Tag: Citizen”s Charter

  • 1997 Conservative Party Manifesto – 2 April 1997

    Below is the text of the 1997 Conservative Party manifesto.


    Foreword

    The Conservative administrations elected since 1979 are among the most successful in British peacetime history. A country once the sick man of Europe has become its most successful economy. A country once brought to its knees by over-mighty trade unions now has industrial peace. Abroad, the cold war has been won; at home, the rule of law has been restored. The enterprising virtues of the British people have been liberated from the dead hand of the state. There can be no doubt that we have created a better Britain.

    Why, then, do we still need a Conservative Government? Because resting on what we have achieved is not enough. To stand still is to fall back. Our goal must be for Britain to be the best place in the world to live.

    We live in a tougher, more uncertain world. A fast-moving global free market is emerging. New economic powers are rising in the East. Family life and social attitudes are changing. Europe is adjusting to the end of communism. The European social model is failing. The nation state is under threat. We must respond to these challenges.

    We have turned around our economic fortunes. We have fewer people out of work and more in work than any other major European economy. British people now have the opportunity of a prosperous future. But that prosperity cannot be taken for granted. We have to compete to win. That means a constant fight to keep tight control over public spending and enable Britain to remain the lowest taxed major economy in Europe. It means a continuing fight to keep burdens off business, maintaining our opt-out of the European Social Chapter. If we relax for one moment, our hard won success will slip away again.

    We have strengthened choice and personal ownership for families, and rolled back the state from areas where it was interfering unnecessarily in our lives. But we now have the opportunity to achieve a massive expansion in wealth and ownership so that more families can enjoy the self-respect and independence that comes with being self-sufficient from the state. Our far-reaching proposals for personal pension funds are central to achieving this – so too are our plans to increase support for the family in our tax system. Our aim is to spread opportunity for all to succeed, whoever they are and wherever they come from, provided they are prepared to work hard. To turn the “have nots” into the “haves”. To support the family in providing security and stability.

    We have modernised and reformed many of the areas where the state still has a vital role. But we now have to build on these reforms to deliver even better services. We must continue providing the resources to invest in our modernised health service. We can now provide parents with a hard-edged guarantee of standards in schools. We need also to widen choice in areas where state bureaucracy has constrained it.

    We have pioneered new ways of building partnerships that engage the private sector in areas previously dependent on the public purse. We now need to capture private sector investment on a massive scale to regenerate our cities, transform our crumbling local authority housing estates and modernise other public assets.

    The only way to secure this future of opportunity is to stick with the Conservative programme of continuing reform. Now would be the worst possible moment to abandon the pathway to prosperity on which we are set. We must keep up the momentum.

    At the same time we must maintain the security that a stable nation provides in an uncertain, fast-changing world. We must protect our constitution and unity as a nation from those who threaten it with unnecessary and dangerous change. And we must stand up for our interests in shaping a free-market Europe of sovereign nation states.

    There is, of course, an alternative on offer: to load costs on business while calling it “stakeholding”; to increase the role of the state, while calling it “the community”; to succumb to a centralised Europe while calling it “not being isolated”; to break up our country while calling it “devolution”.

    To risk this alternative would be a disaster for our country. We have come a very long way. We must be sure that we do not throw away what we have gained, or lose the opportunities we have earned.

    Our Record

    The UK is on course to grow faster than both France and Germany for the sixth successive year in 1998 – a post-war record.

    Inflation has now been below 4% for well over 4 years, the longest period of low inflation for almost half a century.

    Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels for 30 years.

    Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level for 6 years. We now have a lower unemployment rate than any other major European economy. Youth unemployment in Britain has fallen to less than 15% whereas by contrast, in France it has risen to 27% and in Italy to 33%.

    A higher proportion of our people are in work than in any other major European economy – 68% against a Continental average of 57%.

    The UK is the favourite location for inward investment into Europe, attracting around one third of inward investment into the European Union.

    We have the lowest tax burden of any major European economy, with the government taking almost 8% less of national income than the European average.

    Public borrowing has averaged 3.4% of GDP since 1919 compared with 6.8% (and a peak of 9.5%) under the last Labour Government. Our level of public debt is now one of the lowest in the European Union – whereas it was one of the highest in 1979.

    In 1994 the UK lost 300,000 working days through strikes, the lowest figure ever recorded; in 1979 the figure was 29,500,000: nearly 100 times that figure.

    Britain ranks fifth in the world in international trade, and exports more per head than America or Japan. Exports account for 28% of GDP as against 9% for Japan, 11 % for USA and 24% for Germany and France. Britain’s current account is broadly in balance, reflecting our increased competitiveness and improved trading.

    1. Doubling Living Standards

    The free market is winning the battle of ideas the world over. From Russia to Vietnam, from China to Romania, people are realising that the socialist model has failed. This is not just an economic triumph. It is a triumph for human freedom. Britain helped to secure it. We should take pride in it.

    The spread of the free market heralds a new age of global competition. That means new markets for British goods and services, but new competitors for British companies as well.

    If we try to protect ourselves from these challenges with more regulations, public subsidies and a cosy dependence on government then Britain will fail. But if we boldly embrace these new opportunities by pushing forward the economic revolution we began in 1979, then we will enter the next millennium with boundless prospects for growth and prosperity.

    That choice – between stagnation and dynamism – is the choice which faces Britain at this election. It is a stark choice between the British way – of trusting the people and unleashing enterprise – and the failing social model, practised on the continent, which the Labour Party wants to impose on us here under the guise of “stakeholding”.

    Hard economic evidence shows how great is the divide between these two strategies. Britain is now in its fifth year of growing faster than France or Germany. Unemployment in Britain has fallen to less than two million, while it rises across Europe. Britain attracts nearly forty per cent of all the American and Japanese investment in Europe. Our aim now is to safeguard these achievements and build on them, so Britain becomes the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    A Low Tax Economy

    For enterprise to flourish, the state must get out of the way of the wealth creators. We are the only party that can cut taxes because we are the only party which is serious about controlling public spending. The choice between the two economic philosophies is clean In the years before 1979, public spending in Britain kept pace with the average for Europe as a whole. Since then, it has continued rising on the continent, while we have restrained public spending here. Now, public spending takes about 40% of our national income as against an average of 50% on the continent. We have broken free from a trend in which the rest of Europe is still trapped.

    Conservative government will keep public spending under tight control and ensure that it grows by less than the economy as a whole over the economic cycle. At the same time we will continue to spend more on the services which matter most to people – hospitals, schools and the police.

    Over the next parliament, we will achieve our goal for the government to spend less than 40% of our national income.

    That means we can reduce the amount government borrows too, and meet our aim of moving towards a balanced budget in the medium term. Our plans show how we can virtually eliminate public borrowing by the year 2000.

    Thanks to our success in controlling public spending, Britain is now Europe’s low tax economy. This is one of the reasons why we are becoming the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Our aim is to ensure Britain keeps the lowest tax burden of any major European economy.

    In the election manifesto of 1992, we promised that “We will make further progress towards a basic income tax rate of 20p”. Since then, we have cut the basic rate of income tax from 25p to 23p, and extended the 20p band so that over a quarter of all taxpayers now only pay income tax at the 20p rate. Achieving our public expenditure goals will mean we can sustain permanently low tax levels.

    Over the next parliament, our aim will be to achieve our target of a 20p basic rate of income tax, while maintaining a maximum tax rate of no more than 40p.

    Stable Prices

    Inflation has to be kept firmly under control for an economy to thrive. Britain is now enjoying the longest period of stable prices for almost fifty years. We are on target to reach our goal of 2½% inflation this year.

    Low inflation has delivered lower interest rates whilst preserving the value of people’s savings. Homeowners are now enjoying mortgage rates at the lowest levels for 30 years.

    It has taken tough decisions to break free from our reputation as a high inflation economy. No Conservative government will jeopardise this achievement.

    During the next parliament, we will maintain an inflation target of 2½% or less.

    Rising Living Standards

    The only secure base for rising living standards is a strongly growing economy, low levels of public spending and taxation, and stable prices. That is exactly what Britain is achieving. People are reaping the rewards of their hard work as their take home pay increases. Between 1974 and 1979, the take home pay for a family on average earnings rose, in real terms, by just £1 a week in today’s prices. Since 1979 it has increased by £100 a week; this year alone it will increase by £7 a week.

    The goal which we set ourselves in 1995 is to double living standards over 25 years.

    We are on course to achieve our goal.

    2. Jobs and Business

    Our priority is to create jobs. This is not just an economic priority, but also a social and moral one. Jobs and enterprise are the best ways of tackling poverty and deprivation.

    Britain is succeeding. 900,000 jobs have been created over the past 4 years. By contrast the European social model is stifling job creation on the continent by imposing regulations and burdens on business. In the United Kingdom unemployment is much lower than in the rest of Europe and falling whereas in Germany, France, and Italy it has risen to its highest level for a generation. This is no accident. It is because we have pursued very different policies from those on the Continent.

    Curbing the power of trade unions, opening up markets and cutting red tape, have given us a low strike, low cost economy: and as a result Britain is the number one location for foreign investment in Europe.

    Never have such policies been so important. For the first time this century we face a world full of capitalist competition. The only way Britain will be able to compete and win in world markets is by sticking to the Conservative policies that are delivering success. We can earn prosperity as one of the world’s most successful global trading nations. We should not risk this progress by adopting the very policies that have made the continent uncompetitive and have increased unemployment in Europe by 4.5 million over the past 5 years.

    Small Businesses – Britain’s Risk-takers

    Governments do not create jobs. Businesses do. The source of tomorrow’s jobs will be small businesses, the seedcorn of Britain’s prosperity. Over the last 15 years, small businesses have created over 2 million jobs. By the year 2000, over half the workforce should be working in companies which employ fewer than 50 people. Back in 1979 only a third of the workforce did.

    Entrepreneurs often risk everything when they set up their own business. We have already helped them: raising the VAT threshold, cutting employer’s national insurance contributions, simplifying audit requirements and much more besides. Now we intend to go further, tackling the remaining problems they face.

    High taxes and rates deter enterprise. Our low tax structure has been crucial to our industrial revival. We already have the lowest corporation tax of any major industrialised country. As we want small businesses to flourish, we will go even further.

    We will cut the small companies rate of corporation tax in line with personal taxation as we move towards a 20p basic rate

    Investment and enterprise are deterred if the taxman takes too much of the capital that is built up by a successful business. Capital is ever more mobile, flying around the world to places where the tax on it is low: Britain must be one of those places.

    We will continue to reduce the burden of capital gains tax and inheritance tax as it is prudent to do so.

    One of the heaviest burdens small businesses face is business rates. At the moment, this bears more heavily upon small businesses than large ones.

    In the next parliament, we will reform business rates to reduce the cost that falls upon small businesses.

    No businessman has time to fill out reams of forms. We will continue to simplify the administration of NICs and PAYE for small firms, allowing them to concentrate on satisfying customers not bureaucrats. We are also tackling a problem that hits small businesses particularly hard – the late payment of bills. On top of our programme to ensure government departments and local authorities pay on time we have legislated to require companies to publish their payment policy and to report their record on how quickly they pay their bills to small businesses.

    We have already abolished over a thousand regulations. New regulations must only be introduced if it is clear that their benefits exceed their costs and they do not place an undue burden on a small firm.

    We will introduce “sunset” requirements into new regulations whenever appropriate so that they are automatically reviewed or dropped after a specific period.

    Many businessmen suffer regulatory burdens imposed by local government and quangos.

    We will therefore insist that the whole of the public sector adopts the same stringent rules that we require of central government in justifying the benefits of new regulations against their costs.

    Reducing the Burden on Companies

    Jobs depend on British firms winning orders: the difference between success or failure can be wafer-thin. Any extra burden on business will destroy jobs.

    Britain is enjoying more jobs and record investment, thanks to the competitive edge we have over other European countries. We are a low cost economy But that does not mean we are a low pay economy. Our competitive advantage comes from the lower costs facing our businesses. It can be measured by the social costs an employer has to pay on top of every £100 of wages: in Germany it is £31, in France £41, but in Britain, it is only £15.

    Many countries in Europe have tried to cocoon themselves from global competition behind layers of red tape and regulation – such as the Social Chapter and a national minimum wage. This provides a false sense of security, playing a cruel trick on working people. It also excludes the unemployed from work. As companies in the rest of Europe have grown more uncompetitive, employers have found it too expensive to employ new workers, investment has gone elsewhere, and the dole queues have lengthened. The European social model is not social and not a model for us to follow. But if Britain signed up to the Social Chapter it would be used to impose that model on us – destroying British jobs.

    No Conservative government will sign up to the Social Chapter or introduce a national minimum wage We will insist at the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam that our opt-out is honoured and that Britain is exempted from the Working Time Directive: if old agreements are broken, we do not see how new ones can be made

    We will resist the imposition of other social burdens on the work place through a new European employment chapter.

    Welfare into Work

    Although governments cannot create jobs, they can help people train and find work. We now have in place a battery of schemes working with Training and Enterprise Councils to provide targeted help and training, including remedial education in literacy and numeracy. We are also developing new incentives, alongside Family Credit, to help people move off benefit into work.

    We will always help those in genuine need: in return, the unemployed have a responsibility to look for work and accept a reasonable offer That belief underpins our new Jobseeker’s Allowance which ensures that no-one can refuse reasonable work opportunities and remain on benefit.

    As unemployment falls, we want to focus on those who have been unemployed for some time. At present, Project Work is helping 100,000 people who have been unemployed for more than 2 years in cities around Britain. They are first given help in finding a job – which includes giving employers incentives to take them on. Those who do not find jobs are then required to work for a specific period on a community project. This helps them regain work habits and ensures they are available for work.

    As Project Work succeeds and demonstrates that its costs can be met by the savings from getting people into work, we will extend the programme to cover the long-term unemployed nationwide

    We will also develop an innovative “Britain Works” scheme which uses the experience and ingenuity of private and voluntary sectors to get people off welfare into work.

    Britain has one of the most mobile economies in Europe. People move on, and up, into better paid jobs more easily than on the continent.

    The Information Society

    Britain is at the forefront of creating tomorrow’s information society Already we have exposed domestic telecommunications to competition and stimulated investment in cable and satellite entertainment systems. And by opening up international telecommunications we will continue to encourage companies worldwide to base their global operations here. We will make sure that the digital revolution comes to Britain first.

    We are launching an ambitious programme with industry to spread “IT for All”, giving every adult the opportunity to try out and learn about new IT services. We will work with industry to ensure that all schools are connected to the information superhighway.

    We will use the Millennium Lottery Fund to transform the computer facilities and information links available in schools, libraries, museums, voluntary organisations and other public places after the turn of the century.

    This will give the public much wider access to information services in the years ahead. We will also take advantage of information technology to transform the way government provides services to the public.

    We will keep Britain in the vanguard of new mobile service development – including mobile telephone and information services – by introducing a pricing system for the radio spectrum to achieve more efficient allocation of radio frequencies.

    We will maintain a strong, free and competitive broadcasting and press environment at both national and local level, while continuing to be vigilant in monitoring whether action is needed to curb breaches of standards, and prevent unacceptable press intrusion.

    Science

    British science enjoys a worldwide reputation for excellence and cost-effectiveness, which makes Britain an attractive base for many domestic and overseas companies. We will continue to invest in science and target funds at basic research, which would not otherwise be funded by industry. At the same time we will provide an enterprising environment which encourages firms to invest with confidence in applied science.

    2020 Vision

    There is no part of the globe which has not been reached by British enterprise and British culture. We have always looked out beyond these shores, beyond this continent. Our language, our heritage of international trading links, our foreign investments – second only to America’s – are historic strengths which mean we are ideally placed to seize the opportunities of the global economy.

    Thanks to Conservative policies of liberalisation and privatisation we are strong in industries of the future such as telecommunications, financial services, and information technology. These are the industries that will benefit from opening up trade around the world. We will push for completion of the European Single Market and continue to pursue the objective of transatlantic free trade against the background of world trade liberalisation.

    Our aim is nothing less than tariff free trade across the globe by the year 2020.

    Free competition is important for free markets. Companies should not make agreements that restrict competition and hence result in poor value for consumers. We have set out proposals to give companies greater protection against price fixing, dumping, and other restrictive practices by larger competitors.

    We will introduce a Competition Bill to take forward these proposals in the first session of the next parliament

    We are committed to pushing forward our competitiveness agenda which is making Britain the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Opportunity and Ownership for Individuals and Families

    Our Record – Opportunity

    The right to buy has allowed 1.5 million council tenants to become homeowners. There are over 4 million more homeowners today than in 1979.

    The Government has spent £6 billion through housing associations to provide homes for rent. Between 1992 and 1995 housing associations provided 178,000 new lettings – 25,000 more than promised in the 1992 Manifesto.

    There are now around 10 million private shareholders, up from about 3 million at the time of the last Labour government. 2.5 million people now have tax free savings in PEP accounts, and 4.5 million in TESSAs.

    Since 1979, the success of private pension provision has raised the average income of pensioners by 60% more than inflation. Almost 90% of recently retired pensioners now have incomes over and above state benefits.

    Savings in private pension funds have increased to £650 billion –more than 4 times the level in 1979. Their value is greater than the pension funds in all other EU countries added together.

    Over the period 1979 to 1995, education spending per pupil rose from £515 to £1,890 – an increase in real terms of 48%. Real spending on books and equipment per pupil rose 56%. Teachers’ real pay rose 57%: from £270 per week in 1979 to £420 in 1995.

    In 1979, 40% of three and four year olds attended nursery school; in 1995 the figure was 59%. Our nursery vouchers now give this opportunity to every child.

    The proportion of sixteen year olds staying on in full-time education rose from 4 out of 10 in 1979 to 7 out of 10 in 1995.

    Almost 1 in 3 young people now go on to university, compared with 1 in 8 in 1979.

    The proportion of adults with no academic qualifications has halved since 1979 and the proportion of adults with a degree or equivalent has more than doubled rising from 5% to 12%.

    3. Choice and Security for Families

    The family is the most important institution in our lives. It offers security and stability in a fast-changing world. But the family is undermined if governments take decisions which families ought to take for themselves. Self-reliance underpins freedom and choice.

    Families are stronger if they have the money to look after themselves: that is why we are shifting power and wealth back to working families and away from the state. We have already achieved much – the average family’s disposable income has gone up by 40% since 1979. But we want to go further. The next Conservative government intends to reform the tax system so that it gives substantially more help to families.

    We also want to encourage people to save so they have the security and self-respect that comes from being able to rely on their own resources rather than immediately turning to the state. We have already made much progress here too with widening ownership of homes, pensions, and the new PEPs and TESSAs. We now propose further radical measures for more saving for retirement.

    Families and Tax

    We believe families should be left with as much of their own money as possible. They know better than politicians how to spend it. We have already cut the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 23p, and our aim is to get it down to 20p, benefitting 18 million taxpayers. We intend to do even more to help families in particular

    At the moment, if one spouse does not take paid work in order to look after children or dependent relatives, they not only give up earnings but may also be unable to benefit from their personal tax allowance. Yet this is the time at which their income is often most stretched.

    We believe our tax system should recognise and support the crucial role of families in their caring responsibilities. We will give them that support.

    We will give priority to future reductions in personal taxation that help families looking after dependent children or relatives by allowing one partner’s unused personal allowance to be transferred to a working spouse where they have these responsibilities.

    This will provide a targeted reduction in the tax bill to those families who need it most. Around 2 million one-taxpayer couples with dependent children, or looking after elderly relatives and others needing care, would gain up to £17.50 a week – around £900 a year

    Family Savings

    In the old days people just depended on the weekly pay packet or money from the state. But no job can be secure and the state cannot provide for every eventuality. It is ownership which brings true security and genuine independence from the state. That is why Conservatives have long dreamed of a property-owning democracy. Now we are delivering it in practice. Home ownership is up by 4.7 million. 10 million people own a direct personal stake in our economy. 16 million are gaining shares in their building societies thanks to our deregulation of them. We intend to carry forward our vision of a people’s share. This is a significant increase in personal security. It is the Conservative vision of security through personal savings – not a socialist vision of security through the state.

    We want people to enjoy Britain’s success – especially by owning shares in the companies for which they work. We have already introduced a number of schemes to encourage employee share ownership. To encourage a further expansion of worker shares, our new Share Match Scheme will allow employees to be rewarded with additional free shares if they acquire a stake in their company.

    Our goal is that by 2000, more than half of the employees of Britain’s larger companies will own shares in those companies.

    Four and a half million people now benefit from tax free TESSAs and 2.5 million from PEP schemes to encourage the accumulation of long term saving. We will continue to build on this success by exploring ways in which existing tax exemptions for savings can be developed – allowing individuals to secure their future and protect their families against unexpected contingencies.

    We will continue to raise the threshold for inheritance tax as it is prudent to do so.

    People are not just saving for themselves but for their children and grand-children. These savings should not be penalised by the tax system.

    For many people their biggest asset is their pension. Thanks to the steps we have already taken to encourage occupational and personal pensions, we now have £650 billion invested in private pensions – more than the rest of the European Union put together We now plan to build further on this achievement.

    We will make it easier for small employers to set up personal pension plans for groups of employees.

    We will create more flexibility for people who save in personal pension plans to continue investing in those schemes if they subsequently move to jobs with company pension schemes.

    We will also create flexibility for employees with savings in Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVC) schemes to take part of that pension earlier or later than their main company pension.

    But we believe the time has now come to plan for another important step in improving Britain’s pension provision. Britain is already much better placed than many other countries to afford state pensions in the future, but we want even more people to be able to look forward to properly funded pension that grows with the economy and is free from dependence on taxes paid by future generations. We now propose a practical way of achieving a gradual transformation of the state pension scheme.

    At the start of the next parliament we will set out proposals to provide all young people entering the workforce with a personal pension fund paid for through a rebate on their national insurance contributions. At retirement they would be entitled to the full pension earned by this accumulated investment. This could give them a pension significantly higher than they would currently receive from the state. But they will be guaranteed a pension at least equal to the current bask state pension, increased in line with inflation.

    This will be one of the most significant improvements in the state pension system since it was introduced.

    Older people currently in the workforce would be unaffected – they will continue to contribute as now and receive the normal state pension when they retire.

    This policy would come into effect early in the new millennium. Gradual phasing in of the new system over 40 years will make the impact on public finances affordable. Even at its peak, the net revenue forgone will be only a fraction of the savings from the recent Pensions Act. And eventually, the new policy will produce massive public expenditure savings.

    This far-sighted idea is in the best Conservative tradition. The growing wealth of the nation will provide for the next generation through private funding, underpinned by a state guarantee. British people will be able to look forward to retirement with even greater confidence. And our young people will have a pensions opportunity unrivalled in the world.

    Support for Families

    Conservatives believe that a healthy society encourages people to accept responsibility for their own lives. A heavy-handed and intrusive state can do enormous damage.

    Some families need help to cope with their responsibilities. For them, Social Services play a vital role. They help with children where parental care has failed. They deliver an ever wider range of services to people with learning difficulties or who are mentally ill. Our community care reforms have given them a central role ensuring that elderly people get care of the highest quality: and in their own homes where possible. We need to ensure that role is properly fulfilled.

    Early in the next Parliament we will introduce a Social Services Reform Bill which will create a new statutory framework for social services. The Bill will provide for greater openness and accountability in social services.

    We will provide new guidance to ensure social workers properly reflect the values of the community – focusing their efforts on those families who most need support, and minimising unnecessary interference. Social workers working with children will receive special training to cope with the often heart-rending cases they face.

    We will raise standards through a new regulatory framework which will apply the same standards in both the public and private sector.

    We will also remove the power of local authorities to operate care homes where this is in the best interests of the people for whom they are responsible.

    We believe that families who use social services should be able to exercise choice wherever practicable. We have given cash payments to disabled people to purchase the services they need directly.

    We also want new ways of reinforcing individual choice where possible. We will therefore ensure no barriers stand in the way of local authorities wanting to issue their users with vouchers to buy certain services.

    We will review the direct payment scheme, and provided it has been cost effective, we will extend it to other users of social services.

    Above all, we want to help families to help themselves. Caring for older – or disabled – relatives is one of the most natural human instincts. We recognise the crucial and often demanding role carers play, and will help them more.

    We will introduce a Respite Care Programme. This will enable family members with heavy responsibilities caring for a relative to take a much needed break. We will also offer more practical advice for carers who want to go back to paid work.

    But in some cases, elderly people need more care than their friends or relatives can provide. Financing long term care worries many families. We will create an imaginative, fair partnership between individuals and the public sector to resolve this problem.

    In the first session of the next Parliament we will implement our partnership scheme for long term care, making it easier for people to afford the cost of care in old age without giving up their lifetime savings.

    Good preparation for marriage can be an important aid to a successful family, while timely help in meeting difficulties can often avoid family breakdown. These are matters for voluntary effort, not the state, but we will continue to support such effort.

    We need to make sure efforts to help struggling families does not turn into unnecessary meddling.

    When the state goes too far, it is often the children who suffer They become victims of the worst sort of political correctness.

    We will introduce legislation to remove unnecessary barriers to adoption and introduce new rules to make adoption from abroad more straightforward.

    We will also monitor the workings of the Children Act, and act if necessary to ensure it maintains a proper balance between the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults.

    Social Services departments are now the fourth arm of the welfare state. Most people will need them at some point in their lives. We will ensure that the Conservative revolution in public services now reaches Social Services.

    Disabled People

    We have quadrupled real spending on long term sick and disabled people since 1979, to £22 billion.

    We have introduced the Disability Discrimination Act. This is the first legislation of its kind anywhere in Europe and it provides positive proof of our commitment to disabled people. We will monitor it to ensure it continues to meet its objectives.

    We are also providing a continuing fund to enable the most severely disabled people to stay in their own homes.

    Security in Retirement

    Pensioners continue to make a positive contribution to society in retirement. They give more of their time in charitable work than any other age group. They lift some of the pressures on their own families. They help keep our nation’s history and traditions alive.

    They have paid their National Insurance contributions and taxes and rightly expect us to continue to protect the value of the basic state pension against price rises. We will do so. We will also ensure that less well off pensioners continue to get extra help on top of the basic pension.

    At the same time as protecting the state pension, our encouragement of private pensions is already transforming the living standards of pensioners. The average net income of pensioners has risen by 60% since 1979. This has been achieved by our encouragement of saving for retirement.

    The tax system must help pensioners who have saved. Our new lower 20p rate on income from savings directly helps 1.7 million pensioners and the special age allowances raise the point at which pensioners start to pay income tax.

    A Better Social Security System

    People in need can rely on our continuing support. To ensure that taxpayers are

    willing to go on paying for that support, we have shaped a social security system we can afford, taking a steadily declining share of our national income. We are doing this by focusing benefits on those most in need, helping people off welfare and into work, and curbing welfare fraud. These policies are underpinned by our measures to help families help themselves.

    Social Security must be there to help families, pensioners and people in need. We will protect the value of Child Benefit and Family Credit which help with the cost of bringing up children. This is our Family Benefits Guarantee.

    We will bring the structure of benefits for lone parents into line with that for two-parent families. We will continue to help lone parents obtain maintenance, and assist with childcare in work: both these measures help lone parents obtain work. We will pilot our “Parent Plus” Scheme that gives special help to lone parents who want to work, and extend it if it proves successful.

    Social Security fraud must be stamped out.

    We will intensify our current initiatives of inspections and checks, including more home visits, to crack down further on benefit cheats. We will introduce benefit cards across the country. We will establish a Benefit Fraud inspectorate to monitor local authorities’ performance. We will also improve the sharing of information between government departments to catch more fraudulent claims.

    To ensure as much of the Social Security budget as possible goes into benefits, we will continue to improve the efficiency of administration, using the best mix of public and private sector operations.

    Housing

    Owning one’s own home is an aim shared by millions of people. Over the last 18 years, the number of homeowners has increased by 4.7 million – including 1.7 million who have bought their home under the right to buy scheme. Over the next 10 years, we expect to see another one and a half million people buying their own homes – some 3,000 every week. To meet that demand, we will continue to allow local authority and housing association tenants to buy their homes, or move to houses which they buy.

    We will also carry through our draft Bill, creating the option for those buying flats to choose a new form of commonhold ownership.

    For those who wish to rent their home, we are encouraging a thriving private rental market, building on the success of housing investment trusts and protecting assured tenancies.

    Easier renting will help us meet our target of reducing the proportion of empty homes below 3%. The number of empty houses has fallen in each of the last 3 years. But nothing is more frustrating for people who need social housing, than the sight of a suitable property owned by the public sector boarded up and empty. We will stop that.

    Public landlords will have to sell houses which are available for occupation yet have been left empty without a good reason for more than 12 months.

    Housing associations and housing companies will continue to receive help in building new homes, and we will encourage more public-private partnerships. Together, these policies will help meet the demand for new public housing and make sure that there are decent homes for those in need.

    Opportunities for Women

    Women are succeeding in Britain. More women have jobs in Britain than in almost any other European country. Women have a better education, more financial independence and more opportunities than at any other time in Britain’s history.

    This success reflects the efforts and determination of many women. Government’s role has been simpler – to level up the playing field, whether in education, where girls are now doing better than boys, or in the workplace, where opportunities for women are the best in Europe.

    But we know our job is not yet done. Some women still face barriers to doing well. Some still do not have the financial security they deserve. And crime, and the fear of crime, often affect women more than men.

    We will ensure women have equal opportunities in education and the workplace. This can best be achieved by keeping our economy buoyant and our labour markets flexible. And our proposals to bring crime rates down further will help women especially.

    But many women – and some men – face a particular problem: how to juggle job and family. For those who need or want to work, we will seek further ways to minimise the barriers to affordable, high quality childcare. For those who wish to be full-time parents, our proposals to enable them to transfer their unused personal allowance to their spouse will be worth up to an extra £17.50 a week.

    We also want to give women more financial independence, particularly when they retire. We propose, as explained elsewhere, to improve flexibility in saving for retirement and to allow courts to split pensions on divorce.

    Looking Outwards

    The spread of share ownership, the transformation of pension provision, and the sale of council houses are revolutionising our nation. Personal prosperity and property ownership are not selfish or inward-looking.

    People who are secure at home can look out for others in their community. Over two thirds of adults engage in some form of voluntary activity. By the end of 1997 all young people aged between 15 and 25 who want to volunteer will be helped to find an opportunity to do so.

    We will make it easier for those receiving incapacity benefit to volunteer by removing the 16 hour weekly limit on their voluntary work.

    We will encourage voluntary work by others living on benefit while continuing to insist that those who are capable of work should actively seek employment. We will also develop accreditation for voluntary work to encourage employers to see it as preparation for a paid job.

    It is wrong to imagine that compassion must be nationalised and that we can only help our fellow man through state action.

    4. Education and Opportunity

    All children dream of what they might do when they grow up. Our task is to help them turn those dreams into reality whatever their background may be. It is an exciting world, full of new opportunities for inquiring minds: it should be open to every child. Their future – and Britain’s prosperity – depends on the quality of their education.

    Our Education Guarantee

    A good education is the birthright of every child. Literacy is the building block of all future learning: English is the global language of commerce and, much more, a thing of beauty. Without basic science and mathematics, the modern world is incomprehensible. Every child therefore must be taught to read, write and add up from an early age.

    Years of mistaken, progressive education in the 1960s and 1970s denied these precious skills to too many children. We have worked ceaselessly since 1979 to put that right. Our decision to test children and publish the results has allowed standards to be measured and exposed. We have reformed the curriculum, toughened inspections, and given more information and power to parents. Our many excellent teachers now know what is expected of them, and already standards in schools are rising. But they are still not good enough. We must do more.

    Building on what we have done, we can now offer a new pledge to parents – a guarantee of education standards.

    First, we will set national targets for school performance that reflect our objective of ensuring that Britain is in the top league of international standards across the whole spectrum of education.

    Second, we will require every school to plan how to improve its performance, and to set targets which relate to similar schools and national standards.

    Third, we will give all parents full information on the performance of their child’s school

    Fourth, to underwrite our pledge, we will ensure action is taken to bring any under-performing school up to the mark.

    We will meet this pledge by using the full set of levers for improved standards that we have put in place.

    We are revising and simplifying the National Curriculum in primary schools to emphasise high standards in the basic skills.

    Parents and teachers must have an overview of not just how much a child has learnt while at school, but how the school performs against others. Poor schooling must not be protected by a veil of secrecy. Parent power is a vital force for higher standards.

    Regular tests and exams are essential if teachers are to discover how much their pupils have learnt, and parents are to know how much progress their children are making against national standards. That is why children are already being tested at 7, 11 and 14.

    We will publish all school test results, including the results of tests of 7 and 14 year olds.

    We propose also to assess every child at five.

    This will give teachers and parents a benchmark against which they can measure future progress. To give a better measure of pupil’s performance, marks out of 100 will be made available to parents as well as the broad-brush levels.

    We will also introduce a new test for 14 year old children that covers the whole National Curriculum – assessing progress before they choose subjects for GCSE.

    Tests and exams need to be rigorous and demanding. We will insist that they establish children’s command of spelling, punctuation, and grammar in English tests. Children will sit arithmetic tests without calculators. We will not allow such extensive use of open books in tests and in GCSE exams. We will establish an English Language GCSE. We will continue to uphold the gold standard of A-levels, and ensure that the great classics of our literature are studied at A-level. At the same time students should have the chance to study more subjects in the sixth form.

    Rigorous tests show how individual children and schools are performing and expose schools that are not giving children the education they deserve. To underwrite our guarantee, we will then take action to improve standards. We cannot tolerate schools that fail their pupils.

    By this summer every secondary school in the country will have been inspected by independent inspectors, and by summer 1998, every primary school will have been inspected as well. We have the power to take over failing schools directly and close them if necessary We will now go further and require every school to set, and publish, regular targets, and plans for improving their academic results. Independent inspectors will monitor the results of weaker schools and their plans for improvement at regular intervals.

    Sometimes, though, schools are failing because the local education authority which runs them is failing. The authorities with the worst GCSE results and the worst results at Key Stage 2 (11 year olds) are run by Labour. Those children need our help.

    We will allow for on independent inspection of education authorities and intervene directly to raise standards where education authorities are letting children down.

    Failing authorities will be required to set out their plans to raise standards, and work with education teams – directed by independent inspectors – to implement those plans.

    The vast majority of teachers do an outstanding job. They have played a key part in implementing the reforms that we have introduced. A few, though, let their pupils down.

    We will establish a more rigorous and effective system of appraising teachers, which reflects how well their pupils perform in tests and exams: this will identify which teachers need more help and, where necessary, which teachers need to be replaced.

    Many feel that the professional standing of teachers would be strengthened by the creation of a single body which could speak with authority on professional standards. We will consult with teachers and other interested parties about the possible role of such a body.

    The school should be a place of stability and stimulation for children, especially if they come from a hostile or turbulent environment. To improve standards in future our new teacher training curriculum will stress traditional teaching methods –including whole class teaching and learning to read by the sounds of letters. We will also encourage more teachers to enter the profession through practical training schemes focused on classroom experience such as the Graduate Teacher Scheme. A child is likely to learn more in a well-ordered school. Teachers must have the powers they need to maintain discipline. We will give teachers greater power to set detentions, to exclude disruptive pupils and to use reasonable physical restraint where necessary.

    Schools also have an important role to play in spiritual and moral education. We will take steps to ensure that every school fulfils its role of providing religious education and collective worship.

    Choice and Diversity

    When we came to power in 1979 the school system was totally dominated by one type of school – the monolithic comprehensive. The system failed our children. It treated every child the same. It told parents where to send their children. It did not give schools the freedom to run their own affairs.

    Since 1979 we have created a rich diversity of schools, to serve the varied talents of all children and give parents choice within that diversity, because we believe that parents know what is best for their children.

    That is why we – and only we – are committed to giving the parent of every four year old child a voucher for nursery education so they can choose the pre-school education they want for their child, whether in a play-group, a reception class, or a nursery school in the private or state sector.

    We will give more talented children, from less well-off backgrounds, the opportunity to go to fee-paying schools by expanding the Assisted Places Scheme to cover all ages of compulsory education, in line with our current spending plans. We propose to develop it further into a wider scholarship scheme covering additional educational opportunities. The freedoms and status of fee-paying schools will be protected.

    Grant-maintained schools have been popular with parents across the country –whatever their politics. We will encourage more schools to become grant-maintained and will allow new grant-maintained schools to be set up where there is sufficient local demand. We will give all grant-maintained schools greater freedoms to expand and to select their pupils.

    Grant-maintained schools are leading the way. Local authority schools are also benefitting from our policy of local management of schools. Our ultimate objective is that all schools should take full responsibility for the management of their own affairs. In the next parliament we will take another step towards giving them that freedom.

    We will extend the benefits of greater self-governance to all LEA schools. We will require local authorities to delegate more of schools’ budgets to the schools themselves. We will give them more freedom over the employment of their staff and over admissions. And, where they want it, we will allow them to take over ownership of their assets, so they can make best use of the resources.

    Local authorities will continue to be responsible for their schools’ standards. They will provide funds, and compete with other organisations to provide services to schools. We would expect the increased responsibility of head-teachers, and their role in achieving efficiency-savings, to be recognised by their pay review body.

    Schools are stronger and more effective where head-teachers and governors can shape their own distinctive character Sometimes that means developing a speciality in some subjects. Sometimes it means selecting children by their aptitudes: where parents want this we should not stand in their way. Special abilities should be recognised and encouraged.

    We will continue to encourage the establishment of more specialist schools in technology, arts, languages and sport. We aim to help one in five schools become specialist schools by 2001.

    We will allow all schools to select some of their pupils.

    We will help schools to became grammar schools in every major town where parents want that choke.

    The high standards, real choice and genuine diversity which we have introduced will produce the best results for all our children.

    Lifetime Learning

    Lifetime learning is a reality in Britain today. Over a half of all students in universities, and seventy per cent of those in further education colleges, are adults who have returned to education later in life. We will continue to create new opportunities for more people to participate.

    There has been a revolution in further and higher education. Three and a half million people are in further education –up from just half a million in 1979. The number of young people going to university has risen from one in eight to one in three over the same period.

    We will ensure consistently high standards and will consult on the development of higher education when we receive the results of the Dearing Review. We have world class research in British universities which we will continue to support.

    Every young person should have the opportunity to continue in education or training.

    We will give students between 14 and 21 a learning credit which will enable them to choose suitable education or training leading to recognised qualifications up to A levels or their equivalents.

    We will also introduce National Traineeships and encourage employers to offer more work-based Modern Apprenticeships to young people. Objective external assessments of a proper syllabus will be made a part of all National Vocational Qualifications.

    We will continue to support the network of Training and Enterprise Councils, which have created a valuable partnership between business and government. We will encourage more employers to become involved in “Investors in People”, with the public sector matching the performance of the private sector.

    Competitive markets demand high skills. If Britain is to win, we need to encourage learning and give people the opportunity to go where their interests and inquiring minds take them.

    World Class Health and Public Services

    Our Record – Health and Public Services

    Government spending has concentrated on priorities, not wasteful bureaucracy and overmanning. Despite tough overall public spending plans, real spending on the NHS has risen nearly 75% since 1979 , on schools by 50% and on the police by more than 100%.

    The Health Service is treating over 1 million more patients each year than before our reforms.

    The number of people waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment has fallen from over 200,000 in 1990 to 22,000 last year. The average wait has fallen from nearly 9 months to 4 months.

    The Government has set up the Citizen’s Charter to provide first class public services for all citizens. Nearly 650 organisations have received a Charter Mark for meeting demanding standards of performance, customer satisfaction and value for money.

    There are now 55,000 more nurses and midwives and 22,500 more doctors and dentists than in 1979. For every senior NHS manager, 77 people are providing direct patient care.

    Nurses average earnings have grown 70% in real terms: from £68 a week in 1979 to £325 in 1995. Doctor’s pay has risen by a third. Under Labour both were cut.

    Infant mortality has fallen from 13.2 to 6.2 per thousand over the last 18 years.

    Deaths through road accidents are now the lowest since records began in 1926. Since 1979 road deaths and serious casualties have fallen by 43% despite an 85% increase in motor traffic.

    The government has invested record amounts on transport – more than £26 billion since 1979 in investment on motorways and trunk roads; £16 billion in investment on railways; and £8 billion in investment on London Transport.

    Privatisation is delivering better services at lower costs. BT’s main prices are down by more than 40% in real terms. Average household bills for gas and electricity have also fallen in real terms since 1990.

    5. Security in Health

    We have been the guardians of the NHS for most of its life, improving its services and securing its funding. The benefits can be seen in our rising standards of health. 1993 was for example the first year in which no child in this country died of measles. Between 1979 and 1995 life expectancy at birth in England has increased from 70.4 years to 74.3 years for men and from 76.4 years to 79.6 years for women. We are getting healthier and we are better looked after when we are sick.

    Growing Resources for a Modern Health Service

    This progress has been possible because we have increased spending since 1979 by nearly 75% more than inflation, to almost £43 billion. And we are not stopping there. The next Conservative Government will honour a firm guarantee to the NHS.

    We will continue, year by year; to increase the real resources committed to the NHS, so NHS spending will continue to share in a growing economy

    Under Labour there have been years when resources for the NHS actually shrank – something that would be inconceivable with the Conservatives.

    Money is only really a means to an end: better patient care. Now we are treating 9.2 million hospital in-patients and day cases as against 6.9 million in 1992 and 5.1 million in 1979.

    Investing in Skilled Staff

    We are committed to expanding the medical staff of the NHS. We shall therefore increase medical school intakes to 5,000 a year by the year 2000 and are ahead of schedule in reaching the target.

    Good nursing is the bedrock of the NHS. In particular we will increase the number of nurses with specialist qualifications in paediatric intensive care,emergency care, and cancer care. The number of nurses qualifying each year will increase by 2,500 within the next 5 years as we continue to expand Project 2000 training.

    Higher Standards of Service

    We are tackling the problem of long waiting times which can cause so much worry; distress, and pain. We have set tough targets under the Patient’s Charter and as a result average waiting times for in-patient hospital treatments have fallen from more than 6 months 5 years ago to 4 months last year.

    Patients no longer put up with being kept in ignorance. They want to know more.

    We will publish more information on how successfully hospitals are treating patients so that they and their GPs can make more informed choices between services in different hospitals and help stimulate better performance

    Better Primary Care

    Our vision of the NHS is one in which hospitals and family doctors gain greater power to run their own affairs. That is why we will continue to encourage the spread of fundholding among GPs. Labour by contrast would destroy the new freedoms that fundholding doctors enjoy by imposing a new layer of bureaucracy on top of them.

    However, we do not want the benefits of better healthcare to be confined to patients of GP fundholders. Our proposals to shift more healthcare towards family doctors are open to all

    We shall implement the new Primary Care Act which will enable all family doctors to provide a broader range of patient services within their surgeries. This will include (“super surgeries” and practice-based cottage hospitals that can offer faster and more local treatment.

    We expect to see the number of nurses working in GP practices continue to grow, as will the number of GPs.

    We will extend nationwide our plans to enable more nurses to prescribe a wider range of drugs for patients, recognising their contribution to primary care.

    Mental Health

    The last decade has also seen major changes in the care of mentally ill people. We will continue to develop a full range of services – including 24-hour nursed hostels and secure units – that can care for them in a way which is most appropriate to them and the interests of the wider community.

    We will not close any long-stay mental hospitals unless it can be shown that adequate care services exist in the community.

    We will strengthen co-operation between health and social services in the delivery of mental health services. Our recent Green Paper showed how this can be done. And we will monitor the progress of Health Authorities in developing proper mental health care plans.

    Health of the Nation

    A modern health service is not just about treating illness, it is also about keeping people healthy. This is why we launched the Health of the Nation strategy in 1992 – the first time England has had a strategy for health. Its aim is to reduce illness and premature death by identifying common causes of ill health, like excessive smoking and obesity. Different groups in and outside the health service then work together to tackle the problems.

    We are already seeing progress. Between 1990 and 1994, deaths from coronary heart disease among the over-65s, the suicide rate, and the number of teenage pregnancies fell substantially And last year we announced that environmental targets would be added to Health of the Nation.

    Improved general health means fewer people requiring attention in hospitals and GP surgeries – and more resources available for patients who need them. Our Health of the Nation strategy is a vital part of our vision for creating a health service fit for the 21st Century.

    A Modern Health Service

    Healthcare is changing fast. Modern technology is constantly increasing the range of treatments which are available. Conservatives believe that the benefits of these advances should be made available to patients on the basis of their clinical need, without regard to their ability to pay.

    Furthermore we also believe that the NHS must have access to sufficient resources to allow it to invest in the facilities required to deliver up-to-date healthcare. Since 1979 capital investment in the NHS has proceeded at an unprecedented rate. In the future we believe these requirements will be best met in a partnership with the private sector which allows the private sector to improve the facilities in which NHS healthcare is delivered.

    We will promote the Private Finance Initiative which will unleash a new flow of investment funds into the modernisation of the NHS.

    The NHS is a British success story. It commands universal support in Britain. It is widely admired all over the world. Conservatives are proud of the part we are playing in improving the NHS still further.

    6. Better Public Services

    The public sector is being transformed the world over. Britain is in the vanguard. Everyone else wants to learn from our vision of a smaller state doing fewer things and doing them better.

    Old style public services were centrally planned with little information or choice for the public who used the service. Our reforms have made these services more responsive to the public by breaking up cumbersome bureaucratic structures and shifting power to small responsive local institutions and the people who work in them. The schools, hospitals and police have all been transformed in this way. We support the people who do, not the people who plan.

    In order to get better standards we are liberating services from centralised control over capital. We will push forward our Private Finance Initiative to break down these old barriers.

    We have made public services genuinely accountable, with useful information and real choices for the people who use them. We set tough standards and they will get tougher. The Citizen’s Charter has raised standards of customer service. When these high standards are reached we recognise and reward excellence through our Charter Mark initiative. There are now 647 Chartermarks and we will aim for more than 2000 Chartermarks by the year 2000.

    We will require all government agencies to apply for Chartermarks.

    The days of the bureaucratic paperchase are behind us. The future is “government direct”. We will harness the latest information technology to place the public sector directly at the service of the citizen. People will be able to use simple computer terminals to enter information directly. This will transform time-consuming transactions like completing a tax return or registering a new business.

    Privatisation and Competition

    In 20 years, privatisation has gone from the dream of a few Conservative visionaries to the big idea which is transforming decaying public sector industries in almost every country in the world. Britain has led the way with this new industrial revolution: we can be proud of what we have achieved.

    In 1979 the Government inherited a range of businesses which had come into the public sector for different reasons. Many were known for their poor standards of service, and most were making large losses.

    Over the past eighteen years that situation has changed substantially. Privatisation has enhanced productivity, improved customer services, raised safety and environmental standards and substantially reduced prices.

    Telephone, gas and electricity bills to the customer have fallen as never before. Telephone waiting lists are unknown, and water, gas and electricity disconnections have fallen dramatically. Nearly £40 billion in private sector funding has been committed to a major investment programme to meet higher quality water standards. We can now look forward to water prices falling over the years ahead.

    Service standards have improved substantially. Before privatisation published service standards did not exist. Now industry regulators monitor legal requirements to provide quality services in a competitive environment. Refunds may be made when performance standards are not met.

    Privatisation has benefitted – and will continue to benefit – consumers, shareholders, employees, and taxpayers. In 1979 the then-nationalised industries required a £50 million per week subsidy from the taxpayer In 1996 those now privatised companies paid taxes of £60 million per week.

    We will ensure private ownership, competition and regulation continue to deliver lower prices and better services for consumers.

    We will extend competition for domestic gas users, and introduce competition in the water industry, starting with large users.

    The Post Office occupies an important part in national life. It comprises Counter Services, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce. The network of sub-post offices is vital and most are already run as private businesses. The Royal Mail provides a universal service at a standard price in every part of the United Kingdom. No one can imagine a stamp that does not bear the Queen’s head. These characteristics must continue, but reforms are needed to allow the services to develop. The Royal Mail must face up to the challenges and opportunities that are arising from increasing competition and the international liberalisation of services.

    We will guarantee to preserve the national identity, universal service and distinctive characteristics of the Royal Mail, while considering options – including different forms of privatisation – to introduce private capital and management skills into its operations.

    We will transfer Parcelforce to the private sector whilst ensuring that every Post Office in the land continues to provide a full parcel service at an economical price

    Privatisation works. We will therefore continue to pass government activities into private ownership where this can bring benefits to consumers and taxpayers.

    Local Government

    We are developing a new vision for local government.

    We believe local government should take a lead in the planning and development of their communities. To achieve that, we have encouraged them to work in partnership with central government, with private enterprise, and other organisations in their community. The impact of local government is multiplied when they work in this way.

    To encourage this partnership, we have developed the new approach of Challenge Funding. We set up a fund to meet a particular objective and then invite competing bids for the money. Those who form effective partnerships are far more likely to win those bids. The Single Regeneration Budget Fund, for example, has stimulated many working partnerships that are bringing new life to their communities.

    We will push Challenge Funding further to reward effective local government.

    This innovation has the potential to transform the financing of the public sector.

    In addition, we are encouraging higher standards and more cost-effective provision of local services. Local authorities can enable things to happen rather than necessarily running them themselves. They must look after the interests of users of their services – and that is often best done by being a purchaser, not an employer.

    Standards of service are rising in many local authorities. There are, however, still great disparities between the best and worst performers, as the Audit Commission shows in their thought-provoking reports.

    We will keep up the pressure for higher standards and improved value for money by insisting on compulsory competitive tendering.

    The development of Challenge Funding and the shift in the role of local authorities from direct employers to purchasers of services will transform local authorities over the coming years. In the meantime we will, for so long as is necessary, retain the power to cap local authorities to protect taxpayers.

    Strikes in Essential Services

    Industrial relations in this country have been transformed. In so far as there is a still a problem it is concentrated in a few essential services where the public has no easy alternative and strikers are able to impose massive costs and inconvenience out of all proportion to the issues at stake. We will protect ordinary members of the public from this abuse of power.

    We will legislate to remove legal immunity from industrial action which has disproportionate or excessive effect Members of the public and employers will be able to seek injunctions to prevent industrial action in these circumstances. Any strike action will also have to be approved by a majority of all members eligible to vote and ballots will have to be repeated at regular intervals if negotiations are extended.

    Transport

    Our railways are already improving now they have been liberated into the private sector Passenger numbers are up: more people are using the railways every day. Investment is up: Railtrack plans to spend £4 million each day on improving stations and maintaining and renewing the network. The new train operators are committed to investing £1.5 billion in new and refurbished rolling stock. And key fares are set to fall in real terms for the first time in a generation, with guaranteed price controls keeping fare increases below the level of inflation until at least 2003. We intend to build on this growing success story to create a thriving railway network for the new century.

    We will complete the successful transfer of British Rail into the commercial sector

    We now want to draw in private investment to modernise London Underground and improve services to passengers.

    We will bring forward plans to privatise London Underground. Proceeds from privatisation will be recycled in order to modernise the network within 5 years – creating an underground system to serve the capital in the 21st Century. We will regulate fares so they rise by no more than inflation for at least 4 years after privatisation. We will also protect services – including the Travel Card and concessionary fares.

    After completing the modernisation of the network, the majority of the remaining surplus from privatisation will be channelled into additional support for transport investment in London and elsewhere in the country.

    We will continue to encourage public transport. In particular, we will use the existing funding for local authorities to promote developments which make it easier to interchange between bus and rail.

    We recognise the needs of road users, and will continue to work with the private sector to sustain our road building and maintenance programme. Already under the Private Finance Initiative the private sector is contributing some £1 billion to investment in roads and achieving significant savings in construction costs. We will also tackle road congestion by introducing new regional traffic control centres, by extending the use of variable speed limits, and by ensuring that local authorities have the necessary powers to act. We will promote a cleaner environment by supporting a Europe-wide reduction in vehicle emissions, and encouraging the manufacture of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    We will continue to build on our record of improving safety on roll-on roll-off ferries and cargo ships through higher standards of survivability and the measures in the Merchant Shipping Act.

    We will continue to make it easier for people to travel by air Already over the last 5 years opening up the market in Europe has led to more services and lower fares. We will build on that success in negotiations with the United States and other countries. We will also continue to encourage the development of regional airports offering new direct services to the rest of the world in the same way that we have already opened up new regional links with Europe and the United States. We will privatise the National Air Traffic Service because it will be run better in the private sector.

    Competition and enterprise are the best way to improve our transport system.

    A Safe and Civil Society

    Our Record – A Safe and Civil Society

    Spending on the police has doubled since 1979 after allowing for inflation. There are now about 16,000 more police officers than when we took office. 2,360 more constables have been recruited since the last election and the Government is giving Chief Officers the resources to recruit 5,000 police constables over the 3 years to 1999.

    Recorded crime has dropped in each of the last 4 years. It is now over 10% down on 1992 levels – more than half a million fewer offences – the biggest drop since records were first kept.

    There are now 153,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes in England and Wales – 38,000 more than in 1992 – covering 5.5 million homes. We have helped fund over 4,000 closed circuit TV schemes over the last 2 years for additional security.

    Our national DNA database – the first in the world – now has over 112,000 samples on it. 3,300 matches have so far been made between suspects and crime stains.

    The Government has increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime and for attempted rape to life imprisonment. Since 1985 the average sentence for violence against the person has risen by a third and for sexual offences by nearly 40%.

    The number of cars stolen has fallen by nearly 20% in the last four years – that is about 100,000 fewer cars stolen.

    We have built 22 new prisons since 1980. Slopping out has ended. No prisoners now sleep three to a cell designed for one. Prison escapes have fallen by 80% since the last election.

    Mandatory drug testing has been introduced throughout the Prison Service. Home leave has been cut back – down by half in two years.

    We have made witness intimidation a crime. 500 people were charged with that offence in 1995 alone.

    We have stepped up the fight against drugs and organised crime, giving the Security Service powers to support the police and Customs and Excise in tracking down the serious criminals.

    7. Law, Order and Security

    People have a right to sleep safely in their homes and walk safely on the streets. Governments have a duty to maintain that security.

    Our reforms are aimed at ensuring that crime does not pay. And they are working – the pessimists and the scoffers are wrong. Recorded crime has fallen every year for the last 4 years. It is now 10% lower than it was in 1992. That is over half a million fewer crimes – the biggest drop since records were first kept in the middle of the 19th century.

    But crime is still too high. We must do more. Our aim is to keep crime falling over the lifetime of the next parliament. This is what we will do.

    Safer Communities

    Anti-social behaviour and petty crime disrupt communities and spread human misery. The police are rightly now vigorously tackling problems such as graffiti vandalism and drunkenness. Where such behaviour goes unchecked more serious crimes will follow.

    We will support chief constables who develop local schemes to crack down on petty crime and improve public order.

    Closed circuit television has proved enormously successful in increasing public safety.

    We will fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to support the installation of 10,000 CCTV cameras in town centres and public places in the 3 years to 1999. We will provide £75 million over the lifetime of the next parliament to continue extending CCTV to town centres, villages and housing estates up and down the country that want to bid for support.

    We will also continue to take other steps to improve the safety of our streets and communities. In this parliament we have given the police power to seize alcohol from under-18s caught drinking in public. The police have been given the power to stop and search in a specified area for up to 48 hours if they reasonably believe people to be carrying knives.

    Identity Cards can also make a contribution to safer communities.

    We will introduce a voluntary identity card scheme based on the new photographic driving licence it will, for example, enable retailers to identify youngsters trying to buy alcohol and cigarettes or rent classified videos when they are under age.

    Tackling Juvenile Crime

    A fifth of all crime is committed by under-18s. We are encouraging schools to reduce truancy through the publication of league tables and by supporting local projects to tackle the problem. We are developing a network of local teams to identify children who are at risk of turning to crime and to take early steps to address the factors which put them at risk.

    We will encourage these local child crime teams to refer children from primary school age upwards who are at risk of, or who are actually, offending to programmes to tackle their behaviour and fully involve their parents.

    The courts would be able to impose an order – a Parental Control Order – on the parents of children whom they believed could keep control of their children but were refusing to do so.

    Courts will be given the power to attach conditions to Parental Control Orders. Conditions might include a requirement to keep their children in at night, taking their children to and from school, attending a drug rehabilitation clinic or going to sessions to improve their skills as parents. Parents who breached these conditions – in defiance of the court – would face a range of possible sanctions.

    Appearing before a youth court should be a daunting experience for the juvenile concerned. All too often it is not. At the moment about a third of all juveniles appearing before the youth courts are discharged without any punishment at all This sends all the wrong signals to youngsters – particularly first time offenders – who then feel they can get away with crime.

    We will give the courts the power to impose speedy sanctions on youngsters, involving wherever possible an element of reparation to the victim. The probation service – rather than social services – will be responsible for enforcing community punishments for under-16s.

    Persistent juvenile offenders need to be properly punished. We are piloting a tough new regime, with a heavy emphasis on discipline, at a young offenders institution and at the military prison in Colchester In 1994 we doubled the maximum sentence for 15-17 year olds to 2 years detention in a young offenders institution. We have given the courts the freedom to allow the publication of the names of convicted juveniles. We will give the courts the power to detain persistent 12-14 year old offenders in secure training centres once the places become available.

    We have given the courts the power to impose electronically monitored curfews on 10 to 15 year old offenders. We will introduce pilots to test their effectiveness. If successful we will consider extending them nationwide.

    Catching, Convicting and Punishing

    We back the police every inch of the way. There are now about 16,000 more police officers – and over 18,000 more civilians helping them – than when we took office. We are providing chief constables with the resources to recruit 5,000 extra police constables in the three years to 1999.

    We support police initiatives to target the hard core of persistent criminals. Intelligence is crucial for this.

    We will establish a national crime squad to provide on improved nationally coordinated approach to organised crime.

    Once caught, criminals must be convicted and then properly punished. The public needs to be protected. We have reformed the right to silence, despite opposition from Labour. The number of suspects refusing to answer police questions has nearly halved as a result.

    We have piloted curfew orders for adult offenders. They have been shown to keep criminals indoors – curbing their freedom as a punishment – and keeping them out of trouble in the meantime.

    We will extend electronically monitored curfew orders nationwide for those aged 16 and over.

    Persistent offenders account for a high proportion of all crime. Prison works – not only as a deterrent, but in keeping these criminals off the street. Those sent to prison are less likely to re-offend on release than those given a community punishment. We will provide another 8,500 prison places by the year 2000.

    We will introduce minimum sentences for violent and persistent criminals to help protect the public more effectively, reversing Labour’s wrecking amendments to our tough Crime Bill.

    Anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime, like rape or armed robbery, will get an automatic life sentence.

    Persistent house burglars and dealers in hard drugs will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of 3 and 7 years respectively.

    We will restore honesty in sentencing by abolishing automatic early release.

    Support for Victims

    Concern for the victim must be at the heart of our entire approach to the criminal justice system. We will continue to give strong backing to Victim Support.

    We will give courts in all cases the discretion to allow witnesses to give evidence anonymously if they believe them to be at risk from reprisal.

    We will also take action to allow a judge to stop a defendant from personally questioning the victim in rape cases and other cases where the victim is particularly vulnerable.

    Conservatives are on the side of the victims not the criminal.

    Strengthening the Fight Against City Crime

    Crime that takes place through manipulation of financial accounts and markets is as serious as crime on the street.

    The City’s unchallenged position as Europe’s most dynamic and successful financial centre owes a great deal to its reputation for honesty and fair dealing. We will help ensure that this reputation is maintained.

    We will bring forward in the next parliament a package of measures designed to modernise the current systems for dealing with City fraud.

    This will include legislation to allow the Inland Revenue to pass confidential information to the police, the Serious Fraud Office and the financial regulators to assist in the investigation of cases involving serious financial fraud. We will also remove the remaining legal obstacles to the controlled exchange of confidential information between the police and the regulators in this kind of case.

    Faster Justice

    Justice delayed is justice denied. It is wrong that people who are innocent should face an excessive wait before the start of their trial. The guilty must be held to account for their actions promptly. And victims should be given the chance to draw a line under their experience as quickly as possible. We are determined to speed up justice without diminishing the genuine rights of every citizen to a fair trial.

    Last October the government set up a review of delays in the criminal justice system. It made a series of detailed recommendations. We see merit in those recommendations and will seek the views of interested parties. We believe that taken together they could dramatically speed up the prosecution process, bringing the guilty to justice and acquitting the innocent more quickly.

    All defendants would appear in court the next working day after they were charged. At least half of them would be convicted the next day compared with just 3 per cent at the moment. And the time taken to bring juveniles to court would be cut from 10 weeks to a matter of days.

    Civil Justice

    The civil justice system of this country is a vital part of its competitive economy and has a high international reputation. The commercial courts attract substantial litigation from all over the world, generating significant foreign earnings. We will work to maintain the high standing of these courts.

    We have greatly improved the service the civil courts provide for the aggrieved citizen. The simple procedure for small claims has been extended to claims up to £3,000. For large claims the county court now provides an efficient local service with specialised courts in many locations around the country leaving the High Court to deal with the more complex and difficult issues.

    We will push ahead with the major reforms now under way which will greatly speed up the process and improve the delivery of justice without imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.

    The Legal Profession

    We will ensure that the framework in which the legal profession operates is responsive to the changing needs of our people and is one in which unjustified restrictions have no place. We have, for example, given most solicitors rights of audience in the higher courts under appropriate conditions.

    Legal Aid

    People are rightly concerned about the rising costs of legal aid. We have taken many steps to control the burden and to deny access to legal aid to the “apparently wealthy” – those who qualified technically, but whose lifestyles suggested they should not.

    But more is required:

    We will change the structure of legal aid to ensure that it, like other vital public services, functions within defined cash limits.

    This will enable us to identify priorities and serve them much more efficiently than the present system.

    Drugs

    Drugs are a menace to the very fabric of our society They ruin the lives of addicts and their families. They can destroy whole neighbourhoods. The promising youth of today can too easily become the sad dropouts of tomorrow turning to crime and violence.

    The Conservative Government has a comprehensive strategy, launched in 1995, committed to fighting drugs in communities and in schools. It is tough on criminals and vigilant at our ports. It is respected throughout the world. We spend over £500m every year in tackling all aspects of drug problems.

    We will continue the fight against drugs through a coordinated approach: being tough on pushers; reducing demand by educating young people; tackling drug abuse at local level through Drug Action Teams; saying “No” to legalising drugs; and working with international agencies and foreign governments to resist the menace spreading.

    This pernicious evil has to be fought by all of us.

    A Confident, United and Sovereign Nation

    Our Record – The Nation

    Many of our old cities have been rejuvenated through a partnership of public and private investment.

    The area of green belt has doubled since 1979.

    Water and air quality in the UK have improved significantly.

    We are one of only a few nations on course to meet our commitment to return emissions of all greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.

    The Lottery has been established as the most successful in the world – raising £3 billion for good causes in a little over 2 years.

    More support is now given to arts and heritage than at any time in our nation’s history. We now provide nearly 20% more for the arts than the last Labour Government, over and above inflation.

    British talent was this year nominated for 30 Oscars. British music is again receiving international acclaim. The industry is worth £2.5 billion, more than shipbuilding or electric components: one in 5 CDs and records sold anywhere has a British connection.

    There is record investment in our sports facilities. Already the Lottery has provided £480 million for sport, including the planned British Academy of Sport, English National Stadium and, for the first time, direct funding for British athletes.

    We have continued to stand up for British interests in Europe, protecting our opt-out from the Social Chapter, maintaining our border controls, and preserving our budget rebate – worth £18 billion since it was introduced.

    We have the most professional armed forces in the world. We have modernised our nuclear deterrent by replacing Polaris with Trident.

    8. The Best Place in the World to Live

    Britain is admired the world oven Every year, millions of tourists travel here to enjoy our heritage and culture, our cities and countryside, our way of life. Our nation’s history is an anchor in a sea of change. We need to protect, cherish and build upon what is great about our country so our children grow up in a better Britain. We also must make sure that everyone, wherever they live, has the support of a strong, tolerant and civilised community.

    Our aim is for this generation and future generations to take pride in Britain as the best place in the world to live.

    Britain’s Cities

    London is one of the world’s greatest cities. It is livelier than even Our vision of its future is set out in a separate manifesto.

    Many of our cities have undergone a complete transformation over the last decade. We have promoted partnerships –through schemes such as Urban Development Corporations, the Single Regeneration Budget and City Pride – to attract private enterprise and investment back to inner-cities. These initiatives are bringing hope, opportunity and prosperity to what were once wastelands of urban decline.

    As the country thrives and becomes more prosperous, one of our central tasks is to apply the same approach in transforming the legacy of soulless, decaying public housing estates. They are places that suffer from the very worst kind of poverty – poverty of aspiration.

    We have already made a start – spending more than £2bn over the last 10 years on improving 500 of the worst estates. And we have shown how it is possible to tackle the economic and social problems alongside new investment in buildings – where possible, bringing in a greater mix of public tenants and private housing to recreate a more balanced community. Now we will extend this approach, focusing the Single Regeneration Budget to launch a combined attack on crime, unemployment and under-achievement, and developing the government’s partnership with the private sector to help fund the massive investment that will be required.

    Over the next decade, we aim to raise some £25bn of new private investment in housing estates by encouraging tenants in more than half of the remaining public sector housing stock to opt for transferring their homes to new landlords. These transfers will only occur where tenants choose this mute to improve theft estates.

    We will use this approach to regenerate the worst housing estates and transform the lives of those who live in them –targeting support for programmes to improve education standards, employment and crime prevention alongside new private sector investment.

    As well as this attack on poor housing, we will continue to help the homeless. We will carry through our planned extension of the Rough Sleeper Initiative from London to other big cities.

    We will provide sufficient hostel places to ensure that no-one need sleep out on the streets.

    Rural Communities

    Britain is blessed with some of the most beautiful countryside in Europe.

    We need to protect the best of the countryside whilst ensuring good jobs and living conditions for people who live there.

    We have to strike a balance: our rural communities must not become rural museums, but remain vibrant places to live and work. We will make sure government departments work together to ensure that balance is kept.

    We will continue to protect the green belt from development, making sure that derelict and under-used urban land is developed in preference to greenfield sites.

    We will use the planning system to ensure that more new homes are built on reclaimed sites in our towns and cities. We will aim for more than 60 per cent of all new homes to be built on derelict sites.

    This will reduce the pressure to build in our countryside and expand choice where it is needed most.

    We will support our rural communities, by giving special rate support to small village shops and post offices. The planning system can do more to help too.

    We will introduce a new Rural Business Use Class to encourage job creation in the countryside.

    We will increase support for schemes which promote care for the countryside – like Countryside Stewardship.

    We believe participation in traditional country pursuits, including fishing, is a matter for individuals. A Conservative Government will not introduce legislation that interferes with the rights of people to take part in these activities.

    We will also encourage managed public access to private land – in agreement with farmers and landowners – but strongly resist a general right to roam, which would damage the countryside and violate the right to private property.

    We aim to double Britain’s forest cover over the next fifty years. We will continue to encourage tree planting by targeting grants, encouraging investment in wood processing, and using new freedoms with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Agriculture and Fisheries

    We will continue to provide robust support to the British beef industry through the BSE crisis until its long term strength is restored. We will vigorously pursue the eradication of BSE in the United Kingdom, as we have been doing successfully for the last eight years. We will spare no efforts in our fight against the unwarranted ban on British beef exports.

    Public health and food safety have been the government’s top priorities throughout the BSE crisis.

    We will tighten up control over food safety by appointing a powerful and independent Chief Food Safety Adviser and Food Safety Council to advise government

    We will continue to push for fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, moving away from production support to measures that will give our farmers the opportunity to compete while safeguarding the rural environment. We will ensure that no change to the Common Agricultural Policy unfairly disadvantages British farmers.

    Fishing is a vital industry in many parts of coastal Britain. We will continue our fight to secure a prosperous long term future for the industry and sustainable management of our fish stocks.

    We will insist at the IGC and elsewhere on measures to stop quota hopping and prevent the vessels of other countries from using UK fishing quotas.

    The integrity of our 6 and 12 mile fishing limits is not negotiable. We reject any idea of a single European fishing fleet.

    We believe that fishermen should have more say in decisions affecting their industry We will press the European Commission to establish regional committees to give fishermen a direct influence in fishing policy. We will use these committees to develop new ways of managing quotas and regulating fisheries which are more sensitive to the industry’s needs.

    Animal Welfare

    A civilised society respects animals. Britain will continue to take the lead in improving standards of animal welfare in Europe. In 1995 we secured a major breakthrough in the treatment of animals in transport; in 1996 we won victory in our campaign to ban veal crates throughout the EU. We are determined that standards should continue to rise and that all EU countries should have to meet them.

    We will seek to ensure that all European countries have to raise animal welfare standards.

    We are not going to take any risks with rabies. There may however be ways other than quarantine which maintain or increase protection for public health, while improving the welfare of pets and reducing the costs to travellers.

    We will publish a Green Paper on rabies protection, setting out all the options including the existing controls, early in the new parliament.

    Britain’s Environment Britain has an enviable track record in protecting our environment. Our rivers, beaches and water are cleaner and we are using our energy more efficiently. We are leading the world in reducing the level of the “greenhouse gases” that cause global warming and pressing for policies that will enable the world to sustain development without long-term damage to the environment. Our Green Manifesto is published separately.

    We have clear objectives to build on this record. We will set tough, but affordable targets, with published environmental strategies to improve air quality and banish city smog – with tighter standards on vehicle emissions and pollution crackdowns around the country We aim for sustained improvements in water quality, at a pace which industry and consumers can afford. We will develop labelling of products that gives consumers information to show the environmental impact of how they were made.

    In addition, we will continue to use the tax system and other incentives to encourage the use of vehicles and fuel which do not pollute the environment. And we will continue to explore policies based on the principle of polluter pays: those who contaminate land, pollute the environment or produce harmful waste should be made responsible for their actions and pay for the consequences.

    Britain – A Tolerant Country

    Tolerance, civility and respect have always been hallmarks of our nation. It is thanks to them that we have an excellent record in race relations.

    Everybody, regardless of colour or creed, has the right to go about his or her life free from the threat of intimidation. We are taking tough action to tackle harassment. Under proposals in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it will be a crime to behave in a way which causes someone else to be harassed. The maximum penalty will be 6 months in prison.

    Firm, but fair, immigration controls underpin good race relations. We will ensure that, while genuine asylum seekers are treated sympathetically, people do not abuse these provisions to avoid normal immigration controls.

    A World Leader In Sports, Arts and Culture

    Britain is enjoying a cultural renaissance. British music, films, television, fashion, art and food are winning plaudits the world oven They add excitement, fun and enjoyment to our lives. Our success brings pride to everyone.

    The National Lottery, which John Major set up, will pump billions of pounds into Britain’s good causes. Its proceeds will weave a new, rich thread of opportunity and charity into the tapestry of British life. In addition to benefitting major national institutions, about half of the awards are for amounts under £25,000 – benefitting local communities up and down the country. We will encourage new ways of distributing awards to support the performing arts – through support for amateur productions and community events, providing more musical instruments, and helping productions tour round the country.

    The National Lottery will also help us train and promote British sporting talent. The English National Stadium and British Academy of Sport, funded by the Lottery, will be new focal points for sporting events and excellence. We will encourage more young people to play sport by ensuring every school plays a minimum level of sport, including competitive sports, and developing a network of Sporting Ambassadors – sporting celebrities who will visit schools to inspire young people. We will also encourage the Sports Council to use Lottery money to employ over 1000 additional community sports coaches to assist in schools.

    We will encourage the use of Lottery money to train young athletes and artists, with revenue funding for bursaries, concessionary tickets to professional performances and support for young people’s organisations and productions.

    The development of young talent is important in all fields.

    The Lottery will also fund our Millennium celebrations. They will be inspirational as well as enjoyable. We want these be a showcase of British excellence. Britain will be able to look back on past achievements with pride, and look forward with confidence.

    9. Europe and the World

    Britain is a world leader as well as a European nation. Our economic strength, our history and our language make us a global trading nation with links right around the world. Only the United Kingdom is a member of the European Union, the United Nations Security Council, the Commonwealth, NATO and the Group of Seven leading industrial nations. In the Gulf, Bosnia, Cyprus and Northern Iraq, John Major has shown how our nation can contribute to world peace.

    We will continue to work with international partners to secure peace and stability in areas of tension such as former Yugoslavia; in Kashmir; in Cyprus; and in the Middle East. We will promote reform of the United Nations to make it a more effective organisation for securing international stability. Britain will continue to deploy our outstanding Armed Forces as peacekeepers under the United Nations. And we will support the aspirations of the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others to join the European Union and NATO.

    After the transfer of Hong Kong, we will work under the terms of the Joint Declaration to help sustain the prosperity and way of life of the people of Hong Kong and build on the substantial British interests that will remain.

    We will continue to support the Commonwealth, our unique global network, to encourage the spread of democracy; as set out in the Harare Declaration. We will focus our aid programme to encourage sustainable development in countries that are growing towards self sufficiency under democratic government. We have taken the lead in alleviating the burden of debt for the world’s poorest countries. We also have significant flows of private investment to developing economies. We are more than achieving the long term UN target of 1% of GDP for the transfer of wealth to less developed countries. We will continue to maintain a significant bilateral and multilateral aid programme reflecting the aspiration of meeting the UN’s target of 0.7% of GDP for aid as a long-term objective.

    We will also continue to provide leadership in Europe and internationally on environmental issues, building on the Rio Conference to encourage sustainable development – meeting our commitment to reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions by 10% on 1990 levels by 2010 to prevent climate change. The Prime Minister has committed himself to attending the next UN Environmental Conference in June.

    Britain and the European Union

    We believe that in an uncertain, competitive world, the nation state is a rock of security. A nation’s common heritage, culture, values and outlook are a precious source of stability. Nationhood gives people a sense of belonging.

    The government has a positive vision for the European Union as a partnership of nations. We want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. We have much to gain from our membership of the European Union –in trade, in co-operation between governments, and in preserving European peace. We benefit from the huge trade opportunities that have opened up since Britain led the way in developing Europe’s single market. We want to see the rest of Europe follow the same deregulated, enterprise policies that have transformed our economic prospects in Britain.

    However, in June, the nations of the European Union will gather in Amsterdam to negotiate possible amendments to the Treaty of Rome. It is a moment of truth, setting the direction in which the European Union will go. It will also be crucial in ensuring that we have a relationship with the rest of Europe with which we can be comfortable.

    A Conservative Government will seek a partnership of nation states. Some others would like to build a federal Europe. A British Conservative Government will not allow Britain to be part of a federal European state.

    The diversity of Europe’s nations is its strength. As more nations join the European Union, it needs to become flexible not more rigid We must also ensure that any developments which only include some members do not work to the disadvantage of others.

    Our priorities for Europe’s development will be enlargement of the Community, completion of the single market, reform of the European Court of Justice, and further strengthening of the role of national parliaments. We will seek more co-operation between national governments on areas of common interest – defence, foreign policy and the fight against international crime and drugs. We also believe the European Union itself should do less, but do it better. So we have proposed incorporating the principle of subsidiarity – that the European Union should only do that which cannot be done by member states acting alone – into the Treaty. This is how we are approaching the Inter-Governmental Conference.

    We will argue for a flexible Europe which fully accommodates the interests and aspirations of all its member states and where any new proposals have to be open to all and agreed by all. We will not accept other changes to the Treaty that would further centralise decision-making, reduce national sovereignty, or remove our right to permanent opt-outs.

    We will retain Britain’s veto and oppose further extension of qualified majority voting in order to ensure we can prevent policies that would be harmful to the national interest. We will defend the rights of national parliaments and oppose more powers being given to the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments.

    We will take whatever steps are necessary to keep our frontier controls. We will resist attempts to change the inter-governmental nature of co-operation in justice and home affairs. We will not accept the development of new legal rights that extend the concept of European citizenship.

    Britain’s rebate has so far saved British taxpayers £18bn and we will protect it.

    One of the greatest challenges Europe faces is to cut unemployment and make its businesses competitive. Here Britain is leading the way. We will continue to argue for deregulation and lower costs on Europe’s businesses, the policies that have helped give Britain one of the strongest economies in Europe. We will not put that achievement at risk by signing up to the Social Chapter, which would open the door to imposing the high costs of the European social model on British business. Once Britain accepted the Social Chapter we could not stop many of these damaging policies being imposed on us by qualified majority voting.

    We will insist that any new Treaty recognises that our opt-out from the Social Chapter enables Britain to be exempt from the Working Time Directive, and prevents any abuse of our opt-out. And we will not accept a new employment chapter in any revised Treaty, which would expose British businesses to new costs.

    We made it clear in the previous chapter that we will continue to work for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the lifting of the worldwide ban on British beef and will insist on measures to stop quota hopping by foreign fishing vessels.

    Protecting Britain’s interests demands tough, experienced negotiation. John Major has proved he has these qualities – including the resolve to say no when necessary even if that means being isolated. Labour have said they would never let Britain be isolated in Europe: they would damage Britain’s success by undermining our veto, signing up to the Social Chapter and following in others’ footsteps – even where they lead in the wrong direction. They support policies that would fragment the United Kingdom’s influence within a Europe of Regions. The Liberal Democrats welcome the end of the nation state. Only the Conservatives can be trusted to stand up for Britain in Europe: our national interest must be protected.

    A Single Currency: Our Referendum Guarantee

    The creation of a European single currency would be of enormous significance for all European states whether they are members or not. We must take account of all the consequences for Britain of such a major development of policy.

    John Major secured for us at Maastricht an opt-out from the commitment to enter a single currency. It is only because of this opt-out that we have the right to negotiate and then decide whether it is in Britain’s interest to join.

    It is in our national interest to take part in the negotiations. Not to do so would be an abdication of responsibility. A single currency would affect us whether we were in or out. We need to participate in discussions in order to ensure the rules are not fixed against our interests. The national interest is not served by exercising our option – one way or the other – before we have to.

    For a single currency to come into effect, European economies will have to meet crucial criteria. On the information currently available, we believe that it is very unlikely that there will be sufficient convergence of economic conditions across Europe for a single currency to proceed safely on the target date of January 1st 1999. We will not include legislation on the single currency in the first Queen’s Speech. If it cannot proceed safely, we believe it would be better for Europe to delay any introduction of a single currency rather than rush ahead to meet an artificial timetable. We will argue this case in the negotiations that lie ahead.

    We believe it is in our national interest to keep our options open to take a decision on a single currency when all the facts are before us. If a single currency is created, without sustainable convergence, a British Conservative government will not be part of it.

    If, during the course of the next parliament, a Conservative government were to conclude that it was in our national interest to join a single currency, we have given a guarantee that no such decision would be implemented unless the British people gave their express approval in a referendum.

    Defence in an Unstable World

    The old rivalries of the Cold War have been replaced by new tensions. Britain must be able to react rapidly to protect our security and interests around the globe.

    Our armed forces are the most professional in the world. We have cut unnecessary bureaucracy and increased efficiency, and directed money to support our Services in the frontline. We have made the changes necessary to adapt our Services to the threats which we might now face. We have set out defence plans based on stable levels of funding. There is no need for a defence review, which would raise fear and uncertainty about the future.

    We will continue to ensure the Services have the modern weapons they need to guarantee their superiority against potential aggressors. We will make sure we can conduct military operations throughout the world, and develop our capability to deploy the three services together and rapidly, including the ability to transport heavy equipment into an operational zone. We will take part in ballistic missile defence research so we can decide whether we should procure any such system for the United Kingdom.

    We will continue to target our efforts on recruiting for the armed forces. We will set up an Army Foundation College, which will provide 1,300 places for 16 and 17 year olds who want to join the Army. We will also enable the reserve forces to play a more active role in operations. We appreciate the enormous value of cadet forces, and our current plans include resources to encourage their further development.

    We will continue to support Britain’s defence industry, and we will work with companies to identify the technologies of the future.

    NATO will remain the cornerstone of our security. We will resist attempts to bring the Western European Union under the control of the European Union, and ensure that defence policy remains a matter for sovereign nations.

    10. The Constitution

    Alone in Europe, the history of the United Kingdom has been one of stability and security; We owe much of that to the strength and stability of our constitution – the institutions, laws and traditions that bind us together as a nation.

    Our constitution has been stable, but not static. It has been woven over the centuries – the product of hundreds of years of knowledge, experience and history.

    Radical changes that alter the whole character of our constitutional balance could unravel what generations of our predecessors have created. To preserve that stability in future – and the freedoms and rights of our citizens – we need to continue a process of evolution, not revolution.

    Conservatives embrace evolutionary change that solves real problems and improves the way our constitution works. In recent years we have opened up government, devolved power and accountability, and introduced reforms to make parliament work more effectively. It is that evolutionary process that we are committed to continue.

    Open, Accountable Government

    In recent years we have taken significant steps to open up government to public scrutiny, and give individuals more information to hold government and public services to account.

    We have introduced a code on access to government information, policed by the Ombudsman. We have published information on the workings of government previously held secret –including the composition of cabinet committees, and the structure of the security and intelligence services. We have introduced a new civil service code, and reformed the process for public appointments. We are pledged to legislate on the commitments in our 1993 White Paper on Open Government, including a statutory right of access by citizens to personal records held about them by the government and other public authorities. And we have set up the Nolan Committee and have implemented its proposals to ensure that the highest standards are maintained in public life.

    But our reforms go even wider than that. We have transferred power from central bureaucracies to local organisations such as school governors and hospital trusts. We have introduced the Citizen’s Charter We have also required them to publish information on their performance – information which enables the local community to keep a check on standards and apply pressure where needed. Wherever possible, we are widening competition and choice in public services. We showed in Chapter 6 how we wished to push this agenda forward.

    Regional government would be a dangerously centralising measure – taking power away from elected local authorities. We wish to go in the opposite direction, shifting power to the local neighbourhood – for example, by giving more power to parish councils.

    Parliament

    Parliament – alongside the Crown and our legal system – is one of the three key institutions that uphold our constitution. The supremacy of parliament is fundamental to our democracy, and the guarantee of our freedoms. The last 17 years have seen many changes to strengthen parliament and make it more effective – the flourishing of select committees, new procedures to scrutinise European legislation, reform of parliament’s working day, and a budget that brings together tax and spending.

    We have therefore already done much to improve the way parliament works and will do more. We have accepted the proposal from the Public Service Select Committee and put before the House of Commons a clear new statement of the principles underlying ministerial accountability to parliament.

    All these developments have made parliament open to the citizen, and the government more accountable. In the next session of parliament we will continue this careful reform.

    To give parliament more time to consider legislation thoroughly we will extend the Queen’s Speech to cover not only legislation for the immediate year but also provisional plans for legislation in the year after that

    This will mean that more draft bills will be subject to public scrutiny before they reach the floor of the House of Commons. It will give select committees more time to take evidence and report. And this should also mean better legislation.

    We do not believe there is a case for more radical reform that would undermine the House of Commons. A new Bill of Rights, for example, would risk transferring power away from parliament to legal courts – undermining the democratic supremacy of parliament as representatives of the people. Whilst this may be a necessary check in other countries which depend upon more formalised written constitutions, we do not believe it is appropriate to the UK.

    Nor do we favour changes in the system of voting in parliamentary elections that would break the link between an individual member of parliament and his constituents. A system of proportional representation would be more likely to produce unstable, coalition governments that are unable to provide effective leadership – with crucial decisions being dependent on compromise deals hammered out behind closed doors. This is not the British way.

    We have demonstrated we are not against change where it is practical and beneficial. But fundamental changes which have not been fully thought through – such as opposition proposals on the House of Lords – would be extremely damaging. We will oppose change for change’s sake.

    The Union

    The Union between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England underpins our nation’s stability. The Conservative commitment to the United Kingdom does not mean ignoring the distinctive individuality of the different nations. On the contrary, we have gone further in recognising that diversity than any previous government. We are publishing separate manifestos for Wales and Scotland.

    While preserving the role of parliament at the centre of the Union, we have given new powers to the Scottish Grand Committee and Welsh Grand Committee – enabling Scottish and Welsh MPs to call Ministers to account and debate legislation which affects those countries – something that would be impossible with separate Assemblies. For the first time, Welsh members of parliament can ask their questions to Ministers in Welsh in Wales. Most recently we have similarly extended the basic powers of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

    We believe this is the right way to go. By contrast, the development of new assemblies in Scotland and Wales would create strains which could well pull apart the Union. That would create a new layer of government which would be hungry for power. It would risk rivalry and conflict between these parliaments or assemblies and the parliament at Westminster. And it would raise serious questions about whether the representation of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster – and their role in matters affecting English affairs – could remain unchanged.

    Nor do we believe it would be in the interests of the Scottish or Welsh people. A Scottish tax-raising parliament, for example, could well affect the choice of where new investment locates in the United Kingdom.

    In a world where people want security, nothing would be more dangerous than to unravel a constitution that binds our nation together and the institutions that bring us stability. We will continue to fight for the strength and diversity that benefits all of us as a proud union of nations.

    Northern Ireland

    While we cherish the Union and Northern Ireland’s place within it, we recognise that there exist within the Province special circumstances which require further action to be taken.

    After a quarter of a century we wish to see the unique and originally temporary system of direct rule ended and a successful restoration of local accountable democracy achieved. We want to see this brought about in a form which carries the broadest agreement possible. And we want to see the rights, traditions and interests of all parts of the community recognised within any such agreement.

    We will accordingly continue to pursue a policy of dialogue and negotiation with and between the democratic Northern Ireland parties. We will continue to underpin such negotiations with the guarantee that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland cannot and will not be changed without the broad consent of the people of Northern Ireland. At the same time we will continue to take whatever security measures are required to protect the people of Northern Ireland from those who seek to achieve their political goals by violent means.

    We seek peace. But we will never be swayed by terrorist violence nor will we ever compromise our principles with those who seek to overthrow the rule of law by force.

    A Choice of Two Futures

    At this election the British people face a stark choice. A choice of two futures.

    They can elect to continue down the road of success and achievement. An opportunity that has been hard won by the efforts and sacrifices of the British people. An opportunity that has only come about because successive Conservative governments have been determined to face up to the long term problems facing Britain, and take the tough steps needed to arrest our slow decline.

    Or they can elect to take a huge risk with that future – the future of themselves, their children, their nation – by handing over the government of the country to politicians who have fought, opposed and denigrated every step that has been taken to restore Britain’s economic health and standing in the world. Politicians whose own declared policies would burden the United Kingdom with new spending and taxation, new regulations, and new threats to the stability and sovereignty of the nation itself.

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    Our Vision for Britain:

    25 Pledges for the Nation

    The Enterprise Centre of Europe

    TAX AND SPENDING. keep tight control of public spending priorities, aiming for our target of a 20p basic rate of income tax over the next parliament.

    PRICES AND MORTGAGES. Stick to the policies which have delivered the lowest inflation levels and mortgage rates for a generation, meeting our inflation target of 2½ % or less.

    JOBS. Protect jobs by keeping Britain out of the European Social Chapter; build on our record of falling unemployment; and help get the long term unemployed back to work – including by requiring those on benefit for some time to undertake work experience on a community project.

    ENTERPRISE. Support growth and investment by keeping Britain the lowest tax major economy in Europe. pursuing Britain’s global trade opportunities. and curbing unnecessary regulations.

    SMALL BUSINESS. Reform business rates to help small businesses.

    THE FUTURE. Keep Britain ahead in the technologies of the future, encouraging new entertainment and information services and using the Millennium Lottery Fund to give people access to new computers and information links in schools, libraries, and other public places.

    Opportunity and Ownership for Individuals and Families

    HELP FOR FAMILIES. Give priority to reducing tax bills for families looking after dependent children or relatives by allowing one partner’s unused personal allowance to be transferred to a working spouse where they have these responsibilities.

    HELP FOR CARERS. Help family members with heavy responsibilities caring for a relative to take a much needed break through a new Respite Care Programme.

    OWNERSHIP. Encourage schemes that help employees build a shareholding in the company they work for, alongside tax benefits for other savings schemes.

    PENSIONS. Transform pensions by providing all young people entering the workforce with a personal pension fund paid for by a rebate on their national insurance contributions, while maintaining a state pension guarantee.

    CARE IN OLD AGE. Make it easier for people to afford the cost of care in old age without giving up their house and savings.

    SCHOOL STANDARDS. Guarantee school standards by intervening directly to raise standards where schools or local education authorities are letting children down.

    SCHOOL CHOICE. Widen choice and diversity in schools, with more freedom for schools to develop their own character, more specialist schools, and a grammar school in every town where parents want that choice. We will also maintain our nursery voucher scheme offering a choice of places for parents of all 4 year olds.

    World Class Health and Public Services

    NHS FUNDING PLEDGE. Continue, year by year, to increase the real resources committed to the NHS, so NHS spending will continue to share in a growing economy.

    FAMILY DOCTORS. Enable all family doctors to provide a wider range of services in their surgeries and in practice-based cottage hospitals – offering faster and more local treatment.

    CITIZEN’S CHARTER. Continue to improve the standards and value for money of Britain’s public services, giving those who use them more information and, where possible, wider choice.

    ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Introduce measures to protect the public against strikes that cause excessive disruption to essential services.

    A Safe and Civil Society

    PUBLIC SAFETY. Support local police schemes to crack down on petty crime, and continue our funding for the installation of TV security cameras in town centres and public places that want them throughout the next parliament.

    JUVENILE CRIME. Give the courts power to impose speedy sanctions on youngsters, including an element of reparation to the victim; and continue our war against drugs.

    PERSISTENT CRIMINALS. Ensure persistent house burglars and dealers in hard drugs receive mandatory minimum prison sentences.

    A Confident, United and Sovereign Nation

    QUALITY OF LIFE. Continue the renaissance of our towns and cities, in particular harnessing private capital to regenerate the worst public housing estates; continue to protect our countryside and heritage; and use the National Lottery to help promote British sports, arts and culture.

    THE ENVIRONMENT. Maintain our international leadership role in protecting the environment, and continue improving air and water quality at home alongside effective conservation of our wildlife.

    THE NATION. Maintain the unity of the United Kingdom and preserve the stability of the Nation through an evolutionary – rather than revolutionary – approach to constitutional change.

    EUROPE. Seek a partnership of nation states in Europe, and not allow Britain to be part of a federal European state.

    THE POUND. Guarantee that Britain will not join a single currency in the next parliament unless the British people give their express approval in a referendum.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Choice and Freedom for All – 19 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Choice and Freedom for All, made on the 19th September 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    CHOICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL: THE MORAL CASE FOR A SMALLER STATE

    Tonight I want to talk about the role of government. Not from the perspective of political theory, but from practical experience. Why my aim of smaller government can produce better government and better public services.

    The role of government has changed massively – and is still changing. All around the world, people ask the fundamental question – how much government do we want and what kind?

    Some might have imagined that the 1980s would have settled this debate. The pressures of a global market place were already evident. The centrally planned economies collapsed and the victory of the free market model was clear.

    That remains true. But it doesn’t settle the question. Because within the free market economies there are many differing visions of the role of Government.

    At one end of the spectrum are most members of the European Union, with the state spending half or more of the nation’s income and a long tradition of high state intervention.

    At the other end are the US, Japan, and the emerging Asian economies spending around a third or less – in some cases much less.

    Britain is somewhere in the middle, with the state spending a little over 41 per cent of GDP.

    A look at the growth and job creation records of countries with a smaller state argues persuasively the economic case for restraining public spending.

    And that is certainly one, though not the only, reason why the Government has set a target of getting public spending below 40 per cent of national income.

    When we achieve that I believe we should look further at a lower target.

    But the case for smaller Government is as much a moral case as an economic one.

    “Moral” is a word I usually prefer to leave to the Church but it is apt for what I intend to say.

    For example, is it moral to take from individuals the right to make personal decisions? I think not.

    Is it moral to impose obligations on employers like the Social Chapter and the minimum wage that will cost jobs and prevent those without jobs from getting them? Again, I think not.

    Is it moral to compulsorily take too much tax from people for government to spend and diminish individual choices? My answer is no.

    Smaller Government fits with a belief in individual freedom and choice – still one of the basic divides in British politics.

    I start from the presumption that government should not interfere and meddle where it is not needed. The belief that power, choice and responsibility should, wherever possible, be left with individuals and their families, with entrepreneurs and businesses.

    I don’t want my personal choices made for me by the State. Nor do most people. Nor is it necessary. The British people are better able to order their lives effectively than the most efficient and humane of Governments.

    ‘Trust the People’ is an old Conservative battle cry. It must be central to our future policies.

    We aim to regulate less of people’s lives.

    We trust people to spend their money, or save it, or give it, and to do so sensibly.

    We don’t believe most people are selfish or greedy.

    And we think they can be trusted to exercise those instincts themselves – not to have them exercised on the people’s behalf by men in Whitehall who claim to know better.

    So we aim to tax and spend an ever smaller share of what people earn. To reduce and, in due course, abolish capital taxation.

    I want to do that because it makes good economic sense; it ends a penalty on enterprise and investment; it will release capital and create jobs. And that is the right thing to do.

    There is a moral case for low taxation if you genuinely want to see growing prosperity and more employment.

    And it is that moral view, just as much as the economics, that leads me to the conviction that the state should progressively disengage and do less – but that what it does it should do well. Indeed, I believe that by doing less it is more likely to do better.

    I can hear the cries of ‘uncaring Conservatives’ already forming on the lips of our opponents.

    Cut taxes? Just an electoral bribe, they say.

    End capital taxation? Just a ramp for the well to do.

    But these cries just blur the argument. They are nonsense. We should not be put off by them. They are the baggage of a welfare state mentality that distrusts personal choice and resents personal ownership.

    I reject the muddled thinking that says a smaller state must be uncaring. And I reject the thinking that equates big government with benevolent government.

    We’ve seen time and time again that high government spending and good public services don’t go hand in hand. If they did what a glory there would be in some states.

    But look at the failure of socialism to improve people’s lives in Eastern Europe. Or the recent strains and popular unrest in high spending economies in the EU as they seek to cope with escalating public budgets. And at home you only have to look at the Britain of 20 years ago, with its crumbling state industries, high tax rates and economic malaise.

    Practical experience of Government suggests to me those failures weren’t an accident, a workable philosophy misapplied or derailed by the unexpected. The more I see of Government from the inside the more I believe those failures were predictable, the result of applying fundamental principles that are diametrically opposed to common instinct, common freedom and common sense.

    Underlying socialism, democratic socialism – or even social democracy – is a set of instincts that favours State control. Where there is a choice it is always to be exercised in favour of the State, and too often by the State.

    It’s not always put in those terms, of course. But because the mind set of Socialists and social democrats is to trust Governments more than individuals, their instinct is always to try and bend individuals, businesses, markets, to behaviour they would not naturally see as being in their interests.

    It’s those instincts that lead to high spend, high tax policies, and to ever more regulation. They may be dressed up in the name of better public services. But underlying them is a confident belief that the Government knows better how to spend your money than you do. That government control can produce better outcomes than free choice.

    It’s a philosophy that has two outcomes – both bad. First it stifles enterprise and wealth creation.

    And – second – step by step – too much government control traps individuals in a culture of dependency. Choice, freedom, independence are gradually whittled away until the citizen’s only response is that the ‘government ought to do something about it’. And, of course, all too often the government can’t. The citizen feels helpless.

    At its worst it means that if you are poor the state makes all your choices for you, but if you are well to do you are free. The goal I aim for is to give more choice to everyone.

    If the state takes on more and more responsibilities, it becomes the keeper of the individual’s conscience and duty. There is a danger that people will think their obligations to others are fulfilled solely by paying taxes – whereas they are not, and cannot be.

    I believe that the enrichment of this country – both economically and socially -will come from the people of this country, as individuals, families, businesses, public servants.

    And I believe it is right to think of government as an enabler – not trying vainly to script and control every move, but providing the conditions and support to help people to succeed themselves.

    That’s why we encourage ownership – of homes, pensions and other forms of savings to give people security and independence.

    It’s why we’ve taken steps to reduce the future growth of the social security system, bringing it within the growth of the economy reversing the trend since the war.

    It’s why we emphasise improving standards in education.

    It’s why we are looking again at protecting the public from industrial action in essential and monopoly services.

    It’s why we have opened up the telecommunications industry and deregulated broadcasting, the control of shopping and licensing hours.

    It’s all been about restoring choice and freedom to the individual.

    But while I argue for a small state, I am not arguing for a minimalist state. The state does have a role but we must keep it in proper bounds.

    The great political advance has been to recognise that public interest does not always require State ownership. It is not a paradox to say that a private company can be a public service.

    Not so long ago it was thought that public services like phones, gas, water and electricity had to be publicly owned and had to be monopolies. Now we have shown that private ownership, competition and regulation can protect the public interest better than public ownership.

    It must be galling to those who believe in the innate superiority of State control to see how private ownership has transformed standards.

    Our phone, gas and electricity prices are now amongst the lowest in Europe. Rail fares are capped as never in the past.

    Our water industry is at last able to afford long-delayed investment. The consumer gets better quality.

    We now have phone boxes that work.

    Fewer disconnections.

    Better standards of service.

    Compensation if they let you down.

    And quality is increasingly bolstered by choice, an everyday reality in telecoms and increasingly so for gas – with people actually knocking on doors round the country offering cheaper gas. And soon competition will begin in electricity and water too.

    And if we had not de-nationalised I wonder what the standard rate of tax might be today to deliver services of this quality under public ownership?

    Of course, improving services and giving power back to consumers is not how it is seen by our political opponents. To hear them talk, you would believe denationalisation amounts to abolition. Their mind set has not moved on from their traditional hostility to private ownership. All sorts of scare stories were peddled. But the reality has been quite different, and a huge success.

    But private ownership is not the best answer for all areas of the public sector. There are some where it is simply not right, or acceptable, for the government to cede its role.

    To take an obvious example, no Conservative would argue that the State should not have the responsibility to provide a secure defence, or an effective police force.

    Equally, it is right that we should provide universal access to a taxpayer-funded Health Service, and to provide every child with the choice of a State-funded education.

    And other areas are self-evident, such as the welfare safety net.

    But where privatisation is not an option the Government has a double responsibility to ensure efficiency and good service.

    We owe that to the consumer and taxpayer – after all it is their money, compulsorily extracted. And we owe it to the people who work in our public sector to help them deliver the best possible service.

    But if that is our aspiration, how do we deliver it? There’s no simple straightforward solution. The public service has to be picked up, shaken down, re-shaped and given a new culture. That is what I am seeking to do and I’d like to bring the strands of that policy together for you.

    Our problem is not the many dedicated people who work in the public service, it is the structure and culture of monolithic post war public service that has weighed against them.

    So what are we doing about that?

    First, we recognised that too many public services have been run by organisations that were too large and bureaucratic.

    With control sucked to the centre, they became insulated from the issues and problems on the ground.

    Their front-line workers were often as frustrated by inflexible bureaucracy as the public itself.

    And second, since the system was so reluctant to provide information on service standards, and there was no choice to go elsewhere, there was no countervailing pressure – and few incentives – to put their customers’ interests first.

    To deal with this I believe we needed a revolution in the way Government runs itself.

    We’ve slimmed down the number of government employees – at a time when it has been growing in most of our major competitors – and wherever possible we’ve broken up the large monoliths and created smaller, more manageable units closer to their users.

    The Health Service is a good example.

    I, and successive Health Ministers, have been attacked for years for seeking to improve the service of a much loved national institution. But what our reforms have done has yielded huge efficiencies to be ploughed back in patient care.

    And the smaller, more manageable units that have resulted – Hospital Trusts, GP Fundholders – have a much closer relationship with their local community and a much better appreciation of their needs. The intention is that the people providing the service look outwards to the people they serve rather than upwards to the top of some distant organisational pyramid.

    As our health service develops, I believe these reforms will ensure it always takes account of the need to serve people on a human scale – at local level. People first means efficiency first.

    Of course any reform is traumatic. I was involved in the NHS reforms from the start – and they were no picnic.

    But I also remember why we did it. Who could forget Sir Roy Griffiths’ famous remark that if Florence Nightingale were wandering the corridors of an NHS hospital in the eighties, it would be because she was trying to find out who was in charge.

    A bit too true to be funny, actually. I remember being astonished, as Chief Secretary, how little we knew about where the £20 billion we spent on the NHS was actually going. I asked questions. Officials scratched their heads. No-one knew the answers.

    But it’s not just a matter of changing management structures.

    Increasingly we are also introducing private finance into public services. This makes taxpayers’ money go further, which is the only realistic way to deliver the better services and infrastructure we all want. And the successes are already visible, for example in our inner cities where challenge funding has harnessed public and private money to achieve tremendous results.

    Of course some of the changes we’ve made to devolve management and bring in the private sector have provoked a huge debate about Parliamentary accountability. Some politicians believe Ministers must know and control every tiny action and detail.

    Well, they don’t.

    They can’t.

    Frankly, they shouldn’t. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

    Yet, for years past every successive Minister and for that matter Prime Minister has been expected to answer questions of administration that fall far below the level of policy. No wonder Question Time sometimes sheds more heat than light.

    The idea that Ministers are omnipotent is very flattering but history and experience argues against it. And in the complexity of modern government, it is absurd. The important thing is that Ministers are accountable for getting public services properly managed, putting someone in charge with clear objectives and making sure they are kept on their toes.

    I have seen the injustice and indignity and demoralisation that people feel when public service is frustrating and patronising.

    I’m not prepared to tolerate a culture where it is the norm to wait in queues, to be passed around from pillar to post, and treated like a cog in some labyrinthine machine.

    That must change. And the way to change it is to continually ratchet up the quality of service; to tell the consumer the standards he has a right to expect; to give the information about the service he’s getting, and offer decent redress for failings.

    That’s why I launched the Citizen’s Charter five years ago. I saw it then as a ten year programme. But attack came immediately from all sides – as so often happens, when you aim at fundamental change.

    Some thought the standards too demanding: others too modest. Some thought it all a gimmick. Others said we were only tinkering. Most believed we would never deliver targets and standards.

    But these improvements are happening. Spectacularly in some areas, patchily in others. But they are happening.

    Only a few years ago the holidaymaker used to have to wait three months for a passport. Now it usually takes just a week.

    Not long ago, some 170,000 patients had to wait more than a year for hospital treatment. Last year, that was fewer than 5,000.

    Several patients used to be given the same hospital appointments and then be expected to wait the convenience of the consultant without complaint. Patients now get a timed individual appointment in hospitals and should never have to wait more than 30 minutes.

    We see even more fundamental improvements in education, where tests and performance tables are finally giving parents the information they deserve. Gillian Shephard will shortly be announcing further measures to drive up standards, including increased use of targets in a variety of areas.

    In these ways, standards are pulling up public service performance to levels far better than we have seen before.

    And, as they do, I expect them to raise the public’s expectations. And that too is happening.

    The White Paper published tomorrow will show a near quadrupling of nominations by the public for Charter Mark awards – more than 15,000 nominations this year from last year’s 4,000.

    To me that suggests the Charter is increasingly taking root. And in time I have no doubt my ambitions for the Citizen’s Charter – a fundamental shift in power from the state to the consumer – will be fulfilled.

    Of course, we still have much to do. We are only half way through our programme. But the direction in which the Government wants to go is towards more choice, more information, more accountability.

    Some like to claim these days that the main political parties are closer together than ever.

    I wonder how true that is when it comes to hard decisions – rather than oratory.

    The kind of programme I have set out tonight requires perseverance to drive it through. If you come to a boulder in the middle of the road do you drive to the left or the right? Your instincts take over. If you come to problems is your instinct to trust the government or the private sector to find a solution?

    Our instinct is for less government. Our opponents’ instinct is for more government. This is still a sharp divide.

    I believe our programme to reform government is more than a managerial question.

    For me, there is no more political question than how we define the limits of the State, how we run our public services, how they treat their customers, and how the burden of financing government falls on the economy and the individual. These issues touch on the fundamental philosophical and political divide between the parties.

    I have spent my life fighting on one side of that divide.

    My beliefs are for a future with a smaller state and lower taxes. Where individuals and families have more independence to own and save.

    This is a distinctive Conservative agenda with a common theme: choice and freedom for everyone. Not for one class, not one faction, but all in society.

    Having built the strongest economy we’ve known for decades, we now need to turn to giving all in society the chance to take more control of their lives. Those living in Labour strongholds, just as much as those in leafy Conservative heartlands. They all matter just as much.

    Extending choice and freedom is an endless task, performed against the clamour for the government to do something – be it spend more, intervene more, regulate more.

    But, as I have explained tonight, that is not my way. The right role for Government as we approach the millennium is quite different.

    It is to enlarge choice, not restrict it. To extend freedom, not curtail it.

    To trust the people more and control them less.

    That runs with the grain of what the British people want, and that is what I set out to deliver.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on British Constitution – 26 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the British Constitution, made on 26th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This evening I want to address a vital debate – the state of the British constitution.

    This debate is about the very nature of our nation. About the United Kingdom, and the constitutional fabric that underpin our freedoms and make us what we are.

    The British constitution is complex and, in many ways, intangible. Too many people are put off by the word “constitution”, and make the mistake of thinking it a technical subject that only the experts can understand.

    Well I don’t claim to be a constitutional expert. But I am a politician and a citizen, and it is from that practical experience that I want to address the issues. Because the constitution is not, to me, simply a matter of institutions – Parliament, the Crown, our legal system. At its heart I believe it’s about individuals and individual freedom. How we influence and control the kind of nation we live in. The Constitution is shorthand for our rights and our democracy.

    This is a huge subject. A number of members of the Cabinet will be focusing on aspects of it in speeches over the coming weeks.

    Tonight I want to start the process by setting out my view of the constitution, its enduring strengths. and how it has adapted and must continue to adapt to serve the people of this country.

    And I shall cast a clear eye on some of the proposals for change that others have floated. Some are pointless. Others are damaging. But many are, in practical terms, irreversible.

    We are fortunate. The British constitution is vibrant and robust. But it is not indestructible. People must realise that our Constitution is not a piece of architecture that one can re-engineer by knocking down a wall here or adding an extension there. It’s a living, breathing Constitution. Its roots are ancient, but it has evolved. And it has been stable because it has popular support.

    Let me give you an example – the Monarchy. This has evolved over centuries. No alternative institution, fabricated by political theorists, would be designed with its current role and powers. And yet no alternative could ever match it in the affections of the British people.

    It is one of the great features of our nation. Binding us together as a people and ensuring that political debate – the rough and tumble that swirls around Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State – leaves our Head of State untouched and untarnished.

    So our constitution isn’t just dry institutions and legalistic relationships. It embodies a set of values, a legacy of understandings, that have developed year by year over the centuries – an understanding that is breathed in Parliament, reflected every day in the media, taken for granted in the saloon bar arguments about the state of the Nation.

    And at its centre is something we are all instinctively proud of when pointed out to us, but – thankfully – rarely need to think about in our day to day lives. That is the fundamental freedom we each have as subjects of The Queen and citizens of the United Kingdom.

    And you only have to pause a moment and think how few countries can boast such freedom, for so long, with so little national strife and struggle, to realise what a precious gift that freedom is and how much we owe to the unseen, unsung constitutional backbone that binds together our British way of life.

    A living constitution that changes with the times.

    Look at the history of this century and the changes there have been – not fundamental but significant nonetheless – in Parliament, our electoral system, the Civil Service, local administration, even the Monarchy and Church. Not change for change’s sake. Not the result of some technocratic plan. Not to serve the interests of the institutions themselves. They have been changes to strengthen the links with the individual citizen who they are there to serve.

    That’s the kind of constitutional change that I support. Practical change, not grand plans. And above all, change that is driven by what people want. Conservatives believe in giving the citizen the reins wherever possible.

    It is not right to suggest, as some do, that this Government has generally centralised power. In some areas, it’s true, we have introduced strong national controls over limited areas where most people would agree that it’s right and proper for national government to be responsible. The most obvious examples are the overall level of local government spending, and the definition of the national curriculum.

    But these are areas where there was a specific problem which Government could not ignore. And they are the exceptions. Wherever possible, the record shows that we have moved Government closer to the people.

    Moving power from centralised bureaucracies to smaller structures, closer to their local communities and consumers.

    Decisions on health care from the NHS executive to individual hospital trusts.

    Decisions on education from local government to individual school governing bodies.

    And buttressing that with choice and information for the parents and patients who use them.

    Opening up government, with more information now available than ever before.

    The Citizen’s Charter – restoring the individual’s rights to hold large, impersonal organisations to account.

    Privatisation – replacing government control with popular ownership, encouraging competition and putting consumers, not producers, in charge.

    Curbing the power of trade unions, who for too long were out of touch with the interests and instincts of ordinary members.

    Strengthening the independence of individuals by reducing taxation, encouraging home ownership, private pensions.

    That’s my idea of freedom.

    Protecting the freedom of the individual is an old principle, embodied in basic freedoms of speech and association.

    The principle of Habeas Corpus still lies at the heart of English common law today, although born before our language itself.

    But basic freedoms need to be constantly updated and applied to match the challenge of new technologies and social change.

    Where should the rights of the many give way to the rights of the few?

    When and how should a free and vigorous press be restrained from infringing the privacy of the individual?

    What are the right safeguards for people in their homes as information – and other things – flood down the superhighway?

    Some countries leave such questions to be decided by reference to a written constitution: we do so in the ordinary process of politics.

    I believe ours is the right way. Vigorous politics offers the best safeguard of individual freedoms.

    And in Britain it is our Parliament – the Parliament of the United Kingdom – that is, and should be, at the centre of that democratic, political process. That’s why piecemeal reforms that threaten to erode the power and supremacy of Parliament are so dangerous.

    I know that some people argue that the freedom of the individual would be better protected if Britain had a written constitution or a new bill of rights, setting out a list of fundamental rights.

    I don’t agree. I simply don’t believe that you could enshrine in a single piece of legislation the British conception of freedom. It’s no exaggeration to say that we believe our individual freedom is absolute, unless restrained by law.

    It’s a way of life.

    And we have no need for a bill of rights because we have freedom.

    Any attempt to define our freedoms by statute would diminish Parliament’s historic role as the defender of individual freedoms.

    Judges would become the guardians of a written constitution or bill of rights, and the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people in Parliament would – for the first time since the 17th Century – be eroded. Is that really the way we want to go? I think not.

    It is not as though the processes of judicial interpretation are infallible.

    In the United States, at different times, the Constitution was held both to support and to outlaw slavery. More recently, Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights has been held to be inconsistent with earlier laws on Sunday Trading, drug trafficking, and abortion.

    It is no slur on our judicial system to say that such great issues should be decided by elected representatives, not judges and courts.

    All of this is based, not on any formal separation of powers, but on a silent boundary: a boundary of mutual restraint. No-one has the power to make final pronouncements about that boundary.

    But collectively as part of our living constitution, I believe we all know, understand and respect where that boundary lies.

    Some suggest that boundary is under pressure. That the greater use of judicial review means the Government is in conflict with the courts.

    I see nothing surprising in the increasing role of judicial review. I believe it is a function of the increasing complexity or administration, and the legislation which governs it. And it is clearly right that the courts should hold Ministers and departments to the proper use of their powers, and should safeguard the procedural quality of public decision-making. This is merely an example of our constitution working. But, by the same token, it is of course ultimately up to Parliament to decide the laws on which judges and courts make their judgements.

    In our constitution, Parliament is supreme, because the people are supreme. Parliament is the process through which the representatives of the people control the Executive.

    Our Parliament may have its quirks and its faults, but it is hard to find another country today whose Parliament is so central to its national life. The proceedings of national Parliaments are televised in many other countries. But in how many others are they followed as avidly as here?

    In Britain, Parliament is where things happen. It is the voice of the people of Britain, fighting out all the complexities of our national interest on issues which in some other countries are settled in smoke-filled rooms.

    It is the focus of the nation’s unity at times of national grief or outrage. And it is the theatre for the great convulsions of political history.

    So-one should lightly contemplate tampering with an institution that is so ancient and yet so alive. But that is not to say that nothing about Parliament can ever change.

    Nor has that been our philosophy.

    The last 17 years have seen the introduction and flourishing of Select Committees; new procedures to scrutinise European legislation; reform of Parliament’s working day; and a Budget, that brings together tax and spending. Now even Hansard and Bill papers may soon be on the Internet.

    All these developments have made Parliament more open to the citizen, and the Government more accountable. Now I want to carry this process further.

    I believe we could start by looking at the Parliamentary year. The House is swamped at the turn of the year with debates on The Queen’s Speech, the Budget, and the Second Reading of the bulk of the Government’s major bills.

    I think there’s a case for change here. I would like to examine starting the Parliamentary year in May not November, so that some of these processes can begin sooner and be spread more evenly.

    There are also legitimate complaints about the speed with which detailed legislative proposals are prepared and put through both Houses.

    We have already made significant progress in tackling this through publishing bills in draft form for early scrutiny.

    I’d like to develop more structured planning of the legislative programme and more time for consultation. I believe this could be done by preparing each year not only detailed proposals for the Queen’s Speech covering the next Session, but provisional plans for what would be in the Speech for the year after that. This would give Departments the opportunity to bring forward detailed proposals including, in some cases, draft Bills, for consultation in the year before the actual legislation was brought before Parliament.

    That would allow Select Committees time to take evidence and report, and give Parliament a much more positive and forward-looking role in the policy process. It should also mean better legislation.

    Improving Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation is the sort of constitutional change I favour: it identifies a problem, and comes up with a practical solution which could help. It is not change for change’s sake.

    The same cannot be said for some of the proposals being floated for change to the House of Lords.

    For example, some have suggested removing hereditary Peers’ voting rights, and developing the House of Lords in some other way.

    But if you actually look at what the House of Lords does in its Parliamentary role, it is hard to cast it convincingly as the villain.

    Has the House of Lords been overstepping the mark with the House of Commons? Of course not.

    Has it been showing bias over the years, dispensing favour to one political party in Government and refusing it to another? Not at all.

    So what precisely is broken, that needs to be fixed?

    I find no convincing answers to these questions. To people who say that a House of Lords with a strong hereditary element is an anomaly, I say that it works. The fact is that the House of Lords has been far more effective than many overseas equivalents as a revising Chamber. But precisely because the Lords has no rival democratic mandate, the supremacy of the elected Chamber is guaranteed.

    And what, anyway, are the alternatives?

    A wholly appointed House of Lords. Is that more representative?

    Or is it to be another elected Chamber If so how? And if we had two elected chambers, how would we avoid a situation where the two Houses are pitted against each other in legislative gridlock, or the executive plays one chamber off against the other?

    I believe passionately in the House of Commons as the vital link between Government and citizen. That is why I don’t want to see it weakened by the establishment of a competing elected body.

    Nor do I believe that the link between citizen and Government would be as strong if we were to change our electoral system and move to proportional representation. This carries a number of dangers. First, the idea that PR leads to short-lived coalition governments is not just theoretical. Take Italy, where I was last weekend – there they’ve had 55 governments since the War. And instability has other consequences. Politicians spend more of their time campaigning than governing. And the electorate have less and less influence over Government since so much of the agenda is the result of back-room barter.

    Some of the models of proportional representation would damage Parliament in other ways too, by breaking the link between every citizen of this country and their MP. It is that individual responsibility which alone can balance the pressures of party loyalty and gives Westminster its unique electricity.

    But Parliament is more than simply the focus for our democracy. It’s the cement that holds together the countries of the United Kingdom. Countries with distinct traditions, culture, history and language. But countries which have remained one nation because it was in their interests to do so. Unity brought stability. And stability bought prosperity.

    Threaten the central role of our National Parliament, and you threaten that unity and stability.

    Why do I feel so strongly about the Union? In many ways, the cynics would say I shouldn’t. After all, a purely English Westminster would be to the advantage of the Conservative party. But the unity of the nation, all parts of it, is so crucial to our future that our duty is to stand up to protect it.

    The Conservative commitment to the United Kingdom doesn’t mean ignoring the distinctive individuality of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the contrary, we’ve gone further in recognising that diversity than any previous Government.

    The new powers we’ve given to the Scottish Grand Committee are a huge step forward. They mean Scottish MPs can call Ministers to account and debate legislation. We’re making similar changes to the Welsh Grand Committee too, which will involve for the first time Welsh Members of Parliament asking their questions to Ministers in Welsh in Wales.

    Some seek to exploit the ideas we put forward some time ago for a possible Assembly in Northern Ireland, as part of an agreed overall political settlement there, by suggesting that they form a justification for proposing a Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. But they do no such thing.

    There are plainly differences, self-evident even on the most casual examination. I have set them out before.

    For one thing, the kind of Assembly that might emerge is not likely to be the same as is proposed for Scotland. The ideas we put forward did not, and for good reason, extend to an Assembly with power to raise taxes, unlike the Assembly that is proposed for Scotland.

    And the political background is quite different too.

    In Northern Ireland, there has been a sectarian divide for years. That does not exist elsewhere.

    In Northern Ireland, none of the parties could obtain a majority in the UK Parliament or form a UK Government. In Scotland and Wales, all of the major Westminster parties are represented.

    In Northern Ireland, because of its history, there has been an Assembly in the past. That does not apply elsewhere.

    These are some of the differences. And they explain why a solution tailored to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland would not threaten the stability of the United Kingdom.

    By contrast, the alternatives floated by the Opposition could not fail to destabilise and, in the end, diminish the British Parliament.

    This audience needs little reminding of the intractable problems they raise.

    The West Lothian question, for a start. Simply put, why should Scottish and Welsh MPs be able to vote on English matters, but English MPs unable to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters?

    Would devolution mean a cut in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster? If not, why not?

    At the moment, the Government spends more in Scotland and Wales than it raises in tax. Would that continue? And if so, who would fund it?

    Would we still have Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the Cabinet? If yes, what if one party has a majority in Scotland or Wales, and another in Westminster? Which one would choose?

    Why give the Scottish Parliament the power to raise tax and make the Scots pay more tax than any part of Britain?

    Why should Scotland have a tax raising Parliament, but Wales only an assembly?

    And why should a Scottish Parliament be elected by PR, but a Welsh Assembly by first-past-the-post?

    It’s no use the Opposition retreating and trying to dodge the argument by pledging a referendum. Who would vote in this referendum? The Scots of course. But who else? Because the result would affect the whole of the United Kingdom. And would the result be decided by a simple majority or a higher threshold?

    Frankly the opposition don’t know as they wriggle and turn to try to avoid answering the questions that expose the folly of their plans. A referendum would do nothing to make these plans less dangerous. People would still need to know the answers to the questions and precisely what they’d be voting for.

    These are serious questions. The Opposition have implicitly acknowledged this. Why else did they come forward with the wholly unwelcome proposal that, to justify a Scottish parliament and a Welsh Assembly, we should have English regional assemblies too.

    But what are the regions? How do we define them? Why must we carve up England in some arbitrary way just for the sake of legitimising devolution elsewhere in the UK?

    Where is the demand for these assemblies?

    Anyway, surely what would be required to match a Scottish Parliament would be not a set of regional assemblies but an English Parliament?

    But one thing is clear. Go down this route, and there will no longer be a single focus for democracy. Set up rival parliaments or assemblies, and they will grow hungry for more power.

    Of course, there’s nothing to stop people voting to undermine or destroy the Union. Our unity depends on democracy. At the next election, just as at the last, people will be able choose if they want to embark on a voyage into the unknown, uncharted waters of tempestuous change. The choice is – rightly – theirs. Our task is to warn them of the perils of doing so.

    And there’s another choice people will face come the election. Not only could they undermine the role of Parliament in the United Kingdom, but also its relationship with the European Union.

    The choice could not be clearer. I have often set out my view of a flexible Europe, a Europe of nation states. Not a federalist State. Not a Europe of regions that would effectively bypass national governments and weaken our strong national voice. I will not reiterate those points again this evening, except to say that they rest on my belief that our national Parliament must remain the primary focus for our democracy.

    People might disagree. They might want greater integration, and see Britain become part of a European superstate. Or they might want a wholly federal Europe.

    But they should recognise that both of these would affect the role of Parliament. And having given powers away, it would be all but impossible to get them back.

    I intend to make sure that the issues at stake in the constitutional debate are properly understood.

    So over the coming weeks, a number of Ministers will directly address current constitutional issues.

    The Lord Chancellor, James Mackay, will speak on Parliament and the Judiciary and the vital role each plays in our Constitution.

    The Home Secretary, Michael Howard, will develop the same themes and speak on the need to retain our present method of election to Parliament.

    The Leader of the House of Commons, Tony Newton, will be talking about parliamentary reform: how do we preserve and build on Parliament’s strengths.

    The Environment Secretary, John Gummer, will speak about the importance of local government, and the absence of a convincing case for regional assemblies.

    The Chancellor of the Duchy, Roger Freeman, will talk about the improvements we have made to provide the public with services which are more accountable, open and efficient.

    The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, Michael Forsyth and William Hague, will address the Opposition’s devolution plans.

    And I expect other colleagues will want to add to the debate too.

    This will be the most thorough debate on the constitution for a generation. And it is right that we should have it. Right because it’s too easy to take for granted the traditions and institutions that make us a nation. Our constitutional fabric has been woven over the centuries. It’s the product of hundreds of years of knowledge, experience and history.

    It’s been stable, but not static.

    Along the way the key events stand out, spanning generations of our ancestors – the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the First and Second Reform Acts, step by step progress towards universal suffrage, Reform of the House of Lords, and the introduction of Life Peers. Each one a footprint in our nation’s story, a step down the path towards today’s modern constitution.

    Out of this evolutionary change has grown one of the finest, strongest and most admired constitutions in the world.

    I’m all for practical change that would solve real problems or improve the way our constitution works.

    But pointless fiddling with our constitution wouldn’t solve any problems. It would just create new ones.

    In the end, it would begin to unstitch our way of life. One group of politicians could unravel what generations of our predecessors have created.

    I don’t make any apology for defending what works. I’m a Conservative and I reject change for change’s sake.

    That doesn’t mean I avoid change where it’s needed.

    We live in a world that is changing rapidly in many areas.

    In the economy, for example, I am committed to following through the changes necessary to ensure Britain can compete and prosper. Many of our opponents resist such changes.

    But on the Constitution, the arguments are reversed. There, our opponents favour experiments that would undermine our stability and introduce new uncertainties for no good purpose.

    Our constitution is the lifeblood of the United Kingdom. It upholds our freedom. It binds Parliament and the Government to the Citizen. It provides the checks and balances that prevent abuse of power. It cements the Union together.

    It’s not just precious because it’s ancient. It’s precious because it’s alive.

    I said earlier that the three key institutions in our constitution were Parliament, our legal system, and the Crown. We British have a great gift for underselling our virtues. We should not do so with our Constitution.

    Just ask yourself: if you had to face a court of law, where is justice more impartial than in Britain?

    In which country is parliament more accountable, more accessible, more likely to right a wrong?

    And if we had no Monarchy, how would we find a Head of State who was so much above party politics, who would provide the impartiality, the continuity and the focus of so much of our national life?

    To ask those questions is to know the answers.

    That is why I care so much about our constitution. It’s why I will defend our tradition, our heritage, and guard against any needless change which threatens the institutions that make us one nation.

    It is that which makes me a Conservative and Unionist.

    To conserve what is best.

    To change what is needed.

    And to make one nation a stronger nation.

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd March 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Objectives

    Mr. Forman: To ask the Prime Minister how many of their objectives of April 1992 the Government have now achieved; and how many remain.

    The Prime Minister: Since April 1992, the Government’s policies have laid the foundations for sustained economic growth. Underlying inflation is down to its lowest for a generation, interest rates are among the lowest in the EC, unemployment is down by over 600,000 since its peak, exports are at record levels, and we are attracting more investment from Japan and America than Germany and France combined.

    We have also pressed ahead with our reforms to raise standards in our schools, fight crime, improve the quality of care in the national health service and, with the Citizen’s Charter, make the public services more accountable to the taxpayers they serve. Our commitment to continuing improvement in standards in education has been achieved by the national curriculum, extension of objective testing of pupils, inspection of primary as well as secondary schools, continuation of publication of school results, and launch of the Teacher Training Agency. Parental choice has been enhanced by the further expansion of the grant-maintained schools and specialist colleges. The national health service is now treating 1 million more patients a year than since before our reforms began; our determination to ensure it is properly funded is borne out by the fact that, for every £1 spent on the service in 1979, over £5 will be spent in 1995-96. Against the backdrop of the largest fall in recorded crime for 40 years, we have introduced a range of measures designed to tilt the balance back in favour of the victims of crime, and ensure that crime does not pay, but criminals do.

    The Government have made significant progress towards achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The ceasefire has now lasted for almost seven months, giving a new basis on which we can take the peace process forward. There has also been considerable success in winning the argument in Europe–especially in our attempts to make the community more open, outward-looking and decentralised.

    The Government’s objectives for the future remain as stated in the Gracious Speech on 16 November 1994, Official Report, columns 4-6.

     

    Publications

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on (a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995-96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 21 March.

  • Mr Major’s Downing Street Press Conference – 16 January 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference, held at Downing Street in London on Monday 16 January 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all for coming this afternoon. I thought as we have now got into the New Year that it might be appropriate to take this opportunity to have a look across the political scene as it is at the moment.

    I think we are about to enter a particularly interesting phase, and let me firstly say something about the longer term. In around two years, maybe a little more, perhaps a little less, we are going to have to persuade the public once again to entrust us with government. After 17 years I do not believe that anyone should be complacent about that task. No party has a divine right to govern and no-one should expect a bouncy economy alone to ensure an election success.

    Last week I took some steps to put this country on course for the longer term. On Friday, with some senior colleagues at Chequers, I conducted a comprehensive review of Britain’s role in the world. We analysed both the risks and the opportunities in the immediate future. We looked at what we had to do to promote Britain’s national interest and we looked at the policies that we believe were right for Britain.

    A nation like ours, dependent for about one-third of its wealth on overseas trade, must promote its interests worldwide. We have for long been a global power and we will continue to be a global power, but in an increasingly competitive world, that means that we must single-mindedly pursue our interests around the world politically and commercially, we must all put Britain first.

    I plan to have further Chequers meetings to look at domestic and social policies – jobs, health, education, public services – and these will be critical in building up the government’s policies for the future. This is work similar to that undertaken before the 1992 election, but it will be much wider and with a much longer perspective.

    I have invited Secretaries of State to assemble policy groups, each in their respective areas, and the remit for these groups is to think both boldly and imaginatively. I want their prescriptions informed by a very wide process of consultation, with people in all walks of life, inside and outside the Conservative Party. The Policy Unit will also consult widely, external expert opinions will be sought, I intend to have the widest possible debate to build the next phase of Conservatism, to plan new policies for government in the new millennium.

    Over recent years I believe we have done what is right for this country. But I know that doing uncomfortable things, although often necessary in government, does not at the same time necessarily endear you to people. But if your policy is right, and you stick to that policy, the benefits do come through, and that is what I believe is now beginning to happen.

    The economic debate and the European debate have dominated politics for some time, the economy is now coming right, and I can now see a road to unity on European policy as we prepare for the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996 and 1997.

    But there is a political life apart from these two subjects. Jobs, education, health, personal choice and opportunity, the levels of tax, the quality of life in the public services, these are things that concern families in every part of the country. On the economy we have a broadly based recovery unlike any that we have seen since 1945. It is a recovery for the long term, it is not a flash in the pan, it is not fuelled by monopoly money. We are seeing confidence and growth restored to manufacturing industry, Britain is making things once more, as it traditionally did, and it is selling them to every corner of the world. People will feel the effects of this recovery only gradually, but as they do begin to feel those effects, they can have confidence that that recovery is going to last.

    We will continue to pursue privatisation for the best of reasons, to help improve the standards of service to the public. Frankly, I am not content with the service we have had over many years from British Rail, I want to remove British Rail for good from the stand-up comedian’s joke book and to turn them into the envy of the world, we did that with British Airways and I have every intention of doing that with British Rail as well.

    On education policy we are pursuing higher standards, more choice, more opportunity. Later this year we will come forward with our detailed proposals on nursery education, testing the National Curriculum performance tables, all of these are now beginning to lever up standards and people can begin to see that that is what is happening, the improvement is evident and we intend it to continue into the future.

    I am utterly committed to the National Health Service. Each year doctors and nurses care for more patients, a million more than since our reforms began. This year we are abolishing a complete layer of bureaucracy in order to target resources on patient care. The great reforms of recent years are in place and they are now settling down. It would frankly be folly to seek to tear up those reforms, it would introduce chaos and instability into General Practioners’ surgeries and into hospitals up and down the country. The result of that could only be to shift the focus away from the patient and better treatment for the patient.

    We will carry forward the sea-change in our approach to fighting crime. People want to know that crime does not pay, but that criminals do. The new measures which come into effect this year to come down hard on persistent young offenders and bail-bandits, for example, they will give the police more powers to put criminals behind bars and to make punishment fit the crime.

    Crucial to these reforms has been the operation of the Citizen’s Charter. The Charter has delivered better information and standards in both health and education and will do so right across government. It is, as it always has been, a ten year programme to improve public services. I do not believe that public services should provide a brusque response to the public or to be needlessly anonymous, they are there to serve the public, and to be accountable to the public, and that is the right sort of devolution.

    The consistent theme in these reforms is moving the decision-making process away from government and out to local people, that is the sort of devolution that I passionately favour, not devolution which creates extra tiers of bureaucracy with extra tiers of expense and extra tiers of frustration for most of the people in this country.

    We are opening up government steadily but significantly. The last two years have seen changes to our security and intelligence services, to the information available about government committees and departments. There have been changes following the Jopling recommendations in the way Parliament works; changes for the system of awarding honours; and changes to the decision-making process in Scotland. The British constitution is not a written constitution, but neither is it an unchanging constitution. But it should be changed only with care and with good reason, not in a careless fashion for political reasons. Above all, I am concerned to widen opportunity for everyone, whatever their start in life may have been. We want to help people meet their own ambitions and control more of their own lives.

    We have a crowded agenda in the years immediately ahead of us, but what we are also seeking to do is to fashion flow in a wider way than has been done for very many years, the direction of policy beyond the immediate future, and that work will start immediately.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    Prime Minister, this has many of the characteristics of a press conference at the beginning of an election campaign, is it your intention to use this conference to mount an attack on the Labour Party, and Mr Blair particularly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What a tempter you are. The purpose of this press conference was to set out what I have just said to you, firstly, and secondly to honour the promise that I made to you, not necessarily you, John, but the Lobby and others generally in the summer, when I promised that from time to time I would have further press conferences so that you would have the opportunity to question me. If you wish to question me about the Labour Party, of course I will respond to the policy muddles that they are getting into on education, on British Rail, on devolution, on energy policy, on health and on a range of other subjects, but as you will notice, I did not myself introduce the subject.

    QUESTION (Peter Riddell, Times):

    You mentioned at the end of your statement about the constitution being changed with care, have you got any proposals yourself, particularly in relation to the Nolan Committee, will you be putting forward suggestions for improving say appointments to quangos and other matters being covered by Nolan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will be very interested to see what Nolan has to say. I think Nolan touches an area of concern that has been there for some time, and I think the Nolan recommendations will have to be looked at very seriously. I have not been invited to give evidence to Nolan, other members of the government will and where appropriate they will put forward particular ideas. But certainly we will wish to look very carefully at what Nolan recommends and very probably we will be seeking to implement much of it.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, Newsnight);

    When you said in your New Year interview that at the Intergovernmental Conference on Europe next year you would not accept constitutional changes that would be damaging, did you mean by that that you would veto them or that Britain would not accept but the others could go ahead without you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The agreements at the Intergovernmental Conference have to be agreed unanimously, that is the way in which the European Union works. I am not in the business of just going there with heavy boots to be difficult, but if people propose constitutional change that I think is inappropriate for Europe, or inappropriate for the United Kingdom, then I will not accept it, I have made that perfectly clear.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow):

    You will veto it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you choose to use that word, yes most certainly I will veto it, I will not accept it. If I do not believe it is in the interests of the United Kingdom, or indeed in the interests of the wider European case, then I will most emphatically say so and I will most emphatically say ‘No’. But I also said in that interview that I do not myself believe that the 1996 conference is going to raise huge constitutional issues, I cannot be certain about that, I cannot be certain what the other 14 countries will introduce, any country can introduce any issue it wishes, but I do not at the moment expect great constitutional issues to be introduced, if they are I believe the time is inappropriate, if they are and I think they are significant and damaging then I will reject them.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Given that you say this press conference is in part to map out the future of Conservatism, and also you admit to give us the chance to ask questions about the Labour Party, is Downing Street the right place to have it or shouldn’t it be at Conservative Central Office?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are the first journalist I have ever known not to wish to take the opportunity of asking questions wherever they may be asked, Elinor. But as far as the direct point you make is concerned, I am mapping out the policies for the rest of this government and for future Conservative governments.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Can I ask about rail privatisation. I know that you always say that every privatisation is unpopular, but would you not accept that this privatisation seems to be unusually unpopular, even among some members of your own party? And secondly, since at least the Labour Party is now prepared to say that they are committed to a publicly owned and a publicly accountable railway after the next election, would you not accept that that is going to give those who may wish to buy, particularly Railtrack, very considerable anxiety about getting involved in this privatisation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You have brought me the news of what the Labour Party’s policy is at 1550 on Monday afternoon, whether it will be the same tomorrow morning I suppose is a moot point, it does seem to have undergone rather a few changes over the last few weeks. Last week Mr Blair was not sure whether he would renationalise or not. Mr Prescott equivocated in radio interviews, before that Mr Prescott was certain he would renationalise, and so would others. So I am not entirely sure what their policy will be in the future, though I strongly suspect that this is the first part of the Danegeld to be paid for the support that Mr Blair will seek on Clause 4.

    But as far as your direct question of concern, as to whether this is going to be uniquely unpopular, I would simply suggest that you go back and look at what was said in many of the previous privatisations. If, for example, I refer to British Steel, what was it that the Labour Front bench, Donald Dewar I think it was from memory said about British Steel – “totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry and based on dogma”, he said, ‘the Labour Party is unequivocally implacably opposed to it.” British Steel, privatised, is now one of the most efficient steel-makers in the world. This was the privatisation that was said not to be concerned with the real interests of the industry. What was it they said about British Airways, again it was poor old Donald Dewar who was the Spokesman “British Airways will be the pantomime horse of capitalism, if it is anything at all” said the Labour Party about the privatisation of British Airways.

    I do not think there are many people here at this press conference or who may watch this answer who doubts that British Airways is now one of the most efficient airways anywhere in the world. So I believe it can be with British Rail, I am just not satisfied with what British Rail has produced by way of a service in the last 40 years or so, I believe it can do better, I know it is controversial but I believe it can provide a better service. And many of the scare stories that there have been about mass hackings of the line are dealt with in the legislation which ensures that services are protected. So I believe yes we can proceed with it, yes we will be able to proceed with the flotation, and yes over time precisely the same impact will be had by a privatised British Rail as we have seen with electricity, gas, steel, telecoms and British Airways, the private sector will run it better and passengers will get a better service.

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson):

    And they will buy it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And they will buy it.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    On the question of the Union, how do you reconcile your attitude towards Northern Ireland, in which you say Britain has no selfish strategic interest and you have given the people the right of self-determination, to your attitude to Scotland, and would you be prepared to consider another referendum on devolved government for Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I was interested to see that the Labour Leader ruled out a referendum on legislation to introduce devolution to Scotland and Wales, I find that extraordinary if that is a settled position, but perhaps it will not be a settled position, perhaps it will change again. The distinction with Northern Ireland I think is very clear, in Northern Ireland we are not talking about a tax-raising assembly with the powers and authorities that would apparently be given to a Scottish Assembly. The danger with a Scottish Assembly, well there are many dangers with a Scottish Assembly, but I think there is a very real danger with that that it would firstly do dramatic damage to Scotland. And I say that with good reason. If Scotland is going to have the privilege of being more highly taxed, is Scotland going to have the degree of inward investment that previously it has had? I would suggest an inward investor would say: “But the Scots are more highly taxed, therefore there is going to be more pressure on wage demands, therefore my costs are going to be higher, therefore I am not going to invest in Scotland”. That is but one of a whole series of questions.

    The constitutional questions about what is proposed in Scotland are even more damaging. If Scotland is to have authority for education and health, and all health and education matters are to be settled by the Scottish Parliament, what rights would Scottish Members of Parliament have over those matters? None at all. What rights, therefore, should Scottish Members of Parliament have at Westminster over health and education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? It is not credible. What in practise is being done in Scotland is that the Labour Party are well aware that they need a big majority of seats in Scotland in order to win a general election, they are very worried that the Scottish Nationalist Party would do very well in a general election, they are trying to out-bid the Scottish Nationalist Party in terms of winning seats, and they have now begun to realise the difficulties that that faces them. So they have offered an Assembly in Wales, but it seems a rather lesser Assembly, they do not regard that as important to Scotland.

    And then in order to square the circle they have said but we would have regional government all over England. There is no demand for regional government all over England, there is no demand for an extra tier of bureaucracy all over England. We are going to have, we are told by the Labour Party, a Premier for Scotland. Are we going to have a Premier for Wales? Are we going to have a Premier for Sunderland? Is his official residence going to be Roper Park? Who can tell? I could stretch to the corner of this room and back again the nonsenses that arise out of these devolution plans and the dangers that arise and I think those dangers are now becoming apparent, not just to the Conservative Party, but to Labour Members of Parliament in Scotland and in Wales and to people right across the country. They are just not thought through or thought out and they are immensely damaging.

    CHARLES RICE (EVENING STANDARD):

    Do you accept that if the Ulster Unionist MPs were to withdraw their support from the Government they could precipitate a general election a lot earlier than the two years you foreshadow and do you absolutely rule out paying Danegeld in any form to them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made it perfectly clear all along that we propose to seek a settlement in Northern Ireland but that it can only be done by carrying with us the people of Northern Ireland. I have seen some of the concerns that have been aroused about what might be in the framework document which is the premise upon which I think you based your question. There is no question of joint authority with Dublin having authority over Northern Ireland; that was ruled out a long time ago and many of the concerns that have prompted stories over the last day or so are just out of date and wrong.

    PETER HAYES (CENTRAL TELEVISION):

    I work for an area in which you may recall you lost of one of your precious parliamentary seats fairly recently.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All my parliamentary seats are precious, all of them!

    PETER HAYES:

    During the by-election campaign, one of your traditional supporters said to me that he accepted successes in Northern Ireland, he accepted success for example on the economy but he said: “What is new? What is the big idea taking us as Conservative supporters up to the next election?” What you you say to him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there a range of things if I may because this idea of one single, big idea is often a misleading proposition. Policy goes in a particular direction and the policy is going in the direction of moving as much authority and opportunity away from the centre and down to the individual and his family.

    The big idea is making sure that the people of this country have as much freedom, liberty and opportunity as they possibly can. That is the big idea that the Conservative Party has stood for for generations and stands for now. That is why we want the lowest possible level of taxation; that is why we have provided so much extra power and authority for self-governing schools and information for the parents in those schools; that is why we have taken the management of hospitals away from bureaucrats and put it actually down to National Health Service trust hospitals –98% of hospitals are now trust hospitals.

    That is the drift and direction of policy; that is why we would much prefer to be cutting taxes rather than raising taxes, that is a matter of innate instinct for the Conservative Party, by instinct we cut taxes, we dislike raising them; we have had to do it, it has been damaging for us and I think as soon as we are able to reverse that prudently and safely on economic grounds we will do so.

    The idea that you seek for is to make sure that the individual, whatever fashion of life he may have, has the greatest amount of devolution of choice and authority to him or her; that is and always has been the big Conservative idea.

    TREVOR KAVANAGH (THE SUN):

    Prime Minister, in view of the recent disclosures both official and unofficial about the Royal Family, do you have any concerns about the standing and respect in which those members of the Royal Family are held?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe the Royal Family is a central glue in the constitution of the United Kingdom; I don’t see that changing. I know of everybody in public life in one form or another – it applies to the Royal Family, it applies to other people not just in elected public life – people expect very high standards all the time. think that has always been the position in this country.

    I think the underlying affection for the Royal Family remains immensely strong; I think that will manifest itself. From time to time, there are squalls which for a short term cause some difficulty; I think that is what they are, short-term squalls and the underlying affection, respect and admiration for the constitution of the monarchy itself will be untouched by this. I believe it will continue to endure and I personally believe it is immensely important for this country that it does.

    QUESTION (GMTV):

    Just a word about the people who have lost the whip. Do you accept that a couple of them may not actually wish to rejoin the Conservative Party despite the olive branches that you have proffered and what view do you take of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It takes two to tango! The music has struck up, we will see who will take partners and when!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how soon do you anticipate you will be able to reassure those Unionists who suggested at the weekend that there might well be a general election this year and do you anticipate the search for a political settlement running into the next general election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t answer the second question; I don’t wish to put a time frame on the search for a settlement. I will go on searching for a settlement until we have a settlement because I believe that it is immensely important that we do so and I believe the prospects of a settlement exist.

    We will pursue the joint framework document. I think the fears that have given rise to stories, as I indicated a moment ago, are mistaken fears and I think it will become apparent that they are mistaken fears but if I may push aside the political element that you raise, I have said from the outset of this many times on the record – you will have heard me say it many times, I repeat it again – we will only be successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland if we can carry with us all the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I am playing this with my hands open and the cards face-out on the table.

    Let me take the framework document since it has now been raised twice. When we have agreed the framework document with the Irish government, that isn’t something that is going to be imposed. The framework document will then be published for everyone to see; it is then for the constitutional parties to examine it, to consult it and to comment on it. It goes into the talks with all the constitutional parties; then, if they approve it, it goes to a referendum of all the people of Northern Ireland so the fear that there is some sort of deal in which joint authority is in some curious fashion going to be enforced over the people of Northern Ireland against their will is not going to happen and cannot happen. We have not got joint authority in the document, the document itself is for consultation; it will have to be approved by the political parties in Northern Ireland and when they have finished with it, it will have to be approved by all the people of Northern Ireland so they have a triple look on their own future and I believe that is the way to carry with this process all the people of Northern Ireland.

    There are ancient differences, feuds, fears that have been in Northern Ireland literally for generations; the only way to still them is for people to look carefully and cautiously at what is happening and decide for themselves that this is the right way to deliver peace.

    You asked whether we would have it by the general election. I can’t promise that. It is not necessarily a speedy process. I think it was – I hope it was – an Irish poet, Yates, who wrote: “Peace comes dropping slow!” and I believe that is right. I think it was the “Lake Isle of Innisfree” and if it wasn’t I will no doubt be told tomorrow! “Peace comes dropping slow.” I believe that is entirely appropriate to the way in which we are developing this question in Northern Ireland.

    Everybody – every sane and sensible person – wishes to see a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland. It cannot be done without patiently and carefully looking at each of the areas that need to be dealt with and trying to place in the right place on the chess-board all the pieces that will comfort the fears of the different groups and people of Northern Ireland. That is what we are trying to do and we will do it openly.

    JOHN CRAIG (DAILY EXPRESS):

    When you spoke to us in the sunshine back in the summer, you told us of your plans to reshuffle your Cabinet. Is the Cabinet you have got now the one that you would hope to lead into the next general election or can we expect some more changes between now and then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The next general election may be two-and-a-half years away but I certainly have no plans for changes now. I enjoyed that press conference in the garden; I did contemplate having it in the garden this afternoon but I wasn’t sure how generally popular that might be.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] devolution for quite some time now, indeed since the last general election. Does it surprise you therefore to find in the opinion polls the majority swinging the other way, in the “Sunday Times” poll for example 49% for, 32% against?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the debate on devolution is only just beginning. Why do I believe so many people favour it? I think instinctively in every part of the United Kingdom people are proud of being Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish and instinctively asked about a Scottish Parliament “Would you like a Scottish Parliament?” I think the answer instinctively is likely to be yes. Asked: “Would you like to pay more income tax than anybody else in the vicinity?” the answer may be no. Asked whether you would wish to see companies disinvest, moving away from Scotland, creating more people unemployed, I think the answer would be no. Asked whether you want to be a little Scotland in the middle of a great European Community without having the negotiating strength of the whole United Kingdom, I think the answer would be no. Asked if you would like to be the United Kingdom equivalent of Quebec in Canada, I think the answer will be no.

    It is not only me, not only the Conservative Party who thinks that these plans are folly. Other people, as they begin to examine them, will see that underneath the general aspiration there are very dangerous and damaging policies indeed. I will spell them out in detail again if you wish but I think you all are aware of the things that concern me: the different taxation policy; the question of the rights of Members of Parliament at Westminster in Scotland; the fact that if there was a Scottish Parliament there would be no justification for the numerically over-large Scottish membership in the House of Commons.

    All those are issues of some importance but if a Scottish Parliament was established and then began to challenge the English Parliament on issues, as I believe would almost undoubtedly be the case over time, what are the difficulties that are going to arise at that stage? What happens if there is a backlash elsewhere in the United Kingdom against the Scottish Parliament? I am not speaking out against the wishes of Scotland, I believe I am speaking for the interests of Scotland in pointing out that what is proposed is not a proposition that will help the living standards of Scotland or the future of Scotland and I will continue to make that point until we have won the debate, won the argument and seen these damaging proposals ditched and gone for ever.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, two of your biggest problems in running your party centre round the disunity on Europe and on the sleaze factor. Why have you moved from saying that the rebels have got to work their way back over months to saying they would be taken back within weeks? What strength will your whips have to exert any discipline in future if they are taken back quickly?

    On the sleaze factor, why are you not encouraging the Nolan Committee to look into the financing of political parties around which many people’s worries on the sleaze factor tend to concentrate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is the remit of the Nolan Committee, it wasn’t set up to look at that and I don’t anticipate that it is going to look at that.

    On the first point, the question of the colleagues who don’t have the whip, it is up to events to determine when they come back. I indicated over the weekend that I thought on many issues they were very strong Conservatives indeed, they will wish to see a Conservative victory at the next general election. I don’t believe the issues of dispute that have caused this split are issues that it is impossible to resolve. I think some of the resolution is now in place and I think the rest of the resolution is now a clear path so I believe that they will come back. I can’t determine when they come back, it will need an agreement between both of us – as I indicated a moment ago, it takes two to reach such an agreement. I hope that they will decide to do so and I believe that is the wish of the 321 Conservative MPs in the House who have the whip.

    QUESTION (CH4):

    Prime Minister, could you foresee winning the next general election without lowering taxes substantially?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t anticipate the next two budgets. I am in favour of lower taxes but only providing it is economically justifiable; we will have to wait and see whether that is the case. I don’t think it would be prudent for me to tell you now what will be in the next budget or indeed the budget after that.

    QUESTION (DON McINTYRE):

    Prime Minister, do you think that the current well-publicised deliberations of the CBI and others on executive pay are in the end going to result in some form of legislation on that topic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they are trying to produce a system where peer pressure works and I believe that is the right way to deal with it. I think peer pressure on executive pay and ensuring that shareholders and institutional shareholders perhaps in particular use their power as the owners of companies to ensure that top pay awards are satisfactory is right.

    The danger is, however ill-advised some of these very large pay increases may have been and however offensive they may have been to many people, once you get in the direction of determining pay for top executives, where do you stop? Do you stop just at the former nationalised industries? Do you look beyond that to other companies that one way or another serve the people? Do you actually look at football managers, editors of newspapers? Where do you stop? You are actually getting into a position where the Government is going to decide who is paid what in areas that are not owned by the Government. That has been tried in the past, it has never in the past been successful.

    I share the concern that many people felt about some of these pay increases and I don’t think anybody who knows me doubts that and I think most of you in this room know that very well but the question is in opposition you can play gesture politics, in government you can’t. In government, you would be asking us: “What are you going to do?” and when we had said: “We are going to do this!” you would have pointed out all the defects in that insofar as it affected other people and you would have been right to do so. Gesture politics is very effective if you are in opposition but it is not effective if your are a government and I think therefore that the tight way to deal with this is the way the CBI are doing, the establishment of the Greenbury Committee. The National Association Of Pension Funds and others have expressed similar views and that sort of peer pressure is the best way to get an effective answer in my judgement.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said in your statement that you were going to seek advice from Conservative non-government groups in formulating your policies for the next century. Can you indicate what groups you have in mind and would you welcome members of the public writing in to tell you what they thought?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They always have done in my recollection. Let me be clear. I certainly didn’t mean the Labour Party and the Liberal Party; I don’t think any advice from them would be likely to be productive. I had in mind people who are non-political, who are specialists in whatever it may be, transport, the environment. I anticipate utilising and inviting some of the specialists in areas of great importance to future Government policy to submit their views on what needs to be done and of course, if people have a particular interest or a particular knowledge we would wish to hear what their views are. We are not just looking at a manifesto for the next general election – let me emphasise that again – we are looking at a much wider and longer time-scale so that we can look at the next phase of development in the United Kingdom and the sort of policies that we think are appropriate both for Great Britain as a country internationally and also for individuals within great Britain and their own individual liberties, choices and opportunities.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] a new strategic authority for Greater London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I have no plans to do so at the moment, no.

    QUESTION (RADIO COVERING THE NORTH-EAST):

    Could you offer a message of hope for the people in the North-East, particularly the unemployed who feel they have been betrayed by your Government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think unemployment is falling pretty rapidly in many parts of the country, not least of course the North-East. You put the point rather provocatively but I think many of the people in the North-East would look at some of the very large external investments providing jobs in the North-East and they might say to themselves would those investments have come to the United Kingdom and in particular would they have come to the North-East if it hadn’t been for the policies that the Conservative Government had followed and the answer to that question, as you will, know, is no, they would not have come to the United Kingdom and they would not have come to the North-East so I believe when they look at that dispassionately they will see the opportunities for increasing employment.

    What we have seen over the past two years is a continuing reduction in the level of unemployment; it has come down, frankly, faster than we imagined that it would and it is very welcome that it has done so and I hope what we are going to see in the months ahead is a continuing fall in unemployment and to make the reverse point, a continuing rise of the number of people in employment as well. The economy is set fair for that; although there is not a direct relationship between growth and job creation for a number of complex reasons, I hope that is the trend that we are going to see.

    QUESTION (MICHAEL WHITE):

    You are holding this press conference 43.5% behind in the polls, you say the economic recovery is coming through but isn’t it possible that if people feel as confident as you say they will they will take a chance on another government and if they don’t the reason why you are 43.5% behind is that “Daily Telegraph” readers feel all the insecurity which skilled workers – Labour voters – felt ten years ago when your free-market revolution began? Boris’s readers are as nervous as everybody else.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Is Boris here. Oh there he is!

    You quote Gallup; Mori had a rather different figure which just indicates how volatile the opinion polls are at the moment, I have never been a great advocate of opinion polls on the question of voting at a particular time and that has been true in days when they have been favour to the Conservative Party as well as days when they have been less favourable to the Conservative Party.

    I believe that one can begin to see a great sea change in what has been put in hand over the past three or four years. We put a whole range of things in hand; we have produced a great deal of reform. Reform is often painful, it upsets people, people tend to object very strongly if their particular profession is being reformed; they certainly object very strongly if they face increased taxation they didn’t expect so there are a range of issues why people have had reason to feel disenchanted but because of the decisions that we have taken, because we accepted the unpopularity that went with those decisions, we can now see in the second half of this Parliament – and we are only just entering the second half of this Parliament – that we are on the most secure growth pattern for the economy that we have known for very many years indeed, that the education policies are delivering higher standards, better results, more young people in further education and better information for parents; that the health reforms are producing many more people treated, a wider range of treatments and faster treatment than ever before; and that in a whole series of other Government policies we can see a distinct improvement coming through so I believe the attitude does change. There is a fashion about these things. I think people will begin to see over the months ahead that the circumstances are changed, that many people who feel gloomy will begin to feel perhaps the gloom has been overdone and the prospects for them are much better.

    One of the things I believe affecting many of the people who feel very concerned is insecurity about their own employment prospects – you referred to Boris’s readers, I am sure that would be the case with many of those people –and yet we have seen for two years unemployment falling. In France, the nearest comparable economy to the United Kingdom in size and structure, you have unemployment at 12.8% and rising; here in Britain it is 8.8% and falling. That argues that we must have done something right and I believe as that continues to fall that message is going to echo very clearly in each and every part of the country and I will do my best to ensure that it does, Michael, as I am sure you will.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 16 November 1994

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 16th November 1994.


    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visit of His Highness the Amir of Kuwait in May and His Excellency the President of Finland in October next year.

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to our State Visit to South Africa in March. We also look forward to our visit to New Zealand and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there in November next year.

    My Government attach the highest importance to national security. They will work to continue the process of NATO’s adaptation to the changing security environment to allow it to play a wider role in protecting stability throughout Europe. At the Budapest summit in December they will seek to enhance the role of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in conflict prevention and resolution. They will also work for full implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    My Government will continue its efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in the former Yugoslavia.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains an important priority. My Government will work to promote the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear

    Non-Proliferation Treaty; and will pursue energetically negotiations for a verifiable and comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere will be maintained.

    My Government look forward to the enlargement of the European Union in January. They will work with our partners to give greater substance to the Europe agreements between the Union and countries of Central Europe, with the aim of preparing these countries for eventual membership of the Union.

    My Government will work for early implementation of the Agreements concluding the GATT trade negotiations, and for early establishment of the World Trade Organisation.

    They will seek to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied to European legislation. They will promote budgetary discipline in the Union and combat fraud. They will participate in the study group which from June 1995 will prepare for the 1996 Inter-Governmental conference.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights. They will maintain a substantial aid programme to promote sustainable development and good government.

    The United Nations will celebrate its Fiftieth Anniversary in 1995. My Government will continue efforts to enhance the capabilities of the United Nations, particularly in peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy.

    My Government will play an active part in tackling drug misuse, drug trafficking and organised crime at home and abroad.

    Support for consolidation of a peaceful and stable democracy in South Africa will remain a priority.

    My Government will continue to work for the long-term stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. They will seek to develop co-operation with China to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the best interests of the Hong Kong people and a smooth transition in 1997.

    Support for political and economic reform in the former Communist countries of Europe and Asia will continue.

    My Government will maintain support for the Middle East Peace Process.

    They will work for yet stronger ties with the countries of the Asia Pacific region.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    Legislation will be introduced to give force to the changes in the European Community’s system of own resources following the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council.

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation.

    Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector.

    My Government will continue to promote enterprise, to improve the working of the labour market, and to strengthen the supply performance of the economy. They will bring forward legislation to promote increased competition in the gas industry and to reform the agricultural tenancy laws in England and Wales. A Bill will be introduced to create a Jobseeker’s Allowance, reforming benefits for unemployed people and giving them better help into work.

    Legislation will be introduced to equalise the State pension age between men and women and to improve security, equality and choice in non-state pensions.

    My Government will continue to implement policies and programmes responsive to the needs of the individual citizen, in line with the principles of the Citizen’s Charter.

    They will introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

    My Government will bring forward legislation to make further improvements to the management of the National Health Service; and to provide for people with a serious mental disorder discharged from hospital to be cared for under supervision.

    Legislation will be introduced to transfer the Crown Agents and the commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Authority to the private sector; and to authorise the construction and operation by the private sector of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    The delivery of environment policies will be strengthened by legislation to establish environment agencies for England and Wales, and for Scotland.

    Legislation will be introduced to reform the Scottish Criminal Justice system.

    In Northern Ireland my Government will build on the progress already made to secure peace and a comprehensive political accommodation founded on the principles of democracy and consent. They will uphold law and order and strive to strengthen the economy and create equality of opportunity for all sections of the community. They will seek to maintain close and constructive relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    My Government will promote further measures of law reform. Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 14 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, held on 14th November 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is now some 80 years since the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, looked out from his office across St James’s Park and wrote these famous words in his diary: “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetimes”.

    He was right. The War brought horrors no-one imagined; and changes which have shaped our century. It led to economic crisis, to dictatorship in many countries, and finally to a tense peace in an armed and divided Europe.

    And yet, as our century draws towards its close, these changes are being reversed. The lights have come on again all across Europe.

    As they have done so, they have illuminated some dark corners of the Cold War. Ethnic tensions, seen at their worst in the country that used to be called Yugoslavia.

    But overwhelmingly the ledger is favourable. East/West relations are no longer conducted through the balance of nuclear terror.

    Europe has become, not two blocs, but a single Continent.

    The Soviet Empire has gone, ancient states have reappeared, subject nations have gained freedom.

    In South Africa, apartheid has gone and majority rule has been established.

    In the troubled Middle East a settlement of the Arab/Israeli conflict seems at last genuinely at hand.

    All around the world, democratic multi-party states are appearing in countries which previously only knew despotism and one party rule.

    In our own kingdom the guns are silent in Northern Ireland. The talks which once seemed impossible may now start within a few weeks, and the demand for peace is deafening.

    Two months ago, as I watched the last of our troops leave Berlin after fifty years, I said “We have before us possibilities of peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before”. If we are wise, Europe can enjoy a new Age of Reason.

    Lord Mayor, problems that seemed likely to be with us for ever are being solved. We have good cause for hope and optimism.

    The world economy is recovering. Our markets in Europe are growing. At home we have the possibility – probability – that we may at last have broken the inflationary psychology that time and time again has dragged down our prospects and held back our living standards.

    You might be forgiven for thinking this must be an illusion. This is not the way people think. This is not the message we hear daily. But perhaps we are too ready to believe the worst of ourselves, of each other, of our institutions.

    I believe we need to overcome that. Let us by all means judge ourselves sternly. But let us do so with balance and perspective.

    Nolan

    Recently, a series of events have cast doubt over standards in public life. The attention given to them must have led people to wonder whether those in public life are there only to serve their own interests.

    I don’t believe they are.

    But we do need to re-assure people that public life is not self serving.

    The committee chaired by Lord Nolan will help with this.

    If the rules governing conduct in public life are vague or unsatisfactory, Nolan will clarify them. But his task is not just to meet immediate questions. It is to act as a running authority of reference – almost, you might say, an ethical workshop called in to do running repairs.

    Parliament

    We need the best people to serve in our institutions. In my own trade, in Parliament, I shrink from the notion of the wholly professional politician, whose expertise is honed only to the pursuit of power, preference and political ideology.

    We would not benefit from a monastic Commons, a chamber of high minds, a conventicle of saints, grateful that they are not like other men and women, 650 lives devoted to jumping ever and again over the hurdles and fences of standing and select committee and the chamber. That wouldn’t be a real Commons: it would be a sort of Bore of the Year show.

    We politicians are in this world and we must know how this world works. The solicitor, the accountant, the shopkeeper, the trade unionist certainly, the farmer, the stockbroker, the journalist comes equipped with that knowledge.

    Why on earth hang it up like the boots of a retired sportsman?

    Consistent with the priority of Parliamentary duties, it must be right for MPs to have other interests, but parliament should not be, as frankly it sometimes has been, a way to other jobs. The Commons is an assembly, a forum, above all, a legislature. It needs all trades, but it should not be a hiring fair.

    Standards

    Our standards are stricter today. Some nostalgics may doubt that. If they do, I invite them to look at history. Can you imagine the current coverage if the Prime Minister of the day disappeared for hours, toured Soho, and returned to Downing Street with a galaxy of ladies and held an impromptu prayer meeting in the front hall of Number 10? In Gladstone’s days, people knew nothing about such activities. They would now!

    We no longer live nowadays, thank goodness, in a “deference society”, where you are respected for who you are, not what you are. I welcome that. But let’s not swing too far in the other direction.

    The freedom to comment, to attack, to condemn, to expose public institutions and public figures, is very great. In a free society such as ours it is very important. But such power should only be used with responsibility.

    Most people in public life are there because they want to do something for others. What we must be concerned about is that their motives are not so denigrated; that they are not so unreasonably subjected to scrutiny and pressure that their successors will not come forward. We must ensure that we do not reach a situation where people are not prepared to serve the public good because the price of doing so is so high.

    Public Sector

    We not only need the right people in public service.

    We also need to improve the accountability of public service.

    It is damaging if there appears to be some kind of inside track – a gulf between those who know how to play the system and others who do not. My sympathy is with those who sit on the outside track.

    That is why, when I became Prime Minister, I brought in the Citizen’s Charter – to give power and, as far as possible, choice to the people who use public services. They pay for them with their taxes and they are entitled to the same courtesy and service they would expect if they were cash-on-the-nail private customers.

    That is why we are telling people what they should expect from public service and then giving them the information to judge whether they are receiving it.

    This new accountability, new openness, in public service shows up deficiencies more readily. This is uncomfortable but it is right.

    Government has been too secret too long. That is why we launched a code of practice on access to Government information, with statutory access rights to personal records and health and safety information. That is why I published “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” and the membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees. And that is why I have opened up greater access to public records.

    I am sure this is right and we will continue with it.

    Business

    Business, too – like public service – is now held up to greater public scrutiny. British capitalism has become capitalism with a conscience. For some, it always has been, but now it is for most. Businesses up and down the country recognise much wider responsibilities than to make profits for shareholders.

    To the Cadburys and Frys we add the Sainsburys, the Clores and the thousands of corporate business donors in Charities Aid Foundation reports. Round the country – including here in the City – we see businesses involved in the local community, in crime prevention schemes, helping young people in inner cities, improving the environment and much more besides.

    But there is more that business can do to further improve its image.

    There is no doubting the resentment that large and often unjustified pay rises can cause. So I welcome what Sir Bryan Nicholson, the President of the CBI, had to say about the need for responsibility in setting the pay of company executives.

    The power is there to control this. I hope it will be used.

    Economy

    My Lord Mayor, right across the economy the reality is turning out to be the opposite of what so many pundits predicted.

    We were told when the recovery came, we’d see a widening trade gap. Wrong, the trade gap has been shrinking.

    We were told manufacturing investment was a thing of the past. Wrong, manufacturing investment is growing healthily.

    We were told we couldn’t break out of the inflationary stop-go cycle. Wrong, inflation and pay settlements are at their lowest level for a generation.

    We are hugely competitive. And with the markets for our goods moving from recession to growth, the export outlook has rarely been rosier.

    We’re exporting nearly 40 per cent more telecoms equipment, nearly 40 per cent more microchips. British Steel, an industrial basket-case in the early 1980s is now one of the most efficient steel producers in the world.

    Nor is it all that long ago that the British motor industry seemed to be in terminal decay. We heard more of strikes than successes. Now it is set to become a net exporter of cars. And Triumph Motorcycles – that illustrious name, dead in the water in the ’70s – is now exporting top of the range British motorcycles once more to Japan, Germany and Italy.

    The people who say we can’t make things are the people who are out of touch. They should get in their British car, on their British motorbike, on their British bicycle, and go and see for themselves how British industry is making more and selling more, all round the world.

    Day by day we see the evidence. Low inflation, falling unemployment, rising investment, increasing competitiveness, more modern and efficient management. This is the reality of the changing economic and industrial face of Britain today.

    Northern Ireland

    My Lord Mayor, on this occasion a year ago I said that we had a better opportunity for peace in Northern Ireland than for years. One month later, we launched the Downing Street Declaration. Since then, the opportunity for peace has begun to turn into reality.

    The reality of border crossings reopening; fewer troops on the streets; turnover in High Streets rising sharply; people going out at night rather than staying at home.

    Few people would have forecast all this a year ago. Yet, today, hope is abroad, and any group that imperils progress will not carry hearts and minds in Northern Ireland.

    The deplorable murder of a Newry postal worker, Mr Frank Kerr, last week has shown what risks still abound. Revulsion and anger at this murder reinforces the need to deal with the weapons held by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries.

    That is one of the purposes of the exploratory dialogue which we are ready to begin with Sinn Fein before the end of the year.

    Tonight, I can tell you that we have decided also to hold exploratory talks with Loyalist political representatives. I hope that these talks too will open before the end of December. The purpose in both cases is the same: to draw them into democratic politics and out of violence.

    The Downing Street Declaration laid out a level playing field for the politics of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein and the Loyalists can take advantage of this. They can assert their point of view freely and fairly.

    But they must accept democratic practice. Illegal weapons and explosives must be taken out of commission. There must be an end to intimidation and punishment beatings. Racketeering and criminality must end as well. These are the essential conditions for democratic legitimacy.

    In the months ahead, attention will focus on political developments. But peace will also unlock an economic transformation: the jobs, the companies, the investment that Northern Ireland needs.

    So, my Lord Mayor, in a month’s time, we shall be holding an international investment conference in Northern Ireland.

    It will be the largest that Northern Ireland has ever seen.

    We intend to make sure that investors around the world know about the new opportunities that are now opening up. To give just one example, new air routes are opening up. Two new routes from Belfast have started since the ceasefire, and two more are under trial – one from the City Airport to Londonderry. People are already coming into Northern Ireland. Hotel bookings are up, and enquiries to the Tourist Board rose by nearly 100% in October.

    Such economic growth can help cut off the oxygen of terrorism.

    My Lord Mayor, I am delighted that you have accepted my invitation to this Conference. The City has itself suffered grievously from the hatred unleashed in Northern Ireland. It can now play a part in ending this for good.

    Peroration

    My Lord Mayor, it’s been quite a day. Breakfast at the Tower and dinner in the Guildhall.

    And as I got up to launch the new National Lottery, the first fare paying passengers were boarding the new Eurostar train service to Paris and Brussels through the Channel Tunnel.

    Both projects have long histories. We have had previous failed attempts at building a Channel Tunnel. And we have had previous National Lotteries – in one of which Treasury officials walked off with the prize money.

    But today, both projects have been brought to fruition.

    We should be more self-confident as a nation – in what we have achieved and will achieve: more confident in our institutions: in our way of life; and in our capacity to win in this fiercely competitive world.

    Let us concentrate on the things that really matter. Build up the present renaissance of our industry. Capitalise on this the finest financial centre in the world. And exploit the great economic opportunities before us.

    My Lord Mayor, today our future is in our hands. I am reminded of those lines of Wordsworth’s:

    “Enough if something from our hands have power to live, and act, and serve the future hour.”

    The Channel Tunnel; the National Lottery; the opening up of Government; the economic transformation in Britain; the end of violence in Northern Ireland; the hopeful sight of a New Age of Reason. All these will serve not just this passing hour, but lay down lasting foundations for the long-term strength of our country.

    My Lord Mayor, I believe in this country’s future. It is a time for hope, and a time for confidence. Let us show those qualities and there will be few limits to what this country can achieve.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to European Policy Forum – 27 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the European Policy Forum on 27th July 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    THE ROLE AND LIMITS OF THE STATE

    The party I lead has always been a party of change and reform. But we’re a conservative party. Our instincts are for stability. We are wary of schemes to uproot what is familiar. So in discussing the role and limits of the state I am not going to unveil some new constitutional blueprint. I don’t think this country needs politicians throwing the British constitution up in the air to see how the broken pieces fall.

    Today, we are opening up the map of how Britain is governed. It’s a big agenda, dwarfing any changes we’ve seen since the modern pattern of government was established. Times change; needs change. But change must come against a stable background.

    So you will find me wary of change in the basis of our constitutional settlement – the Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; wary of new voting systems. You will find me opposed to those who think that national identity must be suppressed in the interests of political progress. I strongly reject that view. The nation state is the greatest fixed point in our political firmament. You cannot suppress the individualism of an island race. We are content to build on consensus and co-operation, unwilling to accept centralism and direction.

    In my first speeches as Prime Minister I placed wider personal ownership and higher quality in public service at the heart of our objectives for the 1990s. In 1991, I called for a revolution in ownership. I said then:

    “I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives. For every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for the future. Building the self-respect that comes from ownership, and showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect: that is our programme for the 1990s. I will put it in a single phrase; the power to choose – and the right to own.”

    Conservatives have always stood for ownership. As well as ownership of property we need ownership of the important decisions in our own life. Which school for our children? What skill training for ourselves? What pension provision for our retirement? These are decisions for individual adults. To deliver these choices, I believed we needed a second revolution – in the way public services are delivered.

    As a councillor in Lambeth 25 years ago, I saw the alienation between bureaucracy and people, and I didn’t like what I saw. So in 1991, with the Citizen’s Charter, I launched a long-term programme to make services much more responsive to the people who use them.

    In the past four years much has been achieved in making government more accountable and in raising the quality of service. We are pursuing change not for the sake of change, but change for the sake of people. And today, as a result, when people want to learn something about reinventing government, they come to Britain to do so.

    The role of government

    Ownership and choice are essential to put power in the hands of people rather than government. The longer I’ve been Prime Minister, the more certain I’ve become that government should be wary of interference, and aware of its limitations.

    Over the years, the role of the state grows almost imperceptibly unless it is deliberately kept in check: a little subsidy here, a bit more regulation there, another Directive just there. We can no more stop fighting the battle against “big government” than the gardener can stop mowing the lawn or digging out the ground elder. We must resist the clamour for government action, magnified by pressure groups, on almost every item of news. It is one of the greatest follies of the late twentieth century.

    In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher began to roll back the frontiers of the state, with privatisation, deregulation and the restoration of personal incentives. We have cut back state-owned industry by two thirds. Price controls, dividend controls, exchange controls have faded into history. So have income tax rates of 83p and even 98p in the pound.

    But more is needed. For example, we did not manage to stem the tide of European regulation during the 1980s. Now we have put up breakwaters: the principle of “minimum interference” we secured at Maastricht; and, of course, our opt-out from the Social Chapter, enshrined in a legally-binding protocol. With the German government, we are working to reduce regulations across Europe.

    The tide is turning. The number of proposals for new directives tabled by the European Commission has fallen from 185 in 1990 to some 25 so far this year. The Commission has acknowledged that one quarter of its statute book needs to be revised or repealed.

    At all levels my ambition is smaller government, efficient government, effective government, responsive government. When we say this, some ask if it is our ambition all but to abolish government. My response is no. I do believe that government has a vital, indispensable role to play. But I also believe strongly that the role of the state should be more limited.

    We see economic growth as the opportunity to reduce the public sector’s share of national income. Others take a different view. When they talk of using growth to pay for their pledges, they mean quite the reverse: expropriating the benefits of growth from those who created it. The second key difference, of course, is that we understand how that growth is created: and that if you plan to pay for your promises out of other people’s efforts, you are likely to find they down tools.

    So we see personal incentives as the key to growth; and growth as an opportunity to reinforce them – at all levels. I am glad that even in our recent difficult budgets, we were able to widen the band of income across which the taxman may only take 20 per cent. When we can, we will take this further. Our ambitions to limit taxes on the least well off are far from satisfied.

    To succeed in this, we need constantly to review what we do in Government and how we do it. Government must make a first-rate job of protecting the citizen; – defending this country, upholding law and order. It must provide high quality education and health – and security for the old, the sick, and others who depend on our welfare system.

    But we need reform even in these areas. Putting the front line first, getting the basics right, securing the best value for the taxpayer’s money and applying good old-fashioned commonsense: these are the disciplines being applied in every part of government.

    We live in a time of unprecedented social change. This throws up new problems. Government has a part to play in solving them. But it must recognise the limits on its wisdom and watch the unintended consequences of its action. Let me give an illustration. I have never hidden my ambition to extend nursery education, when the resources are available. But it would be destructive to enlarge it solely through LEAs and wreck private and voluntary provision. In all our policies, we must leave space for communities and voluntary associations. We must not let big government undermine the vitality of neighbourhood or family – stronger, more adaptable organisms than any structure the state may try to put in their place.

    In welfare, for example, we need a system that reinforces people’s efforts to be independent; and does not undermine them when they seek to improve their lives by their own efforts.

    The state must not hold people down in a culture of dependency. Throughout the 1992 Election campaign, I repeatedly referred to the need to give a “hand up”, not a “hand out”. Since then, we have developed policies to provide that hand up. It is not enough to adopt these words as a slogan. You have to have the policies to make such aspirations a reality.

    As a Social Security Minister in 1986 I helped Norman Fowler begin the reform of the social security system. We introduced Family Credit, which tackled the worst distortions of the poverty trap by the creative new device of assessing benefit on take-home pay. In the last Budget, the Chancellor enhanced this system for working parents.

    The welfare system must complement the working of free and flexible labour markets. It is a job that offers the best hope of a secure route out of poverty. And thankfully, many new jobs are now being created.

    Making it more attractive to hire people and more attractive to be hired will help cut into the bedrock of long-term unemployment. We need a more coherent approach to getting people back to work. So we are introducing a new Job Seeker’s Allowance, which will stop people being shunted from pillar to post between two administrative systems. This will help the system to respond to the needs of those who are unemployed.

    We are now looking at a range of ways of encouraging people back into jobs, coupled with tougher action on that small minority who make no reasonable effort to seek work.

    The ownership revolution

    Concern for the individual. The defence of private property. And the protection of the citizen against the power of the state. These have always been central objectives of Conservatism. The central objective of socialism, by contrast, has always been the pursuit of equality. Egalitarians find allocation more palatable than choice. They put uniformity before improvement. That means more power to the state and less to the individual. If they had believed in ownership, as we do, they would never have opposed council tenants’ aspirations for home ownership – the biggest transfer of wealth and power from the state to the individual of the past 15 years.

    When the housing market overheated and fell at the end of the 1980s, it claimed many victims amongst those who had bought at the peak of the boom. The collectivist Jeremiahs drew the wrong conclusion: not that Government must try harder to maintain a stable economy, but that home ownership was fool’s gold. Out there in the real world, however, people still aspire to own their own home. There were more than half a million first-time buyers in 1993-94. Some 111,000 council tenants applied for the Right to Buy that year. Opinion surveys suggest that nearly three-quarters of people under 25 aspire to be home owners.

    When I called for “the right to own” and “the power to choose” to be spread from the minority to the majority, I saw homes as only the first step. The corporatists, the collectivists, the central planners cannot cope with the notion of “popular capitalism”. They resent other hands on the levers of power – most of all the “invisible hand” of the market. But the freedom represented by your own savings, your own income in retirement, are sources of independence I wish to see enjoyed throughout society.

    It is beginning to happen. Pensioners’ incomes from investments have more than doubled since 1979. For the newly retired, it has nearly trebled. More than half of all pensioners now have an occupational pension. As a result, their average income has risen by more than 50 per cent, ahead of inflation, since 1979.

    But the savings habit is spreading wider. Since I introduced TESSAs only five years ago, a total of almost £21 1/2 billion has been invested in them; and there are currently just over 4 million TESSA accounts. The total invested in PEPS – over 4 1/2 million plans – now amounts to over £15 billion. Nearly 38 million people now have building society accounts. The amount held is almost £200 billion. There are over 60 million personal bank accounts, containing over£ 120 billion, while 8 million people have personal pensions. Well over 3 million people now run their own businesses. And there are today more shareholders – 10 million of them – than trade unionists.

    Money widens choice. Low income tax rates widen choice. But there are other, more subtle, forms of ownership, too. I want people to have ownership of more of their lives, not just have things allocated as the state sees fit.

    The Right to Buy gave choice in housing which over 1 1/2 million people have exercised. Parents in over 1,100 schools have voted for their school to be Grant-Maintained – unequivocally free to manage itself independent of the Town Hall. I want to see far more GM schools in the future. Parents now have a choice of schools; and we are relaxing the rules that used to prevent popular schools from expanding or good new schools coming into being.

    But crucial to choice is information. Without knowing what is on offer, choice is meaningless. So we have launched an information explosion which I believe is irreversible. It may have worried many whose services can now be judged by their results. But such information meets the wishes of the public. It is here to stay – and to be developed further.

    The public sector revolution

    This ownership revolution requires a transformation in the way government conducts its business – an overhaul I signalled three years ago in the Citizen’s Charter.

    Concern for the individual as the user of public services: concern for the individual as taxpayer. These lay behind the privatisation programme which began in the 1980s. Today, the total number of major businesses returned to private ownership has reached 47. The total raised, to pay off public debt and finance future services, has topped £55 billion. it is hard to remember now that every privatisation was criticised at the time as “a bridge too far” – even the sale of British Telecom, whose customers have since enjoyed a 30 per cent fall in phone charges, and whose shareholders have enjoyed a threefold rise in the cash value of their investment. The pattern of greater efficiency and better customer services is repeated throughout privatised companies.

    But there was a danger that those public services we believed should remain the responsibility of the state would be left behind by the stream of privatisation: that they would drift along, stagnant and second best. That was the challenge I faced: how to promote excellence in all parts of the public service – in our public education system, our National Health Service; and our social services. The Citizen’s Charter was conceived as a programme, above all, for raising standards.

    Just because the state remains responsible for ensuring a public service is provided, it does not mean that it should be deprived of the energies of private enterprise, the stimulus of the free market, or the clarity of independent regulation which have transformed privatised companies. The task for the 1990s was to find ways of applying these within the public sector. Today, as our reforms advance, the boundary between public and private is open country, which an enabling government can scour for the best ways of using limited taxpayer’s money.

    Five ways to break down boundaries

    So let me outline five ways in which we are mapping out this new territory.

    First, we are continuing our privatisation programme, tackling more complex areas.

    Second, we are bringing in private capital, to make better use of taxpayers’ money, and introducing the skills of private enterprise into the public sector.

    Third, we are bringing competition and choice into public services.

    Fourth, we are devolving power within government itself.

    And fifth, we are developing a “new accountability” – making public services respond more directly to the people who use them.

    Let me say a little more about each of these in turn.

    The new privatisations

    First, there are still industries in public ownership which need to be revitalised by private enterprise and competition.

    The focus today is on industries which had seemed doomed to be locked in the grip of the state forever. To liberate them we need to develop new ways of safeguarding their public service obligations. For example, whatever the outcome of our consultations on the Post Office, we will maintain a universal letter service, and a universal charge for delivery. We are now consulting on whether these obligations are best maintained by partial privatisation or by another route.

    Another example is the privatisation of British Rail. Here competition is being introduced into many parts of the old monolith. But we will continue to provide subsidies for train operating companies which are uncommercial. And, at the same time, we will require all franchises to meet, as a minimum, the standards of service set out in BR’s Passengers’ Charter.

    Private Finance

    Second, we are finding new ways of engaging private capital, to make every pound of taxpayer’s money go further. The City Challenge programme involves 1.2 billion of public spending. But its effects will be multiplied by the £3.6 billion contributed by private sector partners. In Wigan, challenge funding was the seedcorn whose harvest is 2,000 new homes, 5,000 new jobs; and 800 new businesses in derelict areas of industrial decline. In East London, Manchester, all our big cities, you can see the same thing. And we have extended the principle of challenge funding to the new Single Regeneration Budget, which will be the cornerstone of our future urban policies.

    The private finance initiative offers even greater potential for change. It levers in private capital, shares risk with the private sector and brings in its management skills. It is showing that the taxpayer need not finance all our economic infrastructure. The Dartford Bridge and Channel Tunnel are already open. The new Ashford Passenger terminal, another private finance project, is already being built.

    We hope to agree a contract for a new train service for London Underground’s Northern Line by the end of the year, and contracts for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by next summer. In the autumn, we will be going out to tender for the first four privately built, financed and operated roads. And tender documents are going out this week to five consortia bidding to build two privately-financed prisons. All these are projects which in the past would have had to be financed entirely by taxpayers – if they had ever seen the light of day at all.

    Private finance involves complex issues. Sharing risk between public and private sectors is not simply a matter of splitting the difference. But to make the best use of limited capital spending, we need to make sure each and every government department is looking for ways to use private finance to supplement taxpayer resources.

    I am not convinced that they are. We asked departments to prepare a list of projects suitable for private finance. We will shortly publish this. It will show up some gaps. Some departments face legal obstacles. Where these exist, we must remove them. But all departments need to know that, as the private finance initiative develops, Ministers will have to convince EDX – the Cabinet Committee which allocates public spending – that they have fully explored private finance options. I am determined to ensure that every service gains from this initiative.

    Competition and Choice

    Third, we are letting competition and choice into the public sector as a spur to efficiency. In health, we have separated the function of paying for care for the patient from providing care for the patient. The OECD recently described these reforms as giving Britain “one of the most sophisticated and effective means of allocating health resources.” The results have been dramatic. Our hospitals are treating one million more patients a year.

    Competition has a wonderful habit of concentrating the minds of those between whom a choice might be made. So we have also been inviting private companies to bid for government work. Nowadays, we are not just letting out contracts to maintain buildings and clean streets, but to do white collar work as well. For example, the Inland Revenue has signed a 10-year contract, worth £250 million, to have its IT support work done in the private sector. By May of this year, some £1.3 billion of central government activities had been “market-tested” under the Competing for Quality programme. On the results so far, average savings to the taxpayer from both “in-house” and outside bids have been of the order of 20 per cent. Tight control of running costs will mean that all Departments must continue to pursue such efficiency. That will be good for the quality of service and good for the taxpayer.

    Taking decisions at the right level

    Fourth, we want to push power away from the centre of government itself. In the Civil Service we have some of the best talent in Britain. We aim to exploit it better. This means giving departments more freedom to manage their own affairs, and separating out agencies so that they can be more responsive to their customers. We’ve taken this approach right down to the local level: liberating Grant-Maintained schools from political control, and giving fundholding GPs and hospital trusts the chance to set their own, local priorities.

    Quality of government and quantity of government are two very different things. Unnecessary layers of government do more for bureaucracy than democracy. There is no such thing as an idle piece of government machinery. If it exists, someone will use it to spend money or regulate something – and probably both. I reject much of the mindless criticism of management we have seen. But it is clear, for example, that we do have too many layers of administration in the health service. Good managers have helped to deliver improved health care for millions of people. But we can simplify the structure and improve further. So one priority for the next parliamentary session is a Health Services Bill to axe the regional health authorities and thin out the alphabet soup by allowing DHAs and FHSAs to merge.

    Sometimes we are told-that-you cannot have true accountability unless locally elected politicians monopolise all the local bodies involved in public services in their area. I do not share that view. I believe strongly in local government. But I want to encourage other members of the community to give their expertise, get involved and take on more responsibility.

    At present, for example, not everyone who can contribute to better policing by serving on a police authority has the time or political inclination to serve as a magistrate or councillor. So our reforms will allow for an injection of other local talent: such as headteachers experienced in dealing with the drugs problem, farmers who can help in the fight against rural crime, business people who will ask hard questions about how the police use their resources.

    As our reforms progress, they do, of course, sometimes create new pieces of machinery as well as removing old ones. But in a more transparent system there will be more accountability, because it will be clearer where the blame for the inevitable mistakes should lie. New managers have to accept that the price of their freedom is personal responsibility and pay linked to delivering their objectives. Whitehall, for its pan, has to accept that part of the price of liberating the energies and talents of local management is that it cannot control every decision in every hospital or every school. However, there are some in Whitehall, the Town Hall or some of the new agencies who find it hard to give up the degree of control they have traditionally exercised. Politicians and press often discourage them from doing so by scattering indiscriminate blame on them. The result, too often, is that those being charged with new responsibilities as local decision-takers are being snowed under by forms and circulars from the centre, as bureaucracy guards its back.

    I do not want to see the new freedoms we have given to local schools and hospitals, for example, restricted by new red tape and regulation. I don’t want to see another circular the length of a telephone directory, or to be told that it normally requires 14 forms to bring a simple prosecution against a shoplifter, who actually wishes to plead guilty. Of course, those who run local services must be accountable – but too many people seem to confuse accountability with bureaucracy. There is a difference – and I expect Ministers to be able to spot it.

    And there’s something else that I believe would help: circulars should spell out much more clearly the difference between a statutory obligation and recommended practices. I want all departments to make sure their circulars are produced in such a way that those reading them will be able to tell the limit of their statutory obligations without difficulty. This would go a long way to eliminating back door bureaucracy.

    The listening service

    Fifth, we have been making public services respond directly to the people who use them. Informing people is the first step – one too easily undervalued by people who are naturally articulate, have access to people in the system or simply don’t use public services. I recall in the early days of the Citizen’s Charter, a distinguished former mandarin belittling the idea of regular school reports. “Of course,” he said, “all schools already send parents reports”. Well, he was wrong. They should have done. But many didn’t. They all do, now.

    Published targets tell people what they are entitled to expect. Performance tables tell you when these obligations have been met. Under the Citizen’s Charter, public services now publish information on the performance of individual schools, hospitals and police forces. By the end of December, every local authority will have published information – in their local newspapers – about their performance on everything from response times to 999 calls, to the time it takes to process your planning application. This is a revolution that the grand may belittle. But it is one by which the ordinary family is empowered. And the results of publishing targets are beginning to speak for themselves.

    In 1989, before we published targets for waiting times for operations, 90,000 people were waiting over two years before they were treated. Today, no-one should be waiting over two years. Before we published punctuality targets for public transport, no-one knew if their local line was better or worse than the next one. Now they do. The result? Punctuality improved. How long you have to wait for an operation, for your train, for an ambulance: those aren’t just dry statistics for the accountant and the experts. They are of vital interest to everyone.

    Publishing more information may mean that the Government faces more criticism. That may seem a perverse reward for greater openness. But it is better to have things out in the open and face the criticism, rather than have things swept under the carpet. When you shine a spotlight into a dark corner you may not always like what you find. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t shine the spotlight. You need to know if something is going wrong because that is the first step to putting it right.

    We can no longer be expected to believe that every element of public service is doing as good a job as any other, or that the only way to improve services is to spend more money. The league tables recently published on hospital performance showed that for four routine operations – all of which were medically agreed to be suitable for day surgery – some hospitals were doing nearly all operations as day cases and some were doing none. League tables have forced into the open the question of why taxpayers’ money goes further in some places than others. And I want no-one to be in any doubt that they are here to stay.

    The new public sector

    So the public sector is changing and will change further. In the future it will not only be smaller but less monolithic. We published a White Paper on the Civil Service just a fortnight ago. We aim to encourage the civil service to modernise and develop within a framework which maintains its traditional values of integrity and political impartiality. It will be unbundling the general task of administration into distinct, vital – and valued – skills: whether in framing policy, defining objectives, setting standards, articulating relationships between different parts of the system. purchasing services either in the open market or within government itself.

    The relationship of departments with the providers of service – be they doctors, teachers or administrators – should become ever more transparent. Providers will come in all shapes and sizes – some still directly employed by the state, some on contract. The common factor should be that they will all have clearly-defined standards to meet, combined with management responsibility for how these are met.

    And there will be another group of specialists with a duty to secure quality service for the public – the inspectors and regulators. Again, some of these may be outside the public sector itself, with their roles defined but not managed by the state.

    OFSTED is just one example. This new body will secure, for the first time ever, systematic inspection and reporting on all Britain’s 24,000 schools in the next four years. Once this cycle is completed OFSTED’s work will continue, although I should expect it to focus in greater depth on those schools where results are covered up or found to be weakest. This new four-year cycle is a huge step forward. Previously, it would have taken HMl some 60 years to get round secondary schools, and 200 years round all primaries.

    The way ahead

    We will be legislating shortly to take these reforms further.

    Our Pensions Bill is designed to give greater security, equality and choice. We will underpin occupational pensions with new protection against the possibility and the consequences of fraud. New age-related rebates will make personal pensions attractive across a broader age range. And, as a first step towards greater freedom in retirement, personal pension holders will be allowed to buy annuities at the time which suits them most.

    We will be introducing greater freedom and choice by liberalising the law on Agricultural Tenancies. And we will be setting the legislative framework for the new Jobseeker’s Allowance.

    The bill to authorise the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will provide the framework for a massive private finance project. And by one means or another, we will be giving the Post Office new freedom to expand its services, here and abroad.

    We will be thinning out the layers of management in the Health Service. And where appropriate we will be reducing the number of tiers in local government.

    The fight against regulation is never won – but the successful passage of the Deregulation Bill will mean we have the option to repeal unnecessary legislation by secondary powers. This will greatly help our deregulatory campaign.

    What we are seeing – and what I have described for you today – are far-reaching changes in the nature of Government. Britain’s lead is again being imitated in many parts of the world. But behind the changing forms of Government, the principles of public service remain unchanged.

    I expect my ministerial team to put government on the citizen’s side: to control public spending, cut back on regulations, deliver on their Charter targets, listen to ordinary people and give them greater ownership of their own lives. I want government that devolves, that gives the citizen greater space to build communities which are not dominated by the state.

    There are better ways of acting together than in a state-run collective, and you can find them in every city, town and village in this country. Local communities are a precious part of this country’s inheritance. They are nourished by personal ownership, which increases people’s sense of personal responsibility: you only have to look at the council homes people have bought if you want proof of that. They are supported by changes in public services of the kind I have described.

    So the two revolutions therefore help to conserve what is best in this country: that is the very purpose of a Conservative government. And I believe government can do that best by delivering people the power to choose, the right to own, in a secure environment, a stable constitution and a strong economy.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Inverness on 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today of all days I want to talk not of partisan politics, but of our country and its prospects.

    There are occasions when it is right to turn aside from the clamour of political differences.

    Yesterday, this conference adjourned to mark its respect for one of our country’s political leaders. An opponent, yes. A gifted and an honourable opponent. Undoubtedly. But a partner, too. A partner in that mission which is central to politics. The guest to build a stronger democracy, a better country, a richer life for all.

    All of us here are people to whom our families matter deeply. John Smith was a family man. And our thoughts and prayers go out, above all, to his family in their grief – in a time of loss for which no words suffice, and into which no-one should seek to intrude.

    The reaction to John’s death tells us much about our country. It showed the priceless asset of the essential decency of the British. We can weep for a good man – even an opponent – because we recognise his qualities.

    This reminds us that there are things higher than politics and, across all divisions, common bonds of humanity that unite us all.

    I liked John Smith. The nation saw us set up in artificial confrontation twice a week in the House of Commons. That was part of our political process – and I make no complaint of that.

    But people did not see behind the scenes. There is friendship in politics, there is decency, there are private relationships across all Parties, there is principle and there is respect and understanding for the beliefs and the convictions of others. What a shame it is that that becomes apparent so rarely.

    Mr President, I must confess to you that I often have little taste for the politics of point-scoring or for the belittling of others. I have none today. I care passionately for what I believe in. But I don’t care passionately for damning what other people believe in. If we could attack the policies of others, but respect their motives, then politics would have a fresher feel than it does today.

    Let us be truthful with ourselves. Across all Europe there is a lower regard for politics than I can ever remember. And, as democrats, we should worry about that.

    Politics isn’t just about power. As you grow more experienced you see the limits on the power of action, limits set by the need to persuade others and carry them with you. Limits set by the capacity of our country to create the wealth and resources needed to fulfil our ambitions.

    No, it isn’t just about power. It’s about ideals. Hopes. Ambitions.

    In politics you never lose the ideals of youth. You always travel in hope. And you never forget your long-term principles.

    There are twists and turns, moments of exhilaration and achievement, and times, too, of disappointment and despair. But you pick yourself up, take on the next task, and go on forward. Because you always have a long-term aim in view.

    Mr President, I sometimes wish that side of politics was more evident. I know politicians of all Parties. And they are not the cynical, power-hungry, self-servers that fiction so often portrays. There is such a thing as public service in this country. And our politicians generally subscribe to it.

    Too often our politics is rooted in old battles, not new opportunities.

    Of course we differ greatly in our philosophy; in our beliefs as to how to do the best for Britain. But sometimes, too, we share a common purpose.

    The War-time coalition and the Labour and Conservative Governments that followed all worked to strengthen the welfare state, develop the Health Service, put in place the modern system of education that Rab Butler had worked to create, and which culminated in his great Education Act of 1944.

    The achievement of Conservatism in the present generation has been to redress the balance between the state and the individual. To extend choice and ownership, to build the right climate for industrial growth and expansion, to set the ambitions, the hopes, and the capacity of every family free.

    I don’t believe those achievements either will ever be challenged or changed. We have created a special British cocktail of free enterprise, tempered with social justice. A wider ownership of homes, shares and pensions than almost any nation in Europe, but a free health service which those overseas envy and admire.

    That will never change. When my parents were old and unwell and without any money, they were well treated. It made an abiding impression on me that they had the security and comfort of mind to know that. While I am Prime Minister, that will never change.

    All of us in politics – national or local – have our role to play. Whether we are players on the stage, or supporters in the wings, or commentators in the front of house, we all have our responsibilities.

    Sometimes I feel – and I don’t only mean in the reporting of politics – that there is too much knocking, too much carping, too much sneering. Too much setting up of Aunt Sally against Aunt Sally.

    Being negative can be an addictive drug. It’s easy. Because we all know how easy it is to do something, if you don’t have to do it yourself. But like any drug it corrodes and destroys the body in which it exists. And one body it runs the risk of corrupting is the body politic of the nation itself.

    If politicians fight – in Party and across Party – like ferrets in a sack on every issue, is it surprising if the public turns away?

    Let’s not be negative here today. Let’s be positive. And look at what’s happened in Britain in the last two years alone, and at our prospects for the future.

    We have achieved an impressive revival from recession – well ahead of the rest of Europe.

    We have the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation.

    We have growth in the UK – twice as high as anywhere in Europe, and set to continue next year.

    We have public services forced by the Citizen’s Charter to tailor their performance to the needs of the public and to raise their standards year by year.

    We have a National Health Service, in which local doctors have more say than ever, and in which we are treating more patients than ever before – and treating them better.

    We have set reforms in place to raise standards in our schools and to improve the quality of training for young people.

    One third of our young people are now going on to university.

    And crime is now falling in Scotland and throughout the UK.

    That is the reality of what’s happening.

    Mr President, I have not come here to hide the challenges we still face. On the back of a world-wide recession Government is a tough business everywhere. We often have to do things that seem perverse today because we believe they will be right tomorrow.

    Our job is to look long-term, plan long-term, achieve long- term. Set a framework for lasting prosperity. To ensure we don’t go through such difficulties again.

    Some people may not like some of the action we’ve had to take – but our duty is to make the right choices for Britain’s future. It isn’t our job to do things to court short-term popularity, if they have a long-term cost.

    Obligations are painful things. So are difficult decisions. But often they are necessary for the sake of future generations. So that their prospects are not just as good, but better than ours.

    But that is what we’re in Government for.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people”. That’s how Disraeli once put it.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people” – Mr President, that is why I am a Conservative – why we are all Conservatives. And why this party must always frame its policies, not by the yardstick of ideology, but by how closely they touch the everyday lives of the people.

    We mustn’t live in a world of theory. Our theatre must not be the academic clique or the Party caucus. Our theatre is the home, the family, the business, the voluntary group. That is the world from which Conservatism grows.

    Our Party is at its strongest wherever it strikes a chord with the commonsense of the British people. When Conservative canvassers came to my door in Lambeth all those years ago they spoke a language I and the people I knew could readily understand.

    The things they cared about were the things we all care about – how to get on in life, how to take our own decisions, how to acquire new skills, save money, own a home and leave a better start for our children and grandchildren than we ever had ourselves.

    Even to the dependent Conservatism spoke the language of independence. Even to the insecure it offered security.

    It did then. And it must today. Somehow we must break through the artificial frenzy that so often masquerades as political debate and focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent. That, I believe, is what people want and what our political system needs.

    The Conservative agenda

    Last autumn I spoke of a malaise that I saw creeping across our country. A cloud of unease and uncertainty in the face of constant challenges to the standards that people hold dear.

    I said that our first duty was to dispel that anxiety, answer the worries people have, and draw deep at the well of commonsense instinct as we did.

    I set out there my programme for the rest of this Parliament.

    First, to see through – come what may – our policies for a strong stable economy. That we are doing – through low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.

    It is easy to write off now the importance of the fight against inflation. That is a mistake that I will never allow this Government to make.

    I know from experience what inflation does. What it is like at the end of the week if you’re not sure you’re going to have enough money left over to pay the bills. I grew up in a hard part of London. We shared the house with all sorts of odd characters. Inflation wasn’t our only problem – but it was one of the worst. I know what it is like at the sharp end, what it’s like to struggle on fixed incomes. And so long as I am Prime Minister containing inflation will continue to be a cornerstone of our policy and a touchstone of its success.

    The second goal I set in Blackpool was to bring about a seachange in our approach to crime. Shift the balance in criminal policy decisively against the villain after a generation of liberal ideas. Put punishment back on the agenda. Reject forever the fatal idea that crime can ever be excused.

    If you don’t give young people guidelines and rules you are not helping them. Children who start with a small offence and are not brought up short will commit a bigger offence and then a bigger one, and, before you know it, they’re into serious crime. It is no good if when a young criminal gets caught all he gets is a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

    We have embarked on a shift in policy on crime, not to turn back the clock – of course not, Dickensian attitudes have no relevance today – but to turn up the heat on the criminal. I make not a shred of apology for that. The British people are heartily sick of the apologists for crime. And the crackdown that’s needed has only begun.

    The third target I have set for the ‘90s is to raise standards in our schools. Without that Britain will not be able to compete in the world. We need to sweep aside the progressive dogma that has done so much damage. Extend parents’ choice. Insist on the basics. Make sure we get the best results for every child. And see that those results are reported, and, what is equally essential, tested.

    Mr President, I simply do not understand opposition to testing. I sent my children to school to learn – so do all parents. You can’t just wrap children in cottonwool. Life itself is a test – and you have to prepare them for it. Compete is what children do naturally. Just put four small children together and see what they do. They see who can run fastest or jump highest. So we will be introducing more competitive games and we will stick to our guns on testing.

    Mr President, in the last six months we have taken huge strides in carrying forward the agenda I set out in Blackpool. Inflation is right down. We have the biggest crime-fighting bill for years before Parliament. And, through teacher training reform, we are putting the last pieces into the mosaic of education reform.

    That is the road this country must follow – and that is the road down which I and this Party will lead.

    Mr President, the mandate we won from over 14 million people was a mandate which runs for 5 years. We are not yet half way through – and I intend to complete it. And then I shall say:

    “Judge me on my whole term of office. All of it. You can’t judge a house when only the foundations are laid”.

    A changing world

    If we are to achieve our social objectives we must have strong economic foundations on which to build.

    There are new and ever greater demands on our resources. But there’s only one way to create the wealth that we need. Through business success.

    We have to lift our eyes from the short-term headlines. Look to the long-term. The world is changing faster than ever before. Just look at the changes there have been.

    Operations that 15 years ago were unheard of now happen almost every day. Young people today have opportunities that our parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of. In future it will not be enough to learn just one skill at 16 and do the same thing all through a lifetime.

    People are living longer than ever before. More people are going into higher education than ever before. Those are all good changes, changes we’ve worked for, changes we want, changes that are making people’s lives better.

    But they all have a cost. We need to pay for them. But we don’t want high taxation. So the challenge for us is to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that we can generate the wealth that we need for the improvements we wish to bring about.

    For today we face a world more competitive than ever before. Not just from America and Japan but from new countries in the Far East, once our captive markets, now our active competitors.

    We must look forward to the world in which our children will live. In the 21st century we’re going to have a world dominated by Japan, the United States and China. The European Community has a choice to make – will it be with those players or will it not?

    The importance of Europe

    I hope it will be, but it is not certain unless Europe follows the right policies. I would give Europe this warning. Unless it makes the right choices about policy today – unless it adopts free market policies – and believes in them – Europe won’t be up there in the next century with the US, Japan and China. It will slide behind.

    That is why Britain must play its full part in Europe. Not just for our own sake, but for Europe’s too.

    Nearly 200 years ago William Pitt said Britain “has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

    I know that the issue of Europe runs deep in British politics. It touches emotions more profoundly than routine political differences. It raises concerns and fears that are too often played on too readily. For too long Europe has been the poison in the well of British politics.

    Here, too, far too many people present the European debate in fundamentalist terms.

    People are “for it” or “against it”.

    We “must do this” or “mustn’t do that”.

    Everyone, to paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, is either “a little Eurosceptic” or “a little Europhile”.

    This approach misses the real debate. The real debate must be about how we make Europe a success; how to make sure it raises enthusiasm, not resentment; how to make sure it raises the quality of our life and is not seen as threatening the nature of our life.

    What we are talking about in the debate on Europe is our national interest. Our jobs. Our future. And yet far too many people on both sides of the argument miss this wider point. They focus on narrow arguments as though we were fighting a holy war.

    So let us remember the fundamental economic realities.

    British business depends on Europe. Well over half of what we export, we export to Europe.

    We need a place in European Community if we are to continue to attract inward investors to Britain.

    And we need influence in Europe, if we are to make sure that our businesses have the right conditions in which to trade.

    Europe is absolutely fundamental to this country’s national interest. We cannot turn our backs on that. It would be the ultimate abdication, a supreme folly. Limit our horizons and we limit our future. A little country in a lost world.

    I am a Euro realist. I look at Britain’s interests with a cold and clear eye. Britain has a special place in the world. Alone of all nations we live and move in three distinct circles – NATO, the Commonwealth, and the European Community. Each and everyone is a shaping factor in our long-term foreign policy and our own national interest.

    We have a special feeling about America. We are intimately bound up with its history, language and culture. I am one- quarter American. My father lived in America for a number of years. But Americans are realists, too. They want a good relationship with Britain. But, today, one of the main reasons they do is because Britain is in Europe. If Britain’s commitment to Europe was in question, have no doubt – the Americans would look elsewhere for their closest allies – to Germany or to France. They are no more dreamy-eyed about international relations than we are.

    Diplomacy is a calculation of where long-term advantage lies. And, for Britain, that advantage is in Europe.

    Mr President, I don’t accept the argument that a British government, fully involved in Europe, cannot win the battle to shape and mould the future of Europe.

    Who says we can’t win the argument against centralism in Europe? We can and we must.

    Conservative Governments won on the rebate.

    Won on the Single Market.

    Won on subsidiarity.

    And we are winning on deregulation.

    Britain should be confident in Europe.

    One final point. I don’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy that if you disagree with current fashionable opinions in Europe that you are anti-European.

    That is not true. The good European does not rush like Pavlov’s dog to every European fancy.

    He judges what is right for Europe. What will attract the support of the people of Europe. What will retain their liberties – their traditions. And then he fights for it – and that is what we will do.

    Why Conservative?

    Mr President, for the moment the world of politics pauses.

    But in a short while the people of this country will be called, with the rest of Europe, to take up the work of democracy again. And in the European elections we shall put our case to the country on the kind of Europe we want to build.

    You know what I believe in.

    I want to see a wider Europe, which spreads the protective mantle of peace, security and prosperity to the troubled countries of the East.

    I want to see an open Europe in which the weight of bureaucracy and regulation is reduced, and we embrace wholeheartedly the goal of a great single market open for business, competition and trade.

    And I want to see a people’s Europe. One that is not the remote preserve of a circle of planners. But a Community that addresses the concerns of ordinary people – and never seeks to interfere where it does not need.

    Our guiding lights are the principles of free trade, free enterprise and free association.

    Our aim is still to build closer co-operation between a growing number of nations.

    But we shall stand always for individual choice.

    Cherish always national diversity.

    And never deviate for one instant from defence of Britain’s own national interest.

    Our vision remains as it ever has been – a strong Britain in a strong Europe. That vision is supported by all but a handful of the people in these islands.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, I am proud of what Conservative Governments have achieved for our country. And I am full of hope and confidence in what this country still can and will achieve.

    Over the last 15 years we have helped change Britain.

    When I entered Parliament Britain faced real and visible threats.

    Our economy was ravaged by inflation.

    Our industrial strength was sapped by trade union power.

    Our country was threatened by the armed might of the Communist bloc.

    Together we have seen that great external threat dissolve.

    And we have seen many of our internal problems so successfully resolved that many have forgotten the dragons that once stalked the land.

    Of course, in the modern world, new challenges constantly arise. And the pace of invention lays new opportunities and new ambitions in our path.

    But it is all too easy to forget how remarkably the face of our country has changed for the better.

    Today, a child growing up in Scotland is twice as likely to go to university, twice as likely to become a homeowner, and has far better job prospects. Not jobs in declining state owned industries, but jobs in growing industries – profitable businesses with better pay and better working conditions than we’ve ever known before.

    So whenever the storm blows, remember the successes we’ve had – and why we had them.

    We had them because, even when the going was toughest, we stuck to our last, stuck to our guns; we kept cool and we kept faith.

    Throughout all the ups and downs of the last 15 years – and together we’ve seen a few of them both – fashionable opinion has carped and criticised.

    I know many of you were with me in Edinburgh two years ago at that great rally in our General election campaign.

    We didn’t bow then to fashionable opinion. We took it on, shook it by the scruff of the neck, and turned it on its head.

    That Election was about something more profound than many before it. About the very structure and fabric of the nation state our ancestors fought to create. People saw clearly two great threats to our Kingdom – the siren songs of separation at home and surrender abroad.

    It was here in Scotland that we drew the line in the sand. We declared that we could not – we would not – whatever the cost, whatever the risk – compromise our deepest core beliefs, and put our nation at risk.

    We stand – by gut instinct – in defence of the ancient Union between four great nations. For one strong, united country whose voice is heard and respected abroad, as four small nations – however proud – could never be.

    The values we care about are the values that generation after generation in this country have lived for and lived by. I believe that Britain needs those values now, more than ever before.

    So, when the work of politics begins again, let us go out and campaign positively for what we believe in – with pride in our principles, confidence in our future, and faith in our country, the United Kingdom – that unique and special country – that means so much to us all.