannot tell the truth about its own conference, is it any wonder that no one trusts it on tax?

    The Prime Minister: From the party that has more spending pledges and higher tax in the pipeline than anyone else, I find that ironic. On the newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should look at reality, not newspaper reports.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-quality textiles from Yorkshire were used in the new James Bond film? James Bond may be ruthless in what he does to his enemies, but he is also particular about what he wears. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three west Yorkshire textile companies that were involved in that project?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate west Yorkshire and the textile industry and I hope that, as a result of that extra advertisement, they will sell far more of their textiles at home and abroad.

     

    Q6. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Corston: The Prime Minister describes himself as a one-nation Tory. Will he therefore tell us which is fairer–abolishing capital gains and inheritance taxes or implementing a starting rate of income tax of 10p?

    The Prime Minister: I see that the shadow Chancellor is here. One of his hon. Friends, also a Front Bencher a year or so ago, referred in very scathing terms to precisely the sort of proposition that the shadow Chancellor made. It is a gimmick and the shadow Chancellor knows it. What is fair is to lower the basic rate of tax to 20p, which is what we are doing by raising thresholds so that one in four people now pays tax at 20p, by cutting the tax on savings for all basic-rate taxpayers so that they only pay 20p, and by reducing the basic rate of tax.

    The hon. Lady reveals the deep innate distaste of the Labour party for cutting taxes. It is a spending party and a tax-raising party, while we cut taxes.

    Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I gave you prior notice. You will have just heard the Prime Minister refer to what appears to be a major change in the long-standing policy of the Home Office not to disclose to a third party confidential information concerning anyone involved in immigration or asylum applications. In view of the disclosure by Conservative central office of information concerning a Mr. Igbiuidu, a Nigerian national seeking asylum in this country, could you, Madam Speaker, arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement about what changes the Home Office has made in its policy of not disclosing information about individual applications?

    Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of his point of order. I certainly heard the Prime Minister’s response today. I understand that the information was released by the Home Office. I, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the actions of Government Departments, but even so I took the opportunity this morning to look at the matter and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is precedented.

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to look in the Official Report tomorrow at question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He asked a closed question. We all understand the ground rules. A closed question prevents any supplementary from being asked, other than in relation to the subject matter of the question.

    My complaint is that the Prime Minister did not respond either in detail or by implication to the question, which specifically asked whether he would meet general practitioners from Lichfield. There was no mention of Lichfield in the Prime Minister’s reply, and certainly not in relation to general practitioners. If the rules are to apply, a Minister has to respond to a question, or it is unfair to Opposition Members.

    Mr. Fabricant rose–

    Madam Speaker: Sit down. I am taking no further points of order on this matter. Indeed, it was not a point of order anyway. I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. We shall now get on with the business of the House.

    Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us could not hear what you said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). For clarification, could you tell us whether you said that the procedure was precedented or a precedent?

    Madam Speaker: It is precedented. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me I will give him the information.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 December 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Former Prime Ministers (Briefings)

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the procedures by which civil servants are allowed to provide advice and information to former Prime Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Subject to the approval of Ministers, civil servants may provide factual briefing to former Prime Ministers, as to other Members of Parliament. Such briefing is often provided for visits to overseas countries.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest total cost to public funds of providing legal services for witnesses to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The accounts settled to date from public funds for the provision of external legal services to witnesses to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry are approximately £750,790. The value of legal services charged by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department is £306,320. Some legal advice has also been provided by Government lawyers as part of their normal duties. The cost of this advice is not quantifiable.

     

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Mr. Forman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will give an account of his latest discussions with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 29 November 1995, Official Report, columns 199-201.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Charter Mark Awards – 4 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Charter Mark Awards, held in London on Monday 4th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Four and a half years ago I set up the Citizen’s Charter with one overriding and very simple aim – to create first-class public services throughout the country. For far too long ordinary people, in my judgment, felt helpless when faced with a state monopoly service. I learned in the past myself how that felt. I didn’t much like it. It had to change and with the Citizen’s Charter I believe it has changed.

    What is public service about predominantly? I believe it is about people, educating children, treating patients, helping the disadvantaged, providing a good service to everyone, and it depends upon the dedication, the hard work and the commitment of the people who work in public service providing that help for the public.

    I created the Charter Mark Scheme to recognise and reward the excellence of the people who provide that service, many of whom are with us today. This year we received a record number of applications. All but one of the 1992 winners applied yet again.

    Applications from schools doubled, applications from hospitals doubled, and for the first time we received thousands upon thousands of nominations from members of the public who use those public services.

    I am therefore delighted today to announce a record number of new Charter Mark winners – 198 – twice as many as in 1994. And that represents a very significant achievement by all of you present here today. Right across the United Kingdom, public services are reaching standards of performance that would have been quite literally unthinkable even a few years ago.

    Let me just give you a couple of many examples that I could have given you this morning. Four years ago we promised more and better information. That is now happening. We now have annual performance tables for schools, hospitals, local authority services, police forces and fire brigades. We promised to introduce a guarantee on waiting times for operations. Four years ago, waits of 2 years or more were by no means uncommon. Today nobody waits that long for their operation.

    But for the Charter to work it must have teeth as well. And that is why the panel’s assessment process this year was more rigorous than ever before. We want to maintain quality as the number of applications increases, and that is why this year 7 of the 1992 Charter Mark winners did not succeed with their applications.

    So enjoy today, if you have won a Charter Mark, but don’t rest on your laurels, it isn’t a certainty that you will re-win it unless the service maintains its high standard in the future.

    I too would like to do more. I would like to press forward the Charter programme to achieve better and more responsive public services. I would like to see the Charter Mark opened up to more of our publicly funded services, to encourage improvement, to reward excellence. And I can tell you today that from next year, housing associations will also be free to apply for the Charter Mark.

    I would like to see more and more local services publishing their own Charters and then improving upon their own charters as year succeeds year. And in this way those charters can reflect local circumstances, local needs and user views as well. The new railway operators will publish individual charters which will be at least as good as British Rail’s. And I want individual schools to set attainment standards. I would like hospitals, GP practices, courts, police forces, all improving on the nationally set standards.

    To the surprise of some people, there are already over 8,000 local charters. I would like to see that number double by the middle of next year. I want to see users more closely involved in these. I would like users, parents, patients, citizens, helping to set the standards and telling us what they would like to see. And also I would like to see them nominating organisations in ever greater numbers.

    But it is a two-way street. Consumers must take responsibility as well. Patients should not call out the General Practitioner unless it really is an emergency. Ambulances should not be used as taxis, Parents have a duty to help schools maintain discipline and to make sure that children attend regularly. And rights for the public need to be balanced by responsibilities by the public to those people who work so hard to maintain and improve public services.

    And this is going to be a key theme of a wide ranging White Paper that we will publish next summer to mark the 5th anniversary of the Charter programme. The paper will also contain new commitments and standards to take the Charter forward into the new millennium. It will be the most radical statement of our commitment to quality public services since the Citizen’s Charter itself was launched.

    Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone here on their achievement in winning a Charter Mark. You have demonstrated that the best of public service is as good as the private sector. We now have over 400 Charter Mark winners throughout the country. We have a growing network of quality networks helping exchange ideas on best practice. We have literally thousands of local charters. And I look to you for your help in spreading the message.

    The Charter programme involving quality public services is working, and increasingly it is being seen by the public at large to be working. It is helping people. It has done, I believe, a great deal for the quality and the reputation of public service. I believe in the future it can do a great deal more. And so promise you this morning the Charter is here to stay and thank you for being here on this occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Women’s Conference – 1 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Women’s Conference, held in London on Friday 1st December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’ve come to talk to you today about one word, pride.

    Pride in our country, pride in ourselves and – yes – pride in what this Government is doing. This week – a momentous one indeed – we have seen what Britain is really about.

    Perhaps the moment when it struck me most forcibly was while I listened to the President of the United States speaking the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords.

    Sometimes it takes a friend from abroad to see us as we really are.

    He gave an historic address to both Houses of Parliament against the grandeur and pageantry which only our country can display to such inspiring effect.

    He knows that we are the ally upon whom America can rely in pursuit of the great values which we share:

    – love of freedom;

    – enrichment of democracy;

    – faith in the individual;

    – and the sense of mission and purpose which has so often given us the strength to stand alone in defence of the things we treasure.

    That relationship is not an empty idea from the vacuum of the sound-bite or the easy phrase. Relationships of this sort are not self-sustaining, bestowed by some charitable act of history upon one nation from another. They have to be worked at, fought for, nurtured.

    America would not look to us in any nostalgic sense, because of events long-since past. They look to us because our nation is a rock. An ally whom they know has the same instincts and interests. An ally upon whom they have relied in the past and upon whom they can rely in the future. Generations now gone would easily understand this. We owe it to them to sustain that same spirit and that same commitment. We will enjoy our relationship with the United States because, by our own endeavours, we are a fitting partner.

    In tackling one of the greatest challenges Europe faces today, we can be proud that Britain is there, soon to be joined by America, playing her part.

    The Bosnian peace agreement is a very helpful beginning.

    Success there is vital, not only for Bosnian, but for international security. Vital for the standing of NATO and the health of Europe.

    That’s why Britain is getting ready to send 13,000 troops to Bosnia over the next year.

    Thirteen thousand of the most effective soldiers anywhere in the world, a contingent second to none.

    This wasn’t an easy or cheap decision.

    But it is the right decision.

    Because we’re not afraid to give a lead, as we have done through three years of terrible conflict. This is an issue of massive potential and consequence. I would have made that commitment if it were only for humanitarian reasons, for I hate the loss of life, the brutality, the cynical disregard of every decent value.

    But anyone who has the first understanding of the implications of political collapse in the Balkans realises that Britain’s self interest remains with the peaceful containment and resolution of its problems.

    So we must make sure the peace agreement succeeds, right through to the end.

    Northern Ireland

    Peace is relevant at home as well as abroad.

    The cause of peace in Northern Ireland has received a huge boost this week.

    Can anyone who witnessed President Clinton’s remarkable visit to Northern Ireland seriously contemplate a return to bombing and shooting?

    We saw a Northern Ireland enjoying the prospect of a second Christmas in peace.

    A Northern Ireland hearing him support our call for violence and punishment beatings to cease, for ever.

    Earlier in the week, the Irish Prime Minister and I launched a new initiative. It has two aims, two tracks.

    First, it’s time all the political parties of Northern Ireland began to prepare seriously for negotiations on a just and comprehensive settlement.

    It’s time for them – each of them – to make their contribution to peace.

    Their people, their supporters, want a lasting peace and a fair settlement, not just a ceasefire.

    That’s the unmistakable message from the shops and the factories, the streets and the villages of Northern Ireland.

    We, the Government, can facilitate the process.

    But we can’t decide it.

    The parties themselves have to decide how they are going to negotiate.

    If this process is to succeed – as it must – they must begin to show flexibility.

    No-one can have a veto on progress.

    No-one should be allowed to block the road, by sticking to rigid and uncompromising positions which others can never accept.

    Now is the time for the Northern Ireland parties and their leaders to show open-mindedness, and to have the courage to step out of the bunkers they built during Ulster’s troubles.

    It’s time to put aside the old hatreds and the old feuds and the old mistrusts that have served Ulster ill for too long.

    That is the aim of the preparatory talks we are convening.

    And there’s a second aim to our initiative.

    Some parties represent illegally armed paramilitary organisations which, to this day, are training, plotting, intimidating and making savage assaults on other people.

    If they are to enter constitutional negotiations, they are going to have to change their ways. They are going to have to show that they, like other parties, are committed to exclusively peaceful methods.

    Words aren’t enough.

    So we have set up an advisory international body to discuss how the paramilitaries are going to decommission their arms.

    People who mean peace don’t need guns.

    The time has come for them to start ridding themselves of weapons and explosives so that they, too, can join the constitutional negotiations.

    The British and Irish Governments have again given a lead, just as we did with the Downing Street Declaration two years ago.

    That Declaration led, after several months, to the ceasefires.

    I hope this week’s initiative will lead by the end of February to negotiations for which all parties will qualify.

    It’s now up to them to respond to our lead.

    Getting to this stage in the process has taken years of effort. We have always been working for the long term.

    Three years ago, to talk of peace in Northern Ireland seemed like a grim joke. Today, it is becoming a possibility. Tomorrow, I hope it will be reality.

    The Budget

    Madam Chairman, I said my theme was pride.

    Today’s conference is our opportunity to show how this week’s events (and not just in Bosnia or Northern Ireland) fit in to the long term goals for this country which I set myself five years ago.

    I take pride in the strength of Britain’s economy. I can remember no time in my political lifetime when the economic prospects for our country looked more promising.

    Every politician claims they can create economic success. The difference is, Madam Chairman, we have actually achieved it.

    The best industrial relations for a hundred years, the best inflation record for nearly 50 years, record exports, a third of all the inward investment coming into Europe.

    Madam Chairman, surely and securely, we’re building for Britain’s long term prosperity.

    That’s why I’m proud of the budget Kenneth Clarke delivered this week.

    Well, I read all the pre-Budget options. Bribe people. Take risks. Don’t worry about the long-term, it’s the short-term that matters. I’ve heard it all my life, and I tell you this – I won’t do it. I won’t do it for one overriding reason: it would be wrong for Britain.

    If we’d have taken some of the more flamboyant advice we’d been offered, many of them most forward with their views would have been the first to criticise us for being silly enough to take it. The British people have worked too hard, sacrificed too much to achieve the excellent prospects that lie ahead for us to even consider putting it at risk. We are not that sort of Government.

    Ken Clarke’s Budget had three clear objectives.

    To build on the strength that his earlier Budgets had created.

    To increase the nation’s commitment to raise standards in our classrooms, expand the health service and back the police in their growing success in their fight against crime.

    And to reward those millions of our citizens who have worked so hard to help to build the economic success we now enjoy by giving back to people, in as fair a way as we could devise, a growing share of their own money.

    This morning the Chancellor made an excellent speech outlining his Budget. I warmly congratulate him on it.

    In planning the nation’s finances, it’s vital to get the long term arithmetic right.

    And that’s what we’re determined to do.

    Reducing the overall amount Government spends and borrows. Spending more on our hospitals, schools and police. Leaving more money in people’s pockets by cutting taxes.

    Widening the bands. Cutting the basic rate. And introducing a new, lower 20 per cent rate on savings.

    Now a quarter of all taxpayers will pay tax at 20p.

    In time, 20p will become the basic rate.

    That’s the way to the future. To prosperity that lasts.

    And it’s the way we’ll continue to build a prosperity in which we shall all share.

    Welfare

    But this budget also had measures to deal with other long term issues.

    As more people live longer, paying for their care is one of society’s major challenges.

    To leave our children a welfare system which works and they can afford, we must plan ahead. We are developing imaginative solutions to address the growing cost of long term care.

    So we’re examining how to encourage people to provide for themselves and share the cost with the state. Protecting their wealth so it can be passed on to their heirs.

    And shorter term, we’ll be raising the capital threshold so people who face these costs will be able to keep more of their assets.

    We’ll go on working at this problem.

    We owe it to elderly people. We owe it to our children. And we’ll not just talk about it – we’ll do it.

    Welfare should always be there for elderly people with nowhere to turn. Just as it should be there for the unemployed looking for jobs. The weak and disabled with no support.

    The people of this country are always ready to lend a hand to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.

    We have one of the most comprehensive social security safety nets in the world.

    To run it costs the average worker £15 every working day.

    Until recently, the social security budget was rocketing up. Eating into more and more of people’s pay packets. Thanks to the fight against fraud and targeting benefits on those in greatest need, it’s now growing more slowly than the economy as a whole.

    We must keep it that way. And we must ensure that people have incentives to look after themselves and families, and not rely on the state.

    This week’s budget provided more concrete help for the unemployed. We know jobs for the future are created by enterprise, not government.

    But governments can help those who have been out of work for sometime to regain the confidence and work experience they need.

    And we can ensure that people have the incentives and motivation to move from welfare into work.

    In my speech at Blackpool a few weeks ago, I talked about our plans to develop a contract for work.

    And this morning, Gillian Shephard announced we are proceeding with pilots to offer new opportunities for work experience to the long term unemployed.

    The majority who are genuinely seeking work will find this a lifeline. But those who refuse to take an offer of work experience will lose some or all of their benefit.

    Another example, Madam Chairman, of how we develop long term policies to deal with long term problems – and then take real action.

    Once again, we will look with interest at whether the Labour party has the courage to support us.

    Madam Chairman, we’re steadily building the economic foundations to double our living standards in twenty five years.

    Those foundations can easily be wrecked by the wrong policies or the wrong government.

    Compare Ken Clarke’s carefully constructed Budget with Labour’s ramshackle plans.

    Instead of sensible economic policies they offer gimmicks.

    Remember Gordon Brown’s lop tax gimmick? No sooner was it out of his mouth than it became a long term objective, then disappeared into silence.

    The leader of the Labour Party claims that he doesn’t want to put up taxes.

    The Deputy Leader, that affable character from Kingston upon Hull, doesn’t quite agree.

    Labour ‘should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax’ he said.

    And in case that was just a slip from the mouth of the Humber, he’s also said that under Labour there’d ‘certainly’ be a higher top rate.

    That’s refreshingly frank. And undoubtedly true. But it’s certainly not what the Labour leader told the CBI, or anyone who’d listen.

    I know Labour now say they believe in choice, but the only choice they offer is who to believe: the Labour Leader or the Deputy Leader?

    I know what experience suggests. They’ve voted against tax cuts all their lives.

    They approach every problem with a flapping chequebook. They hold the pen, but it’s your chequebook and your money.

    And spending more means only one thing. They would have to put up taxes. It’s as simple as that.

    Without higher taxes, Labour’s sums don’t add up.

    The Nation

    I don’t usually quote Roy Hattersley with approval, but he was surely right to say Labour has become less a moral crusade and more of a marketing campaign.

    And it needs marketing because it’s a dismal product.

    But, Madam Chairman, while Labour run their marketing campaigns in their own interests, we’re running the country in the national interest.

    We are preparing Britain for the challenges of the future. Immediately ahead of us is the European Council in Madrid.

    I act in Europe with only one interest in mind: Britain’s national interest.

    Sometimes that means we can’t agree with our European partners. If that’s the case, so be it.

    I want Europe to succeed, but not at Britain’s expense.

    The Labour leader says it’s his policy never to be isolated in Europe.

    Think what that would mean.

    Imagine if Margaret Thatcher had never been isolated, we’d never have had our budget rebate worth billions of pounds to British taxpayers.

    If I’d never been isolated we’d have no opt-out from the Single Currency. We’d not have the choice to join or not to join as British interest dictates.

    If I had never been isolated, Britain would now be in the Social Chapter, losing jobs rather than gaining investment.

    Of course, we know that the Labour leader would take us into the Social Chapter. He made out that it was like buffet lunch: you can have some dishes, but not others. Pick and mix. Choose only what you like.

    Of course, European policy is very complex. Some of it is difficult to understand. And the Labour leader hasn’t had any experience of European summits.

    Or, indeed, any summits except Labour summits. And to avoid being isolated at those, he doesn’t invite the Deputy Leader.

    But, on the Social Chapter, he’s plain wrong.

    The Social Chapter is a mechanism, a means to an end. On much of it, there’s no veto. No picking and choosing. You have to swallow the lot.

    Tomorrow, I gather he may be talking about Europe again. Last time, he misled the country. Inadvertently, no doubt. He should put the record straight. We’ll watch to see if he does, and if he doesn’t, we’ll prod him again and again – until he does.

    The fact is – even if you prefer co-operation to confrontation – sometimes it’s necessary to stand up for British interests, even if our partners disagree. I believe that is the job of the British Prime Minister. And if you’re not prepared to do the job, don’t seek it.

    My patriotism is not jingoistic tub-thumping. It’s a deep respect for the people and traditions of our nation.

    The strongest foundation of our society is our United Kingdom.

    Some say the nation state will soon be irrelevant.

    I disagree.

    In a changing world, people want to hang on to what’s familiar. The nation state offers that reassurance and continuity. It matters to people as much today as it ever did.

    I don’t look to mend what isn’t broken. I don’t change things for change’s sake. We are, after all, the Conservative Party.

    But to meet the challenges ahead, we must accept change where change is due.

    That’s why, this week, Michael Forsyth proposed changes to improve the Government of Scotland.

    But we are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We must protect the union of proud countries. Some people in Scotland want independence.

    There’s nothing to stop them going their own way. But it’s my task, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to point out the dangers of that happening.

    Will the Scots feel the Union gives them a better deal if they have to pay the extra Tartan Tax? It’s a straight tax on Scottish jobs, on Scottish investment, on Scotland’s future prosperity.

    Moreover, Labour’s Scottish spokesman has made it clear. He believes the majority of MPs in the Parliament at Westminster should not have the final say on the Laws of Scotland, but must defer to the majority party in Scotland. Would they apply the same proposition to England?

    For on that basis, few past Labour Governments could have Governed England – they had no majority in England. What sort of perversion of our Constitution are they prepared to tolerate?

    Either they fail to grasp the dangers of such devolution, or they’re prepared to sell the crown jewels of our political heritage in a desperate bid for votes. For they are putting the whole constitution of our country into question. As they plan that, how dare they talk of the national interest?

    Down the years, our Union has weathered all that our enemies have thrown at us.

    What folly if Labour were allowed to do what our enemies never achieved – split our island apart and set one people against another. What stupidity.

    Yet, that would be the effect of Labour policy. They offer a tax-raising parliament to out-flank the SNP for their Labour Party advantage. Yet that very Parliament would prove to be the very mechanism to maximise conflict and wreck the Union.

    What an irony it would be. In opposition we know Labour knock our country. If they ever came to power, they would divide it and we would all rue it.

    There’s only one Party that will protect the unity of Britain. That represents our whole nation. That’s our Party – the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Party of the Union. We care for the Union. We care for the nation state. And in our hands – and only our hands – it is safe.

    Peroration

    Wherever I go in the world, Britain’s reputation is on a high.

    The resentments of Empire have been replaced by the affections of commonwealth.

    Britain’s economic revolution is studied and copied across the globe.

    Exports markets daily open wider, for products that are made in Britain and sold from Britain.

    Our military services advise Government across the world because our standards are respected and admired.

    Students flock here from all over the world to take advantage of our academic achievements.

    So yes, I am proud to be Prime Minister of this country. Proud to be Leader of this Party.

    The only Party that believes in Britain. That articulates the success of Britain. That travels the world explaining the triumphs of Britain.

    And if we have to do that against the clamour of the Opposition Parties and despite the relentless self-destruct mode of too much of our national media, we must shout louder, shout longer and shout with more conviction.

    Madam Chairman, we should have more confidence in ourselves and in our Party. We have piloted this country through very rough economic weather.

    We have taken decisions unpopular for our Party because we judged them to be right for our country.

    The fruits of those decisions are now becoming clear.

    We have led this country to an opportunity of unimaginable dimensions. Together, we shall ensure not only that the prizes are there to win, but that we are there to win them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    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.

     

    Investors in People

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what steps his office is taking to achieve investor in people status; when it started the process; when it expects to achieve investor in people status; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. In February 1993, the Cabinet Office registered commitment to achieve investor in people status. The formal commitment relates only to the Office of Public Service part of the Cabinet Office and the establishment officer’s group. However, the whole Department is participating in the process of change and will share in the benefits. An action plan for the Department was produced following consultation with staff and was formally accepted by the Central London training and enterprise council in July 1995. Work is in hand to take forward the action required to bring the Department to the necessary standard. The Department is seeking to achieve accreditation by the end of 1996.

     

    Crown Act 1707

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to amend the Succession to the Crown Act 1707.

    The Prime Minister: No.

  • PMQT – 30 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mr. Griffiths: Why is the Prime Minister undermining the Post Office price freeze by increasing tax on the post, taking £1 million every working day and forcing up the price of stamps? Is not this yet another case of higher Tory taxes and the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

    The Prime Minister: I can see that the hon. Gentleman was very carefully rehearsed for this week’s soundbite. He should look at the record on the Post Office. If he does, he will see that stamp prices have been frozen for some time and that it is two and a half years since the last increase. That is the longest period of stability since the 1960s, and stamp prices continue to fall in real terms.

    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra resources for schools announced in the Budget are very good news? Will he also do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to ensure that that money is passed on to schools?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on two important points. The increase in resources to schools through the local authority budget will be welcome. It is also important that it is clear to parents and to schools that the money provided to the local authority settlement for education should go to education.

    Mr. Blair: Before asking my question, may I tell the Prime Minister that, on Northern Ireland, we reiterate our congratulations to all involved in the peace process? The American President’s visit to Northern Ireland today marks a moment of history in which we all rejoice. May I express the hope that these new and strong voices for peace can drown out the old cries of violence and allow everybody, not just there but here, to unite and put aside their differences and work for a common end?

    I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers the Budget, but may I ask him to withdraw the remarks made by the Conservative party chairman, who has claimed that the Budget will make the average family in Britain £9 a week better off? Will he confirm that, of that £9, almost £7 has nothing to do with the Budget but has to do with the Conservatives’ projection of wage increases next year? The real Budget figure is just over £2, and that does not take account of extra costs, charges and taxes. Is that right or wrong?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about Northern Ireland. The President’s visit to Belfast this morning was a spectacular success and everyone welcomes what he has had to say about terrorism.

    On the subject of withdrawing claims, the right hon. Gentleman, when he replied to the Budget statement, made a series of comments, the vast majority of which were specious, wrong or misleading. If he cares to examine them, he will find that those that were not wrong were misleading, and that those that were not misleading were wrong. My right hon. Friend said that people will be better off by £450 next year, and that is our expectation.

    Mr. Blair: We are entitled to an answer on this point. The claim was made that people are £9 a week better off as a result of the Budget, but £7 of it comes from earnings rises next year as projected by the Conservative party. The true Budget figure is just over £2, and that is confirmed by the Treasury press release. Is that right or wrong? If it is right, does not it show how the Tories give with one hand and take with the other–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They do not like it because it is true. If it is true, does not it also show that we can never trust the Tories on tax?

    The Prime Minister: It really is a rich day for the soundbites. After all that they have said about the Budget, it is interesting to hear that the Opposition will not vote against the Budget provisions. They cannot say yes and they will not say no; they have at best a qualified “maybe” about the Budget. My right hon. Friend said that, next year, the average family will be around £9 a week better off and that is our expectation.

    Returning to the issues of taxes and trust, does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that he did not propose to put up taxes? Does he recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying:

    “high income levels are going to pay considerably more”

    and that there would be a higher top rate of tax under Labour? There seems to be some difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and his deputy. It does not matter if the deputy goes on shouting at me. It would be better if he stuck to the party line instead of behaving like the mouth of the Humber.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Prime Minister what people will recall at the next election. He went into the election saying that he would never raise VAT, and he raised it. [Interruption.] They can shout, but they will never again be trusted.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I insist on the Leader of the Opposition being heard.

    Mr. Blair: They want a question. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister went into the election promising not to raise VAT and then raised it? Is that simple enough for them?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people will remember at the next election. They will remember a 33 per cent. rate of tax under a Labour Government and a 24 per cent. rate now. They will notice that interest rates have come down by 8 per cent. and that net disposable income is rising–and they will recall that that is not what happens under Labour Governments.

    Mr. Cash: Given the fundamental importance of NATO to Britain and western security and the fact that we are about to send 13,000 British troops to Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend consider vetoing the prospective appointment of Mr. Solana, the Spanish Foreign Minister, as Secretary-General of NATO as he has expressed views against NATO and nuclear deterrence?

    The Prime Minister: I understand from the information that I have received that that most certainly is not Mr. Solana’s view. I do not know what he may have said in the past and my hon. Friend may have seen quotations of which I am not aware, but it is my understanding that that is not his view on NATO or nuclear weapons.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister unreservedly condemn the callous actions of Tory-controlled Westminster city council in moving 100 families with 150 babies and children into tower blocks riddled with the most virulent and dangerous form of asbestos? Are there any depths to which his party will not sink in order to hang on to political power?

    The Prime Minister: On the subject of depths, the hon. Lady might address her question to the Monklands, Lambeth or Walsall councils, or to any one of many other Labour-controlled councils whose activity in local government is a disgrace.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend read in the Sunday Express the article about the strange goings-on in the Sedgefield constituency, where the Hurworth comprehensive school is applying for grant-maintained status? Is he aware that the Labour party there is accused of campaigning on dirty tricks and misleading information to stop the Leader of the Opposition being embarrassed? If my right hon. Friend had a son at a grant-maintained school, would he feel that his constituents were entitled to the same opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I did not read the article, but if what my hon. Friend said is correct, I am sure that the Opposition would wish to examine the matter, investigate it, condemn what has happened and ensure that such campaigning ceased immediately. Of course people have a right to a ballot on grant-maintained schools. They have a right also to have that ballot without undue hindrance, either from the local authority or from Labour Members. I very much hope that they will have that right.

     

    Q3. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Madden: As the Prime Minister is aware of the importance of prisoners in building still further confidence in the Irish peace process, will he support the early transfer, on humanitarian grounds, of Patrick Kelly and Michael O’Brien to prisons in Northern Ireland, and the repatriation of Irish prisoners to prisons in the Irish Republic–I hope before Christmas?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is the question of the health of one of those prisoners. They have both been convicted, as he knows, of serious terrorist offences. One of the solicitors involved has submitted medical evidence in support of a transfer. That matter, under the normal procedures, is being examined.

    Mr. Deva: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if a member of his Front Bench had made a statement such as was made last night by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in a public television programme, he would have fired him instantly?

    The Prime Minister: I regret any remark that has any connotation of the sort that I believe lies behind my hon. Friend’s question. I hope that it is a matter that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will clear up.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mudie: The Prime Minister will be aware that many Yorkshire households are still facing the prospect of using standpipes and that many businesses are facing rotational water supply cuts. Given the obscene profits that were announced yesterday, will the Prime Minister join me and the people of Yorkshire in condemning the directors of Yorkshire Water both for their greed and for their incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that Yorkshire Water plans to invest £2.5 billion over the next 10 years and that it will invest more than £200 million this year for its customers’ benefit. I believe that that is double its half-year profits. I hope that that will go a long way to ensuring that the difficulties that have occurred after years of a nationalised water industry will not be repeated under private ownership.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of pensioners will welcome the new 20p rate of tax on savings? Is it not clear proof that the Government are working towards a 20 per cent. basic rate, as distinct from the policies that the Labour party is espousing, which mean that it is heading for a 30p rate?

    The Prime Minister: Given the demands for extra spending that come from Labour Back-Bench Members, there is no doubt that a 30p rate might be exceeded were there ever to be a Labour Government. My hon. Friend is right; the 20p rate is particularly good news for thousands of people with savings, especially, perhaps, for many hundreds of thousands of pensioners with savings.

    I think that it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said a few days ago, when talking about Labour policy, that these days it amounts to little more than a marketing exercise. We saw that with the gimmick of a 10p tax rate for the allegedly lower-paid. The reality is that we are proceeding towards a lower tax rate of 20 per cent. whereas the Labour party’s spending plans add up to substantially more than the current level of taxation, whatever it may care to claim about them.

    Mr. Janner: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to look at the awful case of my constituent, Jasmine Sorabjee, aged three and a half, born in this country and ill, whom the Home Office has seen fit to deport to Kenya with her mother? Is not that a cruel, disgraceful decision, devoid of compassion that shows the disgraceful way in which the Government are abusing immigration rules and failing to exercise any compassionate concern in cases of real human suffering?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Government are not bypassing any of the immigration regulations. He knows that that is the case and he really should not have indicated the contrary. There are strict ways in which these matters are examined. They are examined with compassion.

    Mr. Janner: They are not.

    The Prime Minister: They are examined with compassion. Without any shadow of doubt they are examined with compassion. I have no details of the particular case, but the person removed from this country would have been the parent who, presumably, was an illegal immigrant.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    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.

     

    Investors in People

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what steps his office is taking to achieve investor in people status; when it started the process; when it expects to achieve investor in people status; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. In February 1993, the Cabinet Office registered commitment to achieve investor in people status. The formal commitment relates only to the Office of Public Service part of the Cabinet Office and the establishment officer’s group. However, the whole Department is participating in the process of change and will share in the benefits. An action plan for the Department was produced following consultation with staff and was formally accepted by the Central London training and enterprise council in July 1995. Work is in hand to take forward the action required to bring the Department to the necessary standard. The Department is seeking to achieve accreditation by the end of 1996.

     

    Crown Act 1707

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to amend the Succession to the Crown Act 1707.

    The Prime Minister: No.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Cyprus

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister what issues concerning Cyprus were discussed by him during his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I discussed with Mrs. Ciller the prospects for a solution of the Cyprus problem. We agreed that the status quo was not acceptable. I urged Mrs. Ciller to bring positive Turkish influence to bear in moving towards a settlement.

  • Senator George Mitchell’s Comments on his Appointment – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of the comments made by Senator George Mitchell after the confirmation of his appointment to chair a body to assist peace in Northern Ireland. The comments were made at Heathrow Airport in London on 29th November 1995.


    QUESTION:

    Senator, can you tell us exactly what your mission now will be, what are you trying to accomplish?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, I’m pleased to accept the invitation of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to chair an international body to assist in the process of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

    The communique issued by the two Prime Ministers gave the international body a specific mandate and a time frame. And it will, of course, involve the issue that’s come to be known as decommissioning. And I hope that we can make some contribution to the process.

    I think the Prime Ministers of both countries, Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton, and all of the parties deserve a great deal of credit for the perseverance and the courage they’ve shown in moving this process to this point. And we hope we can help in that effort.

    QUESTION:

    How difficult a task would you say it is?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    I think it will be difficult because it’s obviously an issue on which there are strongly held feelings on all sides, and has been candidly substantial disagreement. But I think there is an historic opportunity here, which all much recognize as the overriding objective, a chance to see the lasting peace in Northern Ireland, I think is so important that I hope all parties will agree that we have to move forward.

    QUESTION:

    Is your mission to speak with all parties in this —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Yes, my intention is to consult as widely as possible, to invite comments and recommendations from as many interested parties who want to participate and go through them all as fairly as open-mindedly as is possible.

    QUESTION:

    The time frame seems very short, though. You do have until, what, the end of —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, it’s the middle of January we’re asked to report. It is a relatively short time. But if we get right to it, as I intend that we will, and all parties participate in a prompt and effective way, I hope we can meet that objective.

    Thank you all very much.