Tag: Citizen”s Charter

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Charter Mark Winners – 27 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Charter Mark Winners Conference, held on 27th October 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to Basics: Public Services

    Three weeks ago, I spoke of the need to return to commonsense values: courtesy, neighbourliness, consideration for others, and individual responsibility.

    I meant what I said. It is time to stop feeling embarrassed about wanting to do right by other people; time to stop belittling those who believe that there is something more to life than self gratification. Time to encourage and reward people who look beyond self interest to acknowledge their responsibility to others.

    It is time to say, and to say clearly, that there are some people who devote their lives to public service. Not because it pays well, not because it is more secure, but because it is more fulfilling. For them, public service is a vocation.

    They are the unsung heroes, who work as long as it takes to get the work done, who go the extra mile, who put others before themselves. And let us just pause for a moment to remember what that can mean. Think of the tragic murder of PC Dunne. There was a man devoted to his job, determined to serve his community. Every day, people like him go about their duties in a similar spirit.

    The last thirty years have shown how much we need people like these.

    The Citizen’s Charter: Promoting a Better Society

    Last week I spoke of the importance I attach to businesses and the voluntary sector working in partnership to promote a sense of responsibility to others. I also said that exactly the principles lie behind what we were trying to achieve through the Charter.

    And today, at our 1993 Charter Mark Winners Conference, we see those principles working in practice. You carry the principles of public service forward into the 1990s.

    When I launched the Charter two years ago, I was inspired by two things. First a belief that we needed to put the customer first and make public service mean just that.

    Second, that there were many thousands of public servants who wanted to do just that.

    We’ve all got stories of individual teachers, nurses, social workers or police officers who have insisted on applying commonsense and first principles. The Charter seeks to extend choice, accountability and quality in public service. But it’s also a means to deliver what the public wants and needs – an efficient helpful and professional service.

    The Charter is turning the tide. And it is giving people in the public services a new belief in change – for the better. We talk about changing the culture of service provision. But I see it as a way of giving the lead to all those public servants who have always stuck to the basic principles: those people behind counters and desks who have never forgotten what it is like being on the other side. They are people who stick by the basic truth that public services should be run for the public who pay for them and for those who depend on them.

    But these people can only give of their best if they get the best leadership. That is up to you – the managers of our public service organisations. It is for you to capture the enthusiasm, to motivate your staff and inspire them with the value of public service – and to provide better and better service to the community.

    We have all had to battle against a great deal of cynicism about the public service and the Citizen’s Charter. Today I see 93 new examples to refute the cynics and I know there are many more. It’s easy to forget just what enormous changes we are seeing in the quality and standards of our public services.

    People who used to have to set aside 3 or 4 hours for a visit to a hospital outpatients clinic now find they are given timed appointments.

    Parents are told at least once a year exactly how their child is performing at school – and can look in the paper and compare the performance of that school with others in the locality.

    People asking for a visit from the gas, electricity, phone or water company, no longer have to give up a day from work but are given a morning or an afternoon appointment.

    And who would have believed two years ago that you could not book a driving test by ‘phone or pay with a credit card? Well, now you can.

    The Charter is raising standards. And it is raising people’s expectations too. People expect good complaints systems. They expect their letters or ‘phone calls to be answered promptly. They expect clear information. They expect the person behind the desk to have a name as well as a face. And that increasingly is what they are getting.

    So I want to issue an invitation to all the journalists here today. Don’t take my word for it. Go and visit some of these 93 winners and judge for yourself the success of the Citizen’s Charter.

    Winning a Charter Mark award is a significant achievement. For delivering the Citizen’s Charter requires team work – team work from top management down to junior staff. So please take back to everyone in your organisations my warmest congratulations.

    I would also like to praise the work of the 317 organisations whose applications were not successful. They too have made a great effort to improve service and to achieve Charter principles. They may not yet have attained the level required for the Charter Mark, but they are well on the way to doing so.

    Today the Charter Mark presents us with the opportunity to highlight the best of what is being achieved. It offers a chance to show by specific examples just what the Charter movement is about.

    Let me give you a few examples from today’s Charter Mark Award winners. East Gloucestershire NHS Trust has lowered waiting times, created better access for physically disabled people, and introduced early morning physiotherapy clinics, so that patients can choose to attend before work.

    Lewisham Direct Team promise their customers that if they fail to make the normal refuse collection, they will make a collection later that night if customers phone by 7.00pm.

    MANWEB now guarantees morning or afternoon appointments. In InterCity Anglia, passengers can call a travel check line which is updated hourly. And there are many more examples.

    If you look through the achievements of today’s Charter Mark winners, you will see the same messages again and again – waiting times down, response times quicker, customer satisfaction up, standards raised.

    The Citizen’s Charter is spreading throughout the British public service. But we’re not mean – we’re not keeping it to ourselves. We’re exporting it too. In just over a month’s time delegates from every continent will be gathering here to talk about the Citizen’s Charter and

    Service to the Citizen. The Americans have acknowledged how much the UK experience with the Citizen’s Charter has influenced their own reform programme – as the Vice President told William Waldegrave this only last week.

    But ultimately it is not by the world’s eyes that you are being judged but in the eyes of the people you serve.

    I have said that I want to encourage a move back to basics. Basic values, like consideration for others and individual responsibility. I would add the value of public service. I am proud of our privatisation programme, and there is more to do. But there will always be a role for the public sector and for public service: whether it is defending our country, nursing our sick, teaching our children or policing our streets. It is to reward the spirit of public service that the Charter Mark Awards were invented. You have proved to me that many people never moved away from those basic values.

    That is what matters. That is what you are delivering. That is what we are here today to celebrate. And now, by example. spread your message to others. My warmest congratulations to you all on winning the Charter Mark Award.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Percent Club – 19 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Percent Club in London on Tuesday 19th October 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. Not since the heyday of the Two Ronnies have I seen the Humphrey and John show equalled. I am not sure whether it is going to become an institutional part of this particular occasion but I rather suspect that it well might.

    I am delighted to have the opportunity of being here today. It is around two years now since I last spoke on volunteering to business in the community. They have not, I know, been an easy two years for business. And yet despite that, despite the difficulties self-evident and not needed to be spelt out, many businesses, many present tonight have still increased their support for voluntary activity. I believe that is a very great tribute to your commitment and I want to thank you sincerely for it. It illustrates at the outset that I need not spend my time this evening seeking to persuade this audience that business should support the voluntary sector, indeed that is the very fibre and being of the Percent Club.

    A week or so ago in another place I said that over the last 30 years or so we have been in danger of losing sight of some old fundamental truths. I stand by every bit of that, I believe that very strongly, and I want to see us reassert those old instinctive values, refresh them and place them precisely where I believe they belong, at the very heart of our national character. And they are there to reawaken, because as I said also at the time, all across the country, decency, neighbourliness, consideration for others, remains there in abundance. And nowhere perhaps is that truer than in the voluntary world. About one million people are involved in managing voluntary activities. About one half of all the adults in this country take some part in organised voluntary work. Some three in four lend a helping hand to friends and neighbours, and literally millions upon millions of people have benefited from that help year after year after year.

    They are people we all know, old people who cannot get about, who depend on volunteers to do the shopping, provide a meal or give them a night out. Children at risk of violence or abuse who have been helped by Childline or by the NSPCC. Desperate people who need someone to talk to who perhaps have phoned the Samaritans or been sheltered by the Salvation Army. Victims of crime who have found comfort and help from Victim Support. Or those perhaps whose last months of life have been spent in the warmth and comfort of a local hospice.

    To the lives of each and every person touched by that form of voluntary endeavour, the work of that silent army of volunteers makes a huge difference to their quality of life. And I believe myself that the fact that that help is voluntary, not provided by state servants, adds an extra dimension of affection to the People who receive that help and who often are in bad need of affection.

    Day after day the national news brings its tales of selfishness, violence and hooliganism. But if you strip that to one side and you look at what actually happens in our communities. look at any local paper and you will find People, young and old, doing what they have always done, fund raising, volunteering, helping their neighbours and doing so on a scale myself that I believe is greater than ever before. And that is the real face of Britain, the face of Britain that is so rarely paraded for public acknowledgement, but ought to be, regularly, as an example to everyone.

    There is nothing new or odd about that help by those millions of people, and there is nothing new about business being involved either. The roots of the Percent Club go right back to the great industrial philanthropists of the 19th century, Rowntree, Cadbury, the Wedgwoods, many others, People who believe just as much in the moral and social role of commerce as they did in profits and in markets. And that is the acceptable face of capitalism, responsible capitalism.

    Those of you who are here today prove that modern business leaders have precisely the same vision in the 20th century that their forebears had so many years before. You are at the forefront of British industry’s huge contribution to the wider community. You are here this evening, but of course there are thousands more like you in each and every part of Britain.

    And what do we want to see? I believe that all of us want to see even more businesses widening the scope of their contribution to the community, not just in giving to charities, important of course though that is, but also in seconding staff to voluntary bodies and getting involved directly in voluntary work. I believe that business experience, business skills, can and should enrich nearly every aspect of society. And that is why we set up new bodies to harness the energies and skills of local businessmen and others – training and enterprise councils, local enterprise agencies, grant maintained schools, a national health service trust amongst others – they offer new challenges and new opportunities for businesses to make a direct contribution and to raise their profile locally.

    In schools for example, one of many examples one could provide, the voice of business, of experience, of practical knowledge, can make a. vital difference to the success of the City Technology College initiative, it has done in many parts of the country. A good businessman on the governing body can get the very best out of a school’s resources and he, that businessman, will know better than anyone else what work experience and skills the future job seekers are going to need. And so he uses his skills not just to enrich his company, but to enrich his community and by that I believe we all benefit.

    The last decade has been a remarkable decade but amongst the many things that are so often trotted out when one looks back through that tunnel of a remarkable 10 years, what people I believe so often overlook is the remarkable sea-change in people’s perception of private capitalism and enterprise. It was a decade of massive growth in sponsorship, sponsorship by business of the arts, of sport, of individuals, of charities, and of voluntary activities.

    More businesses now accept they have a broader responsibility to the wider community and not just to shareholders and customers. And not only do they accept it, they are increasingly ready to act upon it and speak about it and that is very refreshing indeed.

    And as a result private enterprise attracts nothing like the venom and nastiness that once it did. Today most people will recognise and acknowledge that profitable business is the foundation stone of a free and healthy society, they are increasingly aware of the contribution business makes through sponsorship and direct involvement in voluntary activities. And attitudes have changed also towards voluntary work.

    A decade ago there was a malign and malicious argument, and it went broadly like this, it was an argument that many people advanced. It was the argument that many people still saw the existence of a voluntary sector as a challenge and as a reproach to the state. I believe that was an absurd proposition. However well, however caring, however much the richest and best organised state can provide, there will always be more that can be provided by the voluntary sector. And it is not just good for the people who receive those services through that activity, I believe it is also deeply rewarding for the people who actually provide those services as well.

    The principle of service is a good principle and in every aspect of life we should encourage Parents want a more responsible society, a less selfish society, and they look to us, government and business working together, to work in partnership to try and promote that attitude. People reject the notion that we can be pigeonholed – commercial sector, public sector, voluntary sector, individuals – they are fed up with us shouting at each other from distant hilltops. Experience tells us that John Dunne was right, “No man is an island”, indeed not, but to men add businesses, government, voluntary agencies, they are not islands either and neither should they be, not islands but taking the opportunity wherever they can to work together for the common good.

    And of course voluntary effort does not stand alone, it cannot be divorced from other aspects of life. An ability to look beyond narrow self-interest is fundamental to a healthy society, it lies behind the ideals of public service that the Citizen’s Charter promotes and it is fundamental to each and every business that wants to keep its workforce loyal, innovative and alert to the needs of their customers. And as you yourself have argued in the Percent Club, for businesses ethical values are not just a passing fashion, they are a long term recipe for success.

    So let me say a word or two about what we in government are doing to promote volunteering and announce perhaps one or two new initiatives. Over the past 14 years the government has transformed the climate in which the voluntary sector operates. Our direct support for charities amounts to nearly half a billion a year, an increase of some 150 percent even allowing for the impact of inflation. We have established a new legal framework for charities to give the public confidence in their management and in their accountability and we have increased incentives through the inheritance, income and corporation tax systems for people and businesses alike to increase giving to charities … behind the tax concessions that we have made to the voluntary sector, I was responsible for some of them. I saw a recent report that suggested that some of them might be withdrawn. Well there are many things that I might say about that proposal, though this is after all a charitable occasion. So let me say simply this. It is the privilege of everyone to submit reports to government departments, but it is the right of government Ministers to reject those reports. And this Prime Minister does precisely that, I want to make absolutely clear that tax relief for charitable giving is here to stay in the long term and not just in the short term.

    Giving to charity of course is one thing, volunteering time to help others is equally important. I said earlier this year that I wanted to see wider and more explicit recognition for volunteers in future Honours Lists. You will see the first results of that in the New Year’s Honours List on 1 January. The formal review of the number of honours is nearly complete and I will announce the outcome very shortly. But I can tell you now that within the existing lists I plan to recommend more than double the number of awards that recognise voluntary service in all its forms from around 150 in the recent past to over 300 in the future. And on that basis many more people who have devoted their life to voluntary service for others will have their work recognised by the award of an honour.

    Now to achieve that does of course require a fine flow of nominations, I asked for them earlier this year and I am delighted that the new nomination forms I introduced are proving a great success. So far, and it is not very long for this to have happened in, so far around 8,000 nominations have already been received, very many for voluntary service. Some of those will be awarded honours in the New Year List and others in future lists.

    Mr Chairman, we are also asking public services to take a far more positive attitude to involving volunteers. Recently, for example, Michael Howard announced a new drive to recruit an extra 10,000 more special constables, volunteers who work as policemen in their spare time. They should not be derided as second-class policemen, they should be praised as first-class citizens. And we are looking too for new parish constables and because we recognise the value of voluntary work to unemployed people we have made it easier for them to take on voluntary commitments.

    Volunteers give a range of support in a vast range of areas. In the Health Service 60,000 volunteers have been recruited under the Department of Health opportunity for volunteering scheme; a further 60,000 work on over 2,000 conservation projects across the nation; and there are 2,000 or so volunteers abroad in support of development projects. Thousands more work in social service.

    Doubtless more could be done and I hope that those who manage those services will set explicit targets to increase the involvement of volunteers.

    We want also to work in partnership with other bodies that support volunteering. All the evidence points to the fact that if you give or help when you are young then you will continue to give or help right the way through your active life.

    Take for example the Prince’s Trust. It does superb work with volunteers. 2,000 young people a year already take part in the Trust’s community programmes. They now want to expand that to take 25,000 volunteers a year within 3 years, 25,000 young people undertaking a vast range of projects within the community from helping in residential care homes to working with children, And the Trust have asked us to help them by encouraging more secondments of public sector staff with the skills and with the enthusiasm to support or lead the Prince’s Trust teams. Already departments are helping, among them the Home Office, the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Defence, and Michael Howard will be meeting the Prince’s Trust next week to offer further support and I strongly commend the scheme to you as well.

    Furthermore, we want to strip away some of the unnecessary obstacles that stand in the way of voluntary work. That means in this instance deregulation. When you have to obtain more than 10 different licences or permits just to run the village hail, when you spend more time sending off environmental health officers, social workers, fire officers, than giving the service you want to give then no wonder many people wonder whether it is worthwhile seeking to help, they give their time for free and they do not expect to see it wasted by unnecessary bureaucratic demands.

    So we have set up a special deregulation force, a force to look specifically at the burdens placed on the voluntary sector, it is no holds barred, it is right across the whole spectrum of regulation. I have asked that task force to report around Christmas and it has already identified 50 areas where there is potential for reform. If you have not yet been approached by them, approach them. If you have been approached and you have not told them what you think then please do so. But this will not be just one more piece of Whitehall paper, it is intended to lead to real action to assist the voluntary sector and to do so soon.

    Finally, let me add a further point. I said earlier this year that we should use the resources and power of government, not to replace voluntary activity on the ground, but to make it more visible both to would-be volunteers and also to people who need the support and help that volunteers are willing to give. We can give that volunteering publicity, we can help spread ideas, we can provide a point of focus, we can ease access and widen participation and you too can help by publicising the work your companies already do in the community.

    Today as a first step I can announce a new initiative to encourage more people to put themselves forward for voluntary work, we are launching an award scheme to recognise the best of the many excellent voluntary projects that exist around the country, local groups, local partnerships, all will be able to bid for grants for projects which will make a difference in the local community by increasing the scale and impact of voluntary effort. We will present the first awards next summer, any voluntary group will be eligible regardless of whether or not they already receive government support. And the proposals we have in mind have this purpose, the purpose is to help in some way to unlock voluntary effort and to link those who want to give help to those who need the help. And we will be looking for projects which genuinely add to those that are already available, not ones which replicate or replace good things that are already happening.

    So what sort of projects do I have in mind? The sort of things I have in mind might be setting up new or improved databases for volunteering opportunities, information points or campaigns targeted at particular groups, the young, older people, ethnic minorities, local helplines, and all against a background of closer cooperation and coordination between existing and new players. Businesses as well as voluntary agencies must play a part in carrying through this scheme so I am delighted that business in the community and its leadership team under Ian McAlister are already involved.

    The thinking behind this initiative is very simple. I believe there is an enormous reservoir of goodwill out there waiting to be tapped. And I know also that there is still an ocean of need, of isolation and of vulnerability, and too often the one does not know about the other. We should be working together to try and create bridges between the need and of people who can help to alleviate that need. And that is why eventually I want to go further, I would like to see a build on what we have and create a national network of local points of reference for volunteers and those looking to help.

    Many of those local points already exist and are doing valuable work but we need many more with the right tools for the job. In some places this will be a voluntary group, in some places a church, in other places perhaps even an energetic individual, but they would all be more accessible if they shared the same basic telephone number, they would all be more accessible if they shared the same basic means of contact. That must be a long term objective but Intend that it will happen and in doing so I look for help from business, from churches and from voluntary bodies to try and make that hope a reality. There are huge reserves of commitment out there, we need to bring them out of reserve and into use and the sooner we can do that the better.

    And perhaps the best way to do it is to encourage people to come forward, not to hang back and believe that someone else can do it better than them, but to encourage them to come forward and remove the impediments and disincentives that so often seem to stand in their way.

    So let me summarise. We will continue to help charities with favourable tax treatment; we will raise the profile and the recognition we give to volunteers in the Honours List; we will work with the Prince’s Trust to increase the number of young volunteers; we will cut down the fussy rules and regulations that so frequently and so frustratingly hamper the voluntary effort; and we will work towards the creation of a national network for volunteers, starting with a grant scheme for projects which encourage more people to put themselves forward for voluntary work.

    And what is to be your role? I want business, I want you to come with us as partners as we continue to spread that message of social responsibility, a message of responsible capitalism. We are I know asking you to do a great deal, we are asking for time, for money, for the use of company facilities, for your expertise and for a commitment which stretches from the Chief Executive’s office right down to each and every cart of the company. I know it is a lot but I believe there is a great will and a great capacity amongst people to respond to that and to work together to meet a common end. And I believe also, profoundly, that it is good for business. I do not mean good for business just in the sense of making the tills turn over, I mean it is good for business in a much wider sense. As your Chairman. Neil Shaw, said recently, and I quote: “By working in the wider community business can help to build the social environment it needs for long term wealth creation.” I am utterly sure that that is right.

    I suppose you might call it a long term investment, good for you, good for us all and good for our country. The point about long term investment is surely this, if it is a good investment it pays off. I believe this social investment is a good investment and with your help I have no doubt it will pay off and pay off richly.

  • Mr Major’s Article on State of the Country – 9 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on the state of the country, issued on 9th September 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t pretend the past year has been easy. But the difficult decisions we took were necessary. Our difficulties have been well chronicled. But our steady progress in so many policies – less dramatic perhaps but vital – has often been overlooked.

    So it is worth setting out what has also been happening away from all the fuss and palaver of Westminster.

    Who would have predicted that we’d be able to bring down inflation to below 1 1/2 per cent for the first time in over 30 years?

    Who would have predicted we could bring interest rates down to 6 per cent?

    Who expected that exports would rise to record levels and that unemployment would have fallen in the first five months of this year?

    Who forecast that it would be Britain – not Germany or France which would lead the way out of recession in Europe?

    Who imagined that growth this year and next year in Britain is likely to be higher than anywhere else in Europe?

    No one did. Yet these are the facts.

    And that is not all. Away from economic matters much else has been happening. Quietly but surely we have carried forward reforms in our major public services -shifting their focus to the consumer – to you, the public – not the vested interests which deliver them.

    A few examples will suffice: more patients treated in NHS hospitals last year compared with the year before – itself a record year. New guarantees for patients on waiting times and fixed appointment times.

    In education we’ve seen a steady increase in parent power. Nearly a thousand more schools voting to run their own affairs. All schools now having their own budgets. And parents getting annual reports on their childrens’ progress and more information on schools GCSE and A levels results. And judging by this year’s results there are already signs of some improvement in standards.

    Under the Citizen’s Charter we are seeking – and are beginning to get – improved standards across a whole range of public services. The Council Tax has been introduced successfully, despite all the dire predictions; trades union reform taken a step further with new rights for workers to ballot before strike action and join the union for their choice.

    The sort of country I want to see

    Yet people say “okay, these are details, but where are we going? What are you trying to achieve?”

    My hopes for our future are built around the four simple principles we set out at the election: choice, opportunity, responsibility, and ownership.

    People want more control over their lives. That means they want more choice, more opportunities, more people owning their own homes and shares and building up wealth. It also means taking more responsibility for the consequences of their choices. And more responsibility for their own actions and those of their children. In other words, not forever looking first to the State or the social worker to solve their problems.

    I want to develop these policies because I believe they reflect people’s aspirations.

    Everywhere people want jobs for themselves and for their children. They want to be independent. They want to choose schools, holidays, where they live, how they live. They don’t want others telling them what to do. They want better prospects for their children: good schools, good hospitals. They want security in their old age, and they want a more courteous and a safer society; one in which the law is respected and crime is punished.

    People have always had ambitions like these. But, too often, I have seen people whose ambitions were frustrated, not through any fault of their own, but because they were denied opportunities. They were denied opportunities by a new form of snobbery, all the worse because it cloaked itself in the language of “progressive” social conscience: “We know best, so you’ll do as we say, not as you choose”.

    I want to change that attitude. I want opportunity for all based on a free market. And I want a country which feels a sense of continuity with its past and a sense of responsibility for its future. Without that we will never have a country at ease with itself. And I intend to fight for it whatever the difficulties and whatever the opposition.

    Sustaining the recovery

    These are “social” goals. But all social policy begins with economic policy. We can’t spend what we haven’t earned. There are three touchstones: low inflation; sound public finances and sustained recovery based on competitiveness at home and abroad.

    First inflation. We have brought it down and we intend to keep it down. It does immense damage: to businesses, to jobs, to people on fixed incomes and people with savings. Pensioners especially. It is public enemy number one. So don’t expect me to listen to those who say a little bit of inflation can do you good. It can’t.

    Second public finances: the fact is we are living beyond our means and consuming at the expense of our children. We will stick to our manifesto pledges on pensions and other benefits.

    But we need to look at the long term difficulties in funding social expenditure – now outstripping inflation by some 3 per cent per year. That can’t go on. We need to decide now how to create the resources to care for the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly in the future. We need to reduce Government borrowing and control government spending across the board.

    We are not alone in facing this challenge. Countries like Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Italy have similar problems. Difficult decisions are being made everywhere. Britain cannot be the exception. For the sake of jobs and prosperity in the future, we must make the right choices now.

    The need for competitiveness

    That is vital if we are to achieve the third goal: sustained recovery based on competitiveness.

    There are no easy markets any more. We have no Empire that will automatically buy British. We have to compete fair and square, not just with Europe and America, but with the emerging economies of the Far East and the Pacific Rim – Eastern Europe too. We can’t shut them out.

    That means we have got to be competitive in manufacturing. Two-thirds of all we earn abroad comes from things we make and sell.

    The 1980s saw a turn around in British manufacturing. No one talks of “the British disease” any more. Manufacturing output is growing faster than for 5 years. Productivity is growing faster than for 7 years. Unit wage costs are falling faster than at any time since records began. Yet even so we still lag behind some of our main competitors.

    The vital need to improve education and training

    Above all it is vital that we produce enough people with the necessary education and skills. Too many managers tell me that far too many young people come out of British schools unable to read or write properly, lacking self discipline and commitment.

    The cost to British industry of poor basic skills is estimated to be £5 billion a year.

    For far too long a small minority of so-called progressive educationalists have made the running in education. They mock the importance of getting children to learn the basics: spelling, grammar, tables, self-discipline. This attitude is damaging to our children and to our country.

    So while we are working to simplify the curriculum and cut out unnecessary paperwork for teachers, we are not going back on the basic principles of our education reforms. Attention to basics in the curriculum. More emphasis on vocational training and experience as well as academic training. Regular testing and information for parents. And improvement in teacher training.

    Helping industry win new markets

    But that is not all we are doing to make Britain more competitive.

    We are giving more help to our exporters. They now have better terms of credit so that they can sell more easily abroad. We’ve stepped up our export promotion efforts both at home, on trade missions, and in our embassies abroad.

    We are giving greater emphasis to innovation. As early as the last century people were complaining that we did not use British scientific expertise to good effect in British industry. Our new science policy aims to ensure we exploit the practical application of British science in Britain.

    We are providing more opportunities for private industry to work with the public sector. Who built the roads and railways hospitals and schools in the first place? Answer: the private sector with private finance. What they did once, they can do again in partnership with Government.

    And in the coming year we will be cutting through the red tape jungle to help businesses concentrate on the job they are there to do. Regulation is sometimes a necessary evil. It’s those unnecessary twiddles, petty rules, forms and fussy details we need to cut out.

    Tackling crime

    Right at the top of our agenda for the coming year is the need to tackle the growing problem of crime.

    I start with three propositions. First there should be no excuses for crime. Crime is the responsibility of the individual who commits it.

    Second, crime needs to be punished. It is criminals who should be afraid, not the public.

    Third, all of us need to be involved in the war against crime. We need to be involved as parents, teachers and ordinary citizens; teaching our children the difference between right and wrong. Helping to prevent crime in the area in which we live. Helping the police and courts to catch and punish the guilty. They cannot do their job without the help of the public.

    This year we have introduced tougher sentences for drunk driving, joy riders and for people who offend while on bail. The courts can now take previous convictions into account. And we have reformed unit fines.

    Next year we will be taking action to deal with squatters and new age travellers – two new scourges of the modern age. And we’ll be giving the courts new powers to place persistent young offenders in secure accommodation.

    And we will be examining further ways of making our police and courts more effective as we review two of the most fundamental reports into our police and criminal justice system for years: the Sheehy report into the police and the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

    Priorities for the ’90s

    Basic to our approach in the 1990s will be the need to shift priorities away from short term consumption to long term wealth creation. Ours is a proud country. The oldest democracy. The most stable and still one of the most peaceful societies in the world.

    But we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to preserve all those things we cherish, we have got to put the need for enterprise and the prime importance of manufacturing success right at the centre of our thinking. Industry should be the first choice not the last choice of our best people. We need to encourage and reward success and talent, not hold it back. We need to take responsibilities ourselves, not wait for others to come to the rescue.

    If we can do all these things, then we will enter the 21st century an increasingly confident and prosperous nation, keeping our place as an influential voice in world affairs.

    If we do not make these changes then the fault is our own. It is our choice. Our future in our hands.

  • PMQT – 13 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levels of compensation paid out under the citizen’s charter demonstrate its effectiveness? Does he further agree that the moves to agency status and contracting out are the best way of achieving value for money? Does he also agree that it is not surprising that all those measures have been resisted by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As to the last part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am unsurprised.

    Paying compensation is popular with those who use public services. I also believe that it is right that compensation should be paid when service is bad. It provides a satisfactory discipline on the public services. As regards contracting out, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It has brought great benefits both to those who use public services and, critically, to those who pay for public services.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the opposition of the whole teaching profession to the imposition of tests this year has been reinforced by the overwhelming vote by members of the National Union of Teachers in favour of a boycott, will the Prime Minister now do the sensible thing and suspend compulsory tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : I was very sad this morning to see the result of the vote by the National Union of Teachers, which was the only teacher association not to welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. A lot of people will be asking whether that union really supports the principle of regular testing in our schools or whether another agenda concerns it. I very much trust that the NUT will reflect on what my right hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Smith : As the Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that there were flaws in the tests, which is why he climbed down about next year, why on earth is the Prime Minister forcing children to take the tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : What should be called off are the unprofessional and utterly futile boycott threats. Teachers should do what the majority of parents want–co-operate in helping to make the tests work this year and in future years.

    On the second point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, he will recall that he has asked me that before. Ron Dearing has made it absolutely clear that he needs the experience of this year’s tests to redesign them satisfactorily for the future.

    Mr. Smith : As there is overwhelming opposition to compulsory tests this year, from parents as well as teachers and governors, why does the Prime Minister not show a glimmer of common sense and end the farce now? If he is not listening to parents and teachers, whom is he listening to? Does he not understand that to be so foolishly stubborn is a sign of weakness and not of strength?

    The Prime Minister : It is common sense to proceed with tests so that we can correct them and get them right in the future. Testing in schools is vital to measure the progress of the pupils concerned. The Opposition may wriggle, but that happens to be the reality. I hope that even, at this late stage, teachers will realise the importance to pupils of having these tests, the importance to the reform of testing of having those tests and the importance to the dignity of the profession of teaching in not proceeding with industrial action at the expense of schools.

    Mr. Gorst : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 membership of trade unions has fallen by 28 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes this is due to their being a growing anachronism, badly led, or merely because of their limpet-like, hand-in-glove connection with the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly not inclined to disagree with any of my hon. Friend’s points. Trade union membership does continue to decline and is substantially lower than it was a decade or so ago. I notice that many of the unions still sponsor right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench and resist suggestions that they should abandon the out- dated block vote in favour of one member, one vote. It is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, and on this, too, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is wriggling.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Burden : The Prime Minister will probably have heard that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he regrets “that inflation got out of control at the end of the 1980s.” Would the Prime Minister care to enlighten the House as to what jobs he was doing at the end of the 1980s?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had cared to research very carefully, he would have known that we have made it clear on a number of occasions that after the 1987 stock exchange crash we reduced interest rates faster than, with hindsight, we thought was correct, and that contributed to inflation. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both invited us to cut interest rates further and faster and that that would have put inflation up even more. The hon. Gentleman should do his research more accurately.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Jessel : As the economy and business confidence have, under the Conservative Government, begun to improve–especially since Britain left the exchange rate mechanism–will my right hon. Friend give further support to business confidence by making it clear that the United Kingdom will not return to fixed exchange rates?

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, and as I made clear earlier this year, we will not consider rejoining the ERM before important conditions have been met, in particular the requirement that German and United Kingdom monetary policies must be much more closely aligned before we can begin to consider whether it would be appropriate for Britain to rejoin. Clearly those conditions are unlikely to be satisfied soon.

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Barnes : Some people still believe in the ultimate objective of a multi-ethnic democratic society, with full minority rights, for the former Yugoslavia. Included among them are many of the people of Yugoslavia who bravely stand out against violence and intimidation. Why do we not listen to some of their ideas for the extension of safe havens and United Nations border controls? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in Yugoslavia is a supporter of paramilitarism and war lords?

    The Prime Minister : We have indicated on a number of occasions in the House the way in which we think it is right for us to proceed at the moment. We have made that clear and we have said that we believe that it is right to continue to pursue a political settlement, without which no settlement can stick in the long term even though perhaps for a short while it might be held. We have made it clear that we believe that it is right to proceed with sanctions, and we have not ruled out the use of force, should that prove necessary, in selected circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as economic growth strengthens and as our improved competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing, makes its impact, that will increasingly be appreciated by the voters, who will also note the nature of the Opposition parties–one inextricably tied to the big unions and big bureaucracy and the other without roots and no more than the scavengers of British politics?

    The Prime Minister : Things have certainly been difficult for many companies and people throughout the recession. I understand that and have acknowledged it on a number of occasions. I believe that as recovery comes through, many of those people will see that it would not have come through unless we had taken the right decisions to get inflation down and keep it down for the future.

    We can now see that manufacturing output is turning up, that manufacturing productivity is at record levels, that exports of manufactures are at record levels and that, according to the Confederation of British Industry, optimism in manufacturing industry has reached a 10-year high. They are very welcome signs. We are clearly coming out of recession in the right circumstances for sustained growth over a long period.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman took the decision to withhold the helicopter carrier order from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, he will have known that he was bringing shipbuilding on Tyneside to an end, so he will not be surprised to learn that at 1 o’clock today Swan Hunter called in the receivers and 6,000 people are now to lose their jobs on Tyneside. Will the Prime Minister help my constituents by telling them where they will find alternative work?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, of the two tenders submitted, that submitted by VSEL at Barrow was many tens of millions of pounds below the tender submitted by Swan Hunter. I understand the difficulties faced by Swan Hunter and, because I know of those difficulties, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bring forward that tender earlier than we would otherwise have done to see whether Swan Hunter could satisfactorily win the tender in open competition. I regret that it did not, but I am not in a position to reject a tender many tens of millions of pounds below that of the alternative tender. The answer to the substantive second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question is that it is precisely because we are concerned about the employment prospects on Tyneside that we yesterday announced a range of measures to help, including a new enterprise zone, a new English Estates development in conjunction with the city council and the development corporation, more services from the Tyneside training and enterprise council and employment services, confirmation that Newcastle and South Tyneside will remain a development area, and extra resources for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for industrial sites.

    I invite Opposition Members who scoffed when I mentioned the enterprise zone to look at other parts of the country that have faced similar difficulties in the past to see how effective that has been. They might, for example, recall the great difficulties at Shotton 10 years ago. If they go back to Shotton today, they will find a modern estate with high-paid, permanent, high-tech, secure jobs for just as many people as once worked in the steel industry there.

     

    Q6. Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Ancram : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as the optimism to which he referred in yesterday’s CBI survey, there are also real indications of growth and increased investment in most of the regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west? Given that after three hard years of recession most people in my constituency, and elsewhere, want to see real, tangible proof of recovery, as well as promises of recovery, does my right hon. Friend welcome the report as a true indication of recovery which even Opposition Members cannot deny?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the report and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue in the months ahead. It is encouraging that businesses right across the country themselves expect to grow strongly in the months immediately ahead of us–in the south-west, certainly, but also in the south-east, the midlands and right across the land. What we in the House all want, I think, without exception, is to see that growth translated into jobs and into money in the family pay packet.

     

    Q7. Mr. Malcolm Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Does the Prime Minister accept that the campaign by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to transfer payments from post offices to banks is totally inimical to the interests of those who live in rural communities? Will he ask the Secretary of State to call off that campaign? Does he further recognise that the privatisation of the Post Office will damage rural post offices and delivery services? Rather than postpone privatisation, will he now abandon it?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last week, I believe, we have made no such proposals. Our policy is to encourage people to receive benefits via their accounts while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Civil Service Club – 4 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Civil Service Club on 4th February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to say a few words here in my role as Minister for the Civil Service. I am a very firm believer in the need for a high quality, impartial civil service. And I know from my personal experience that that is what this country has. I am determined to keep it so.

    I reject the charges of those who attack the civil service and say that, because the same political party has been in power for more than thirteen years, the service must inevitably have lost its impartiality. All Ministers know that their boxes will be full every night with constructive questioning and sometimes unwelcome advice from their civil servants. Good Ministers welcome that, because it is how robust policies are formed.

    This is not an occasion for party political points. But I do want to say that I reject absolutely the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last week entitled “The Standards and Practice of Government”. In it, he attacks the conduct of both Ministers and civil servants. You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t accept his views about the Government, but I and my Ministerial colleagues are perfectly capable of rebutting that. He is perfectly entitled to make those charges even if they are no more than the small change of partisan politics. But I do regret his comments about the civil service and civil servants, who rightly in my view maintain the principle of not entering the political debate.

    In his speech, old slurs about the civil service were repeated, and issues which are currently the subject of independent scrutiny were prejudged. I find that astonishing and regrettable. Every politician should know better than to let party political advocacy run away with his judgement on matters such as these. I do not believe his charges are justified. And, as Minister for the Civil Service, I take this opportunity to assert my support for the civil service qualities of integrity, objectivity and impartiality which serve the country so well. And my confidence that these qualities are being fully maintained.

    This is also not an occasion for a heavy-weight lecture about reform of the civil service. But it would be wrong for me not to refer to the reforms that are taking place in the civil service. The spread of agencies, the setting of standards under the Citizen’s Charter, greater openness and all the other reforms are producing a quiet revolution in the way in which public services are delivered. I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent way in which the civil service is meeting these new challenges, throughout Whitehall and throughout the country. My view is that the civil service deserves every credit for its achievements and I am glad to have the opportunity to make that clear this evening.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Carlton Club – 3 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Carlton Club in London on 3rd February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    CONSERVATISM IN THE 1990’S – OUR COMMON PURPOSE

    When I became Leader of our Party, I spoke of ‘carrying forward the Conservative tradition’. I spoke of Conservatism as ‘a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective’. I set out my aim to create ‘a classless society’ – and ‘a nation at ease with itself’.

    In every speech I made in the general election campaign I talked about those aims again. I spoke of the Britain I wanted to see. A Britain in which effort is rewarded; and everyone has a stake in our country’s future. A Britain where every youngster can aim high; every family can build for its own future.

    Dignity, security, independence, self-respect – these are the human aspirations we understand and we endorse. Conservatism in the 1990s has the ambition to bring them within the grasp of every citizen.

    The instincts of the British people

    In every city, in every town, in every village we found a ready response to our message. That was – I believe – because our message was rooted deep in the instincts of the British people.

    These are the instincts of a free people; an enterprising people; a generous people; a tolerant people.

    Of course these instincts can be suppressed, or twisted, or simply lost. We should not claim too much for ourselves! Of all political philosophies, Conservatism has been perhaps least prone to foolish optimism about human nature. But our defining characteristic is to have greater faith in the individual than in the State.

    We believe in fostering freedom by giving people more power to choose for themselves; by leaving people more of their own money to spend.

    We believe in fostering enterprise by keeping personal and business taxes low; by cutting down the jungle of regulation; by creating a level playing-field on which businesses can compete freely and fairly.

    We believe in fostering generosity by respecting and reinforcing the independence of local communities, in which neighbours willingly help each other.

    We believe in fostering tolerance by respecting the individual; by recognising every citizen’s power to choose and right to own.

    It is on those instincts of the individual that Conservatism is founded; and that Conservatism trusts.

    Carrying Conservatism forward

    The policies and language of our Party may evolve, but the principles remain the same. Our political strength has always rested on our ability to keep a finger on the pulse of the British people.

    We have no repository of doctrine which we set on an altar above commonsense and instinct. There is no Clause Four in the Conservative Party – and there must never be one. But what we do have are four cardinal principles: the principles of choice, ownership, responsibility and opportunity for all. These were the core of our Manifesto – and they guide us in Government, as we put that Manifesto into effect.

    As a party, we have always worked to meet people’s aspirations to own their own homes; to have greater opportunities for themselves and their children; to enjoy the respect that follows from the exercise of choice; to build up wealth and then to be free to pass it on.

    This has always been a great Tory tradition – a continuous thread in our thinking. When Disraeli spoke of the ‘elevation of the condition of the people’ he made it clear, even then, that he meant all people: ‘all the numerous classes in the realm, classes alike and equal before the law’. If this was not exactly ‘a classless society’, it already expressed many of the aspirations of one: the equal treatment of all citizens by the state, and the chance of advancement for all.

    The second continuous thread of Conservative thought, from the time of Burke onwards, has been a wariness of the danger of over-government. We don’t like big government. We know the State can destroy, as surely as it can preserve – and more conclusively than it can create. We know the danger that unless it is reined back by constant and vigorous effort, it will grow inexorably, It is a parasite that can destroy its host.

    We reject utterly the idea that the state can manage economic and personal relations between people better than businesses or families.

    And the third great thread of thought is our understanding of what binds a stable and healthy democracy together. It is a sense of continuity that permits change without instability. Above all, perhaps, it is the local networks and small communities – Burke’s ‘little platoons’, if you like – that are the tent-pegs securing our wind-blown society to the ground.

    The modern Conservative Party is heir to both the great nineteenth-century political traditions: to the Whigs, in our free market radicalism; to the Tories, in our belief in community and tradition. Unlike Socialists, we do not see the free market as a threat to communities; quite the reverse. Take a homely example. When you go to your local baker, what you expect and usually get – is a helpful, friendly service. What the baker expects – and usually gets – is a satisfied customer and a fair price. No one is demeaned by this transaction. Where there is choice, there is freedom and dignity between buyer and seller.

    Look around you. It is not where the free market pervades that ties of community are under threat, but where the State owns and controls to the greatest extent.

    Look at our suburbs and small towns and villages – where people, by and large, own their own homes. Here you will find networks of the voluntary associations which tie people into their neighbourhood, from Rotary Clubs to the active PTA to fundraising and Meals on Wheels.

    The big problem lies elsewhere. It is from the inner cities, where the state is dominant, that businesses have fled. It is in the inner cities that vandalism is rife and property uncared for. It is here that fear of violent crime makes a misery of old people’s lives.

    Socialists seek to explain the difference in terms of affluence. But that simply won’t wash. That explanation is demeaning to people of modest means who contribute much to their communities. It is insulting to those families who may face all the problems of unemployment and yet do not resort to crime.

    Socialism must face up to its failures. It must recognise the harsh truth that it is where, over many years, the State has intervened most heavily, that local communities have been most effectively destroyed. It is where people feel no pride in ownership; where they are stripped of responsibility for the conditions in which they live. And it is in the inner cities that schools – which should be beacons of opportunity – have slipped into a downward spiral of low expectations, politicisation and poor results. Socialism has been discredited by experience. Conservatism has been validated by history.

    The paradox of change

    So far, I have been speaking mainly of the continuity in our philosophy. But I need hardly remind this audience that Conservatism has been a powerful force for change in Britain, too.

    Willingness to face up to change is vital if we are to develop as a society. Each generation must make its own decision: what to preserve, and what to change. But change must run with the grain of a nation. That was true when our Party was founded; and it is true, still, today.

    But the paradox is this. On the one hand, we need to change in order to preserve: if we cling to outdated habits, rules and restrictions, we risk the collapse of our economy and society. On the other hand, change is itself destabilising. It brings its own risks. Sometimes it seems that by removing just one brick, we may risk bringing the whole house down. The careless or the ill-intentioned will always be around to give the extra push.

    There will always be those who seek to sever our links with the past. Even in Britain, we have for years been bombarded by the arrogant claims of those who believe there can be no point of contact between the present and the past. Some say that the glories of British history, the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, the works of Dickens and Trollope – even poor old Winnie the Pooh – are irrelevant to the modern child. 1984 and all that involves the obliteration of 1066 And All That.

    Others claim that the figurative tradition in art, and the lessons of classical architecture, have no relevance to the present day. The destruction they have wrought has been physical as well as emotional. We have seen the arrogance with which their disciples, up and down the country, have made their names by destroying urban villages. We see academics make their names by destroying our heroes. More recently, the institutions that embodied our nationhood have come under attack: institutions in whose name our countrymen and women have been ready to make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives.

    I sense a growing fear that we may lose so much that is precious to this country; a feeling amongst people that our deepest values as a civilised nation are being threatened. That anxiety feeds on the daily tales of selfishness and brutality that make the headlines in our newspapers. Is it the newspapers that are changing, or the world we live in? People are not certain. They feel uneasy; they feel threatened; they lose their bearings.

    So let me say a word or two tonight about the balance between change and continuity in our national life. Yes, we are changing, and in many ways for the better. The days when people could be considered somehow superior because of who they were, and not what they were, are finally fading into history. We see them pass without regret. A view of society based on deference is out of date, damaging and divisive in today’s Britain.

    The barriers are not yet all gone – nor will they be, until every child confidently believes he or she can aim high, without bumping into invisible obstacles of prejudice. Expectations are encouraged by example: by the handful of women running substantial businesses, by people from our ethnic minorities entering public life, by enterprise and achievement from all backgrounds.

    But our task in the 1990s is to widen the road to success, so that such achievers are no longer remarkable exceptions, but a natural part of the rich diversity of our nation. To achieve this, we need to break down the barriers between blue collar and white collar in industry; to raise the esteem in which vocational qualifications are held; to make them a real choice for the youngsters in our schools. The stirring examples amongst today’s National Training Awards show how we can help to make people believe in their future.

    But in burying deference, we must take care not to destroy respect. Respect for what people achieve – at school and university, in business, in sport, the arts and in public life. It is no answer to prejudice or disadvantage to drop standards, to invent exams no one can fail, to reject or deride success. If we destroy pride in achievement, we will end by destroying achievement too.

    There is a concern that respect for other people is disappearing: respect for what they achieve; respect for their property – yes, and their privacy, too. Certainly, crime has increased steadily over many decades. The standard political wisdom has been that Prime Ministers should keep off the subject, because it is so difficult to score a success in turning the tide of crime. In a more secular society, it is argued, it is harder to take up a moral stance. It is inevitable that the old assumptions about order and cohesion, which our forefathers took for granted, should be breaking down.

    Well, I don’t accept that. I believe we must tackle the problem of rising crime, openly and directly. And just because we can no longer hope to enforce good behaviour by simple threats of hell-fire, I do not think we are debarred from talking of right and wrong. The definition of what is criminal changes from generation to generation. But our attitude to crime should not change. We must make that clear, in particular, to those youngsters in danger of settling into a life of persistent crime and intermittent punishment.

    Nor do I believe that idealism, concern for others, commitment and self-sacrifice have been bred out of us. For every young thug whose brutal behaviour hits the headlines, there are thousands of young people up and down the country who commit themselves in their jobs, in their family or through voluntary work, to other people.

    There are, indeed, thousands of young British people, straight out of school, working in difficult conditions throughout the third world for the young, the old, the poor, the oppressed. There are thousands of businesses who accept, with enthusiasm, the need to involve themselves in the communities around them. And there are hundreds of thousands – no, millions – of people who quietly, generously, regularly give up their free time to help others. These are the stories that don’t – so often – hit the headlines. I believe we must do more to recognise, support and encourage the habit of volunteering, which cements together our society and is one of the great glories of our national life.

    Towards the year 2000

    We are coming up fast to the Millennium: one of those milestones that have no intrinsic importance, but yet act as a catalyst for thought and action. This will be a highly competitive decade, in which the race will go to the swift. It will bewilder many and frighten some. It will test our national confidence – a test, I believe, that we can pass with honours.

    At such a time, the cohesion of society is particularly important. When people have to find strength and direction within themselves, we need more than ever that anchor of past experience and those institutions which give continuity and a framework to our national life. The monarchy. Parliament. Our churches and voluntary organisations.

    Disraeli – and that shrewd if now much-criticised observer, Walter Bagehot – both understood how our “constitution”, in the widest sense, gave the individual stability. They understood how it gave links with the past, with locality, with others and with the nation.

    They saw much more clearly than many do today the unbroken chain of community linking the monarchy to the humblest household: linking our Parliamentary institutions to the most local parish council, linking the Union of the United Kingdom with the little unions of families and local communities.

    So as we change and modernise – and we must do both – we must have an ear for history and an eye for place. In reforming local government, we will be looking to restore cherished names, draw strength from old loyalties and nurture established communities. Not for us a technician’s blueprint, all logic and no heart. Rather a search for the genius and identity of different towns, districts and counties across our country.

    As we modernise the honours system – as, again, I believe we should – we must develop, not destroy. It is time to get rid of old, class-based distinctions; to make the system a little less automatic; to use it, in particular, to reward voluntary effort – but at the same time to maintain its historic value as a system of recognition and reward for achievement.

    As we reform the civil service, we must cherish its traditions of impartial service – while at the same time opening it up to outsiders and to private-sector competition.

    And as we work to improve our public services, we must remember one cardinal rule: change must be driven by the users, not the providers.

    Civilising the welfare state

    For too long we failed to ask the right questions. For too long we allowed the State to over-ride choice and personal responsibility. And all the time, the influence of public services was growing. At the beginning of the century, public services had only a marginal impact on people’s lives. Now they employ more than two out of every ten people in the workforce.

    Well, attitudes are changing, radically and dramatically, under our Citizen’s Charter. The Charter is about convenience and choice for the user, not an easy life for the provider. It’s about replacing the impatient shrug of bureaucracy with helpful and courteous service. It’s about changing the system to deliver simple, practical things that improve people’s lives.

    The traditional structure of public services has not provided the kind of incentives that competition in the market delivers automatically. We are creating these incentives. We are privatising choice. We are transferring power to the user of public services by providing them with real information about the performance of providers. We are opening up the old, cosy systems of inspection. We are introducing new systems of redress for the individual.

    There are those who see accountability for public services only in terms of the occasional election at the focal and national level. I want a new accountability. I prefer a much broader and deeper concept: of accountability to the individual. That is why the aims of this programme run very deep. They concern the sort of society we want to see.

    Through our reforms, we are encouraging local providers of services to run their own affairs. We are creating new vehicles for involvement, in grant-maintained schools, in TECs, in hospital trusts.

    Giving people more freedom of course means giving people the opportunity to make mistakes. No one ever climbed a mountain without facing the risk of falling off. We must expect some disagreements between teachers and governors, even in grant-maintained schools. We cannot expect every Trust hospital to manage its financial affairs without a single hiccup. What is clear, however, is that people want to take on these responsibilities, because they see the transformation in attitudes and ambitions that follows.

    We must allow people the maximum freedom to discharge these new responsibilities. Of course the State has an important role as regulator – particularly where, in public services or private enterprise, we are confronted with monopolies. But we must resist the temptation to intervene too much.

    We must resist the temptation to respond to every mistake, every tragedy, by introducing another burdensome raft of regulations. Sometimes, of course, these have emanated from Brussels. But sometimes, I am sorry to say, the guilty are closer to home. That is why the Government has launched its deregulation initiative – and why I invited ministers to join me in Downing Street for a bout of spring-cleaning this week.

    A radical programme

    I rather think that some are forgetting, a little too easily, how we are moving to put our principles into action. We have a radical programme which is transforming Britain for the better, and which is being imitated across the world.

    Take, for a start, those step-by-step changes that are already under way, but have much further to go.

    In the health service, we have seen the spectacular growth of Trusts, far more rapid than originally imagined, and the extension of GP fundholding. By the middle of this decade, we will have transformed the NHS, made it much more responsive to patients and their doctors. And we will have exposed the short-sighted folly of Labour’s obstruction of reform.

    In education, we are seeing the emancipation of governing bodies and head teachers, taking the local authority straitjacket off their back. With testing, we are giving back to parents the right to know what, and how well, their children are being taught – and what they are being taught. Another issue on which Labour is being driven into embarrassed retreat.

    Through the Citizen’s Charter, we are carrying through a revolution in choice, in information, in accountability and individual power that no other political party will ever be able to reverse. We are extending performance pay, and launching the biggest programme of market testing of central government activities ever seen.

    But that is not all. In Parliament this Session, we are creating:

    – new powers to regenerate the schools whose poor performance has for too long trapped inner city youngsters into a cycle of failure, unemployment and poverty.

    – new freedoms for members of trade unions, and new powers for the individual to prevent wildcat strikes.

    – new encouragement to the arts, to charities, to sport and to celebrate our great heritage, through a National Lottery that may deliver literally billions for good causes over the years ahead.

    – new opportunities for private-sector skills and enterprise to improve services for the railway passenger.

    These are crucial measures – but, as I have already indicated there are others, too, pressing hard behind them.

    In education, we have further to go in reforming primary schools, to sweep away the failed nostrums of the 1960s and 1970s. And we need parallel reforms in teacher training, to help good teachers do the job the country needs.

    For our teenagers, I want to create a better map of opportunity. I am determined – this year – to start opening up a wider and clearer choice of ways to study and train for a career. This has to begin with schools. We need vocational qualifications which carry esteem, are worthwhile in themselves and challenge the monopoly of the academic route to further and higher education. And we need modern and effective careers education. But this drive has to be followed through in colleges and the workplace. I believe, with close co-operation between the Departments of Employment and Education, we can evolve a system which offers our youngsters more for their time, and the taxpayers more for their money.

    In our cities – yes, and in our countryside too – we need to counter-attack the twin problems of crime and the fear of crime. The crucial test of our police forces is their ability to deliver what the citizen wants: safety on our streets and security in their homes. Change is needed, and the best of our policemen know it. But they also need co-operation from the citizen, industry, local government. And the courts must have the powers they need. In particular, I believe, we need new powers to take persistent young offenders off the streets and into secure accommodation where they can be taught and trained for a useful future. On the future of our police, and on young offenders, the Home Secretary will be announcing proposals soon.

    In housing, I want those who prefer to rent to have a choice of modern decent homes. That means we need to encourage good private landlords, so that tenants have a real choice. But most young people still want to own their own home, and Conservatives believe strongly in helping them fulfil that ambition. I want more of them to have that choice. We must step up our drive to help all those who seek to escape from the prison of bad Council provision.

    We want to give our exporters confidence they have the Government behind them. Manufacturing industry has a great opportunity to win new markets. It is not for Government to say where, or what, or how. We are not going to return to the bad old days of interventionism. But where Government can help to open doors and free up markets, it will do so.

    I have already set up a scrutiny of why European regulations seem to gain extra frills when they reach the United Kingdom. Now we will be overhauling our horrendous total of over 7,000 regulations – many of them domestic – with the aid of the businessmen who bear the brunt. We will be looking for opportunities to legislate – perhaps I should say ‘legislate’ – to ease the burden on industry’s back.

    By forcing Whitehall to publish estimates of what it will cost business to comply with every new regulation, we should both deter the busybodies and contribute to my campaign to make government more open. But I do not believe the steps we have taken towards openness go far enough. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be bringing proposals forward in the coming months.

    In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor opened the way to privately-financed schemes to improve our infrastructure. Now I want to investigate still more radical ways of financing a better road network, between our cities. I hope the Transport Secretary will be able to bring forward proposals soon.

    I increasingly wonder whether paying unemployment benefit, without offering or requiring any activity in return, serves unemployed people or society well. Of course, we have to make sure that any conditions imposed improve the job prospects of unemployed people and give good value to the country. But we have already introduced this principle, for example through Restart, in a limited sense for the long-term unemployed. I believe we should explore ways of extending it further.

    You would not expect me, so close to the Chancellor’s Budget, to say more tonight about economic affairs. But I would just say this about the longer term: that if we are to sustain sound public finance and make progress towards our goals of lower personal taxation we must keep firm control of inflation and take a rigorous approach to public spending. It is always dangerously easy for the State to settle into habits of spending which outlast their purpose and outrun their budgets. And to avoid that happening, it is necessary from time to time to re-examine long-term trends in expenditure.

    We need, through the honours system and other networks of recognition and encouragement, to give the volunteering movement extra support. I want to develop a new initiative, this year, to help local communities make the best use of the goodwill and energy of businesses and individuals in their areas.

    We must build on the faith in our United Kingdom that was demonstrated at the general election. As we have been “taking stock” in Scotland, we have been listening for ideas to reinforce a Union that has served all concerned for centuries. We are not hostile to change; but we are adamant against destruction.

    Let me draw together some of the themes of this agenda. Increasingly, I believe, we must develop policies that sound a common chord across all programmes. The Citizen’s Charter, deregulation, privatisation, private finance, market-testing, openness, all follow this approach. Others – such as the focus on 16-19 year olds – require close co-operation between Departments. Still others – such as the ‘challenge’ approach to the funding of local projects – are introduced by one Department then developed by another. I believe this breaking-down of rigid Whitehall divisions is essential to the delivery of a radical Tory agenda.

    The Conservative message

    So if people suppose – or even, perhaps, hope! – we have come to the end of our reforming energies, I am afraid they had better think again. I do not underestimate the difficulties. Of course, there are challenges ahead. But that is an invitation to press on with more vigour, not to step aside. We will carry forward the pursuit of economic liberalism, and the reinforcement of the social cement that binds us together.

    These are beliefs that would, in the different language of their time, have been familiar to Burke, Disraeli, Salisbury. They link the ambitions of the child to be born in the year 2000 with the aspirations of previous centuries, it is the genius of our party that we fashion change in the image of our long traditions.

    I have tried to show how I believe these aims are served today by fostering a national life in which merit is rewarded, achievement respected, opportunity opened up and the individual given power and choice. That is what I mean by “a classless society”.

    I have tried to show how I believe we can rebuild confidence and nurture the best instincts of the British people. That is what I understand by a decent society; by “a nation at ease with itself”.

    And I have tried to show how I believe the need for change can be reconciled with the deep need for continuity, for calm, for commonsense and steadiness in our affairs. In the words of the newest addition to that distinguished list of Conservatism’s historians and philosophers, our party ‘has long been the party of the silent majority’. And I am indebted to that author – David Willetts – for my final quotation from Burke, which perhaps has some relevance today:

    ‘Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine, that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field, that of course, they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour.’

  • Mr Major’s Service for the Citizen Conference Speech – 3 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given to “The Service for the Citizen Conference” held on 3rd December 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This Service for the Citizen Conference is being held as part of the UK Presidency of the European Community. I am particularly glad to be able to welcome here Michel Delebarre, the Minister for Public Administration in France. For the purpose of this Conference is to enable us all to learn from each other. Minister, we look forward with great interest to what you have to say today.

    Public Services – Servants not Masters of the Citizen

    I have been concerned about public services long before I arrived in Downing Street. Let me pose some questions to you.

    I wonder how many of you have stood on the wrong side of a counter trying to convince an anonymous official on the other side to deal with you promptly and courteously? I wonder how many of you have ‘phoned your local council only to be shunted around from department to department and to find that it’s always someone else’s responsibility?

    And how many of you have appealed for common sense in response to a simple request – only to be told ‘but this is the way we’ve always done it?’

    I have – and so have all too many millions of others in every country in Europe. Public services don’t have to be like that. That is why I launched the Citizen’s Charter in Britain – I was determined to get a better deal for every user from every public service. And with the help and commitment of many hundreds of thousands of people who work in public service, we are making the changes that are needed.

    I want to see public services in Britain, and in Europe, that are every bit as good as those offered by the private sector. I have always said that change couldn’t come overnight, that it was a programme for ten years. But we will see it through. The users of services expect no less. And I am struck by how many of those who fail to see the importance of the Charter are drawn from among the articulate and the powerful – people who can throw their weight around, pull strings, make life uncomfortable for the service provider.

    They are the privileged few. The Charter isn’t really for the man in the Rolls Royce. It’s for the passenger in the bus that’s stuck behind him in the bus lane. We want to give everyone the power to use the system. For most of us rely on public service. We always will. There is hardly a person in Europe who does not use public services in the course of their daily life. Indeed we not only use public services, we also pay for them, either directly or through our taxes. We are entitled to expect that these services are the best that our money can buy.

    Dealing with public service should not be a tale of petty frustrations. People should not be on the receiving end of careless and patronising behaviour. They should not have to battle for things about which they care deeply – a future for their children – against a system that sometimes doesn’t seem to give a damn. For many, that kind of experience leads to demoralisation and despair. For me, it generates anger – and a determination to do something to change it.

    The whole purpose of the Citizen’s Charter is to change the system. To open it up, to improve the service, and to give the patient, the parent and the passenger the service they want. It’s about the nitty gritty details of life. We’re very good in the public sector at dreaming up grandiose schemes. But it’s much more difficult to ensure they are delivered in a sensitive and convenient way to the citizen.

    The Citizen’s Charter is about stopping people being pushed around. It’s about listening to what people want, and tailoring services to their needs. It’s about challenging the age old assumptions of the trade union rule-book and of patronising officialdom. It’s about exposing incompetence, outdated systems and shoddy services – and improving them. It’s about giving people information, power, choice and rights.

    You might think, now I live in No 10 Downing Street, surrounded by public servants who could not be more helpful or more courteous, you might think my anger had cooled. But I can tell you it hasn’t. Every so often – too often – old memories flood back and it gets stirred up again. Take three weeks ago, when here in England we published for the first time nationwide school exam result league tables. The response was predictable: a chorus of protest from educationalists, from teachers’ unions and from the chattering classes who are well used to getting round the system.

    ‘Parents won’t understand’.

    ‘It doesn’t take account of pupils’ social background’.

    ‘It’s added value that matters, not exam results’.

    The age old defence tactics: misrepresent your opponent’s case. Then dress up self interest as concern for others.

    Parents are not stupid. They respect and admire the work that so many teachers do in tough circumstances with classes who have come out of primary school not properly equipped with the basic tools for learning. They know there are many factors to be taken into account when they look at schools for their children. And we intend to help by publishing even more information next year.

    But parents know something else. Looking at value added is useful, but it is not value added you take out into your career in later life; it is exam results and qualifications. Results matter. Parents know it. Employers know it. And if some professors of education don’t know it, they are in the wrong profession.

    Redefining the Role of the State

    The Citizen’s Charter programme involves a fundamental reappraisal of what the State should do and how it should do it.

    That is why the first strand of our programme is privatisation – stopping the State doing what is best done by the private sector. Since 1979, we have reduced the State sector to a smaller and more sensible size. We’ve already privatised 46 State-owned businesses – two-thirds of the State owned sector.

    But our privatisation programme is by no means finished. We have further big commitments ahead, starting with the railways. The success of privatisation, now so widely copied in every part of the globe, has already been a key factor in raising quality and choice in public service in Britain.

    Competition and Choice

    The second strand of Citizen’s Charter reform is the extension of competition and choice. The English novelist Anthony Trollope described competition as a ‘beautiful science’ ‘by which every plodding cart horse is converted into a racer’.

    Choice and competition put the citizen in the driving seat. And they bring with them a revolution in attitudes across the British public sector. Health Authorities and local doctors who manage their own funds can now choose the best service and best value for money for their patients. Parents now have a right to choose a school for their children. And to help them choose they are being given far more information about schools and how their own children are doing. Information they should never have been denied.

    I want to see more choice everywhere. At local government level we are pressing through the biggest programme of competitive tendering that has so far been seen.

    And in Central Government we announced last week that are increasing substantially the amount of work which is tested against the market; this year the total value will be almost £1.5bn. If the private sector can do it more efficiently, we’ll contract the work out. The key criterion will be good service for the public.

    Deregulation in Britain and Europe

    In Britain we see public sector agencies as standard setters, as enablers and – where necessary – as regulators of private sector activity. But I believe there is a balance to be struck between regulation which protects the consumer and enhances service, and over-regulation which imposes unsustainable costs on business.

    In the UK I believe the balance has tipped too far. Some have suggested that many of the small businessmen who are so vital to our economic regeneration spend up to half their working week dealing with government requirements. This is unacceptable. Small businesses simply cannot afford large numbers of advisers to cope with bureaucratic demands or to challenge them.

    It is time we stood back and looked again at the burden of regulation. It is time we heard what the public are saying about some of the regulations that are closing village shops, and threatening local businesses and products.

    That is why I have asked Michael Heseltine to lead a new blitz on regulation. Over the next months we will be challenging every Government Department to justify the scale of regulation it imposes. I want to see a new bonfire of controls. We must protect the public interest in safety and fair trading. But businessmen must be given the freedom and opportunities to create the wealth that all our countries so greatly need.

    Too many of the regulations people have complained about are associated with Europe. Last week the Industry Council highlighted the importance of minimising the burden on business of Community legislation. We shall build on this at the Edinburgh Summit. There we must carry forward the idea of subsidiarity. Start not just to simplify rules, but to identify unnecessary Community legislation that might be repealed outright.

    The problem is partly one of our own making. National Governments do not always translate EC Directives into plain rules everyone can understand. We sometimes add extra rules simply because they seem a good idea to Departments and their advisers or pressure groups. Here in Britain we are sometimes over-punctilious in enforcing Directives when lighter controls are tolerated elsewhere. I am very pleased to be able to announce a Scrutiny, which will involve the private sector, to study these important issues. Michael Heseltine will be announcing the terms of reference shortly.

    The Public Service Demand for Change

    One of the most heartening aspects of the Charter reforms in Britain is that it is not just the public who have been calling for change. There is also pressure for reform from within the public service itself. Public servants want to improve their relations with the public. They want clear standards and objectives and reward for achievement.

    Ideas for improvement are coming from the workforce themselves. For if there is one thing worse than being on the receiving end of shoddy service, it is knowing you are not being allowed to give the best you can.

    Charter Principles

    In improving public services I suggest that there are a number of fundamental principles which would hold good for any country. First, the customer has a right to know the standards which have been set and agreed. The standards must be published openly. Those standards must be measured and the results published so that success can be rewarded and poor service improved.

    Second, the consumer needs choice wherever practicable. Where choice is limited, as in some big public services like schools, social work and the police, there needs to be independent inspection with a strong lay element to ensure the customers’ voice is heard.

    Third, there must be swift, effective remedies for failure to deliver the promised standard of service.

    And finally, we need services which provide the best value for money. The Citizen’s Charter will have succeeded when we get the public, the Press, – and the providers themselves – to understand that improvement in public service is not only achieved by extra money. It comes from new methods, greater efficiency, and an open mind. Every private business knows that. It is true for public services as well.

    The Citizen’s Charter – a Continuing and Dynamic Programme

    Here in Britain, the Citizen’s Charter is a continuing and dynamic programme. Across 28 services, standards are being set. And when they are met, then they will be raised again and again. I want the standards to be demanding. On British Rail for example, some lines have performed extremely well against the targets. On other lines, targets have still not been reached. In such cases we will expect the management and workforce to redouble their efforts to deliver their commitments. I will not allow BR, or any other public services, to lower the standards that the Citizen’s Charter has set.

    Last week we published the first of what will be regular reports setting out the progress that has been achieved and the future programme. It shows how we are achieving at the one extreme dramatic improvements in performance in our major State services, such as health and education, and on the other the modest but vital small changes to services at a local level.

    Strengthening the Democratic Partnership

    This Conference offers a unique opportunity to share our different experiences of working for better public services. It is very important that we learn from each other. Because at the bottom of this worldwide concern to get a grip on standards of public service lies a deeper concern: to strengthen the sinews of a democratic society, by promoting more active partnership between Government and the citizen. As we approach the twenty-first century, there can be no greater cause than that.

  • Mr Major’s speech to 1992 Conservative Party Conference – 9 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the 1992 Conservative Party Conference on 9th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it hasn’t exactly been a dull week has it? What we have seen has been democracy in action. And this Party is stronger and healthier for it.

    Mr President, someone – I forget who it was – said that nothing that’s good is ever easy. I’m beginning to know what they meant. Politics is a rough, tough, unpredictable business – and troubles come in bunches. But you have to keep your nerve. And remember that when you come out of the teeth of the gale you’re tougher, more battle hardened and the weather is better.

    Mr President, in this stormy period, some people seem to have forgotten something rather important. Just six months ago this very day this Conservative Party won the General Election. We did so against all the odds. Everyone said we didn’t have a chance. The opinion polls – and in those days people actually believed them! – they were against us. The pundits were against us. They said history was against us. They all got even more egg on their faces than I did. Because they left something out of their calculations. 14 and a half million British people were with us. We got more votes than ever before in any election in the whole of British history.

    So why was it that those television exit polls were so wrong? Why didn’t the commentators see? Why didn’t the experts see? For that matter, why didn’t the BBC?

    There were two reasons why we won that record level of support. First, it was the principles we all stood for – the principles we stand for still. And second, it was the people who worked for that victory. You. And thousands like you. Who did so much, gave so much, campaigned so hard together. Mr President, there is one lesson we should never forget. When the Conservative Party is united, it is an irresistible political force.

    We Conservatives have great hopes and dreams for our country. But to make them reality we must win the battles we care about. Lift our country back into growth. And, in all we do, create the society we want for our children and the future.

    But before I turn directly to the great decisions that face us, I’d like to say something about someone not with us today – Chris Patten. We planned the Election in the early days of January. We knew we would go into it behind in the polls – and we were confident we’d come out of it ahead. But we knew, too, that for Chris to run the Election and hold Bath would be desperately difficult.

    So it proved. He’s a huge loss, not just to us, but to British politics. It was typical of him to decline a by-election, turn down a peerage, and take one of the toughest jobs in the world – as Governor of Hong Kong.

    Chris, win for Hong Kong, just as you won for us. And when you come back, come and join us. In Government. Because you’ll still be welcome and we’ll still be there.

    Someone else was a tower of strength through that Election. Norman Fowler. He was always at my side. Always there – with everything from beef burgers to wise advice.

    But every time I went out with Norman, something very curious happened. People threw eggs at him. But they kept missing him and hitting me.

    There are moments when great truths become evident. And this was one. A man who could duck so fast so often was clearly the right man for Central Office. Norman – it’s good to have you back.

    But, above all, I must thank someone who is not a politician. Someone to whom my debt is too personal to express fully. She is here today – just as she was on every day of the Election Campaign. I mean of course, Norma.

    Her role was even bigger than you may think. If I hadn’t met her on April 9th 1970, I might never have picked April 9th 1992. All those oceans of ink guessing the election date! Wasted! If only they’d asked Norma!

    Mr President, in all our Conferences there is theatre. You expect to hear us expose our opponent’s policies. Expect none of that today. For Labour and the Liberal Democrats are utterly irrelevant. let us leave them on the sidelines – where they are and where they deserve to be. I intend to address myself to the country, the Conference and the Conservative Party.

    Mr President, debates over our place in Europe have always touched raw nerves – in our Party and in our country. I don’t find that surprising. There are gut issues at stake. Opinions are passionately held. It is right to speak plainly and directly, even if for some it is uncomfortable. People must know exactly what’s at stake. The great dangers for our country and – as Douglas Hurd pointed out so graphically on Tuesday – for our Party if we make the wrong choices. And the right choices can only be based on facts. They can never be built on fears.

    Of course, emotions run high. We saw that from both sides in the great Conference debate earlier this week.

    For many of you, I know, the heart pulls in one direction and the head in another. There is nothing that can stir the heart like the history of this country. It is part of us. Nothing can change that. But it’s a different world now.

    Our families are growing up in a different age. They know we can’t pull up the drawbridge and live in our own private yesterday. They know we live in a world of competition – and we can’t just wish it away. Change isn’t just coming, it’s here. I want Britain to mould that change, to lead that change in our own national interest.

    That’s what I mean by being at the heart of Europe. Not turning a deaf ear to the heartbeat of Britain. But having the courage to stand up and do what we believe to be right.

    Right for British industry, right for British jobs, right for British prosperity.

    During the summer, when I was in Cornwall, a lady came up to speak to me. “Mr Major” she said, “please, please don’t let Britain’s identity be lost in Europe”. She didn’t tell me her name. But she spoke for the anxieties of millions. She spoke for this country. She spoke for me.

    So let me tell this Conference what I told that lady in Cornwall. I will never – come hell or high water – let our distinctive British identity be lost in a federal Europe.

    Let no-one in this Conference be in any doubt, this Government will not accept a centralised Europe.

    And if there are those who have in mind to haul down the Union Jack and fly high the star-spangled banner of a United States of Europe, I say to them; you misjudge the temper of the British people. And you do not begin to understand the determination of this Prime Minister to put the interests of this country first, now and always.

    Mr President, it’s true, the European Community has centralised too much. It has talked too much about European directives, and thought too little about Europe’s direction.

    But at Maastricht we began to reverse that trend. And at Birmingham and Edinburgh we will carry that further.

    So let me say to the European politicians; if you don’t heed that, you will never build the European Community you want. You will break up the European Community you have.

    You cannot go forward by browbeating Denmark.

    And to those who offer us gratuitous advice, I remind them of what a thousand years of history should tell them, you cannot bully Britain.

    Mr President, I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe. But, when I hear assertions from others in Europe, that we or the Danes should sign up on their terms. I’ll tell you what I think. I think they should keep their advice to themselves. Sign up on their terms? Before I was born, if this country hadn’t fought on our terms there’d be no free Europe to sign up to.

    All these are frustrations. They cause great anger. But emotion must not govern policy. At the heart of our policy lies one objective and one only – a cold, clear-eyed calculation of the British national interest. What is right for Britain. What is right for our future. And from that calculation I will not be budged.

    Let me come directly to the issue that has caused such controversy. The Treaty of Maastricht seems to have become enshrouded in myth and legend. Certainly, the Treaty I hear about is not the one I negotiated.

    What are the fears people have about Maastricht? We heard many of them in our debate this week.

    A Single Currency! Under the Maastricht Treaty, Britain is not committed to a single currency.

    Immigration? Immigration policy is specifically excluded under the Maastricht Treaty.

    Jobs and working conditions? I refused to sign up for the Social Chapter.

    Education? The Treaty explicitly rules out any Community interference in what is taught in schools or the way education is run.

    Defence? Defence is kept out of the control of the Community.

    Citizenship? We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens.

    Conference, if I believed what some people said about the Treaty, I would vote against it. But I don’t. So I’m going to put the real Treaty, the one I negotiated, back to the House of Commons.

    There is one great prize in the Treaty. For the first time we have reached agreement on developing the community in voluntary cooperation between independent nation states. That means outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court, outside the competence of the European Commission. We have wanted this principle established for years. And we now have it in the Treaty I signed.

    It is time the distortions were put to one side. It is time to return the debate to reality and away from myth.

    In the Treaty, there was give and take – there has to be in any partnership. But in the end we got what we wanted. Not the agreement our partners signed up to: a better agreement. We obtained for Britain the flexibility and freedom which others signed away.

    When I hear some of the criticisms of the Treaty I think of Don Quixote – you may remember him. He read too many old books and got carried away, fighting imaginary battles. He tilted at windmills in the belief they were giants. He saw things that weren’t there. There has been a lot of that in the current debate on Maastricht.

    Yes, we made concession. But so did our partners. What would they now think of a British Prime Minister who fights a tough negotiation, gives firm undertakings, and then comes back and breaks his word? What would we think of someone who did that to us?

    Who would ever trust Britain again? We would have broken faith. A demeaning position in which no British Government should ever be placed.

    But, far more than that, what is at stake is something practical and hard-headed.

    We wouldn’t just be breaking our word. We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending our hopes of ever building the kind of Europe that we want.

    And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans. That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government will make.

    Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60% of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores. It is absolutely vital for businesses, big and small – and for our prospects of economic growth.

    There isn’t a single business leader who believes Britain’s interests lie outside. And I hope they will make their views clear – and public.

    But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century. Today images of violence and exile are being acted out on the shores of the Adriatic. Where only two years ago the children of a million tourists laughed and played, young men of Europe are locked in a bloody civil war.

    That’s why I want Britain to work in the ’90s for a wider and wiser Community, embracing the new democracies of the East. That is the vision we have for the next generation. And it’s vital for our own security. But it is a vision we will only make real if we’re in there arguing for it, not scowling in the wings.

    Mr President, I’m not starry-eyed about Europe. If I’m starry-eyed, it’s about this country. Britain has always grown and prospered when it has looked outwards – from the time of the First Elizabeth, right through to the Second. Let us then not turn away and put up the shutters – but do what we believe – with faith, and courage and conviction. In the name of the present, and in the name of the future, we cannot sit this one out.

    Some take the view that we must choose between Europe and our friendship with the United States. What total nonsense. Britain is the indissoluble link between the United States and the continent of Europe. We have growing ties of commerce and trade with Europe, but we have blood ties over many generations with our friends in America.

    We in this party will preserve and strengthen our special relationship with America. It is longstanding. Tested in many battles. Reinforced by ties of kinship, language and shared values. Britain and America have stood side by side many times in many theatres of war against tyranny and oppression. On that line we must always take our stand and will, together.

    Eight weeks ago, we decided to send some 2,000 troops to Yugoslavia under the flag of the United Nations. They will bring aid to the victims of that terrible civil war. Without this common effect, we would be seeing in a few months time hundreds of thousands of people – men, women and children in Bosnia – in Europe – dying of starvation, of cold and lack of medicine.

    Britain is already the largest supplier of medicines. And, amidst all the dangers, our RAF Hercules have played a leading part in the airlift into Sarajevo. Those young men know the risks; but they have met them, just as the young men who will keep open the land corridors know the risks and will meet them. We can be proud of them – and we are.

    The safety of these troops will always be first in our minds. They are there for humanitarian reasons. They are not there to hold the combatants apart – and they will not be asked to do so. They are there to fight only in self-defence and then they have authority to use all the force they need.

    We are asking a lot of them. But they know what we know – and what our soldiers in Northern Ireland who stand in the front-line against terrorism also know. There is a duty to be done. I believe it is a duty that this Conference, gathered here in Brighton, would not want Britain, of all nations, to shirk. In these difficult and dangerous tasks they deserve, and will get, this Party’s full support.

    Mr President, I have spoken of our plans for Europe, and our beliefs about Britain’s place in the world. We now have to lead Britain through difficult times at home, as we have done so often in our history.

    You know the things I care about – we all care about – the things I dreamt about as a boy. The chance to get on in life. To acquire knowledge, security, the prospect of a better future – and a life fulfilled. A corner of life that you can call your own. That’s what people struggle for and sacrifice for when they watch their children grow.

    If we’re going to meet those hopes, fulfil those dreams – then we must build a strong economy.

    And looking around the world, we can see even more clearly what makes an economy strong. A Government that secures two things; low inflation and the right climate for business to succeed.

    It is people who create wealth.

    People, not Government. Business, not bureaucracy. Enterprise, not interference.

    But business can’t succeed if Government doesn’t play its part.

    Low taxes – low inflation. Leaving people more of their own money to spend and save. Protecting them from those robber barons of the twentieth century. Inflation and the state.

    I believe – I know – that it was for those tasks that the British people elected us to govern again.

    They didn’t trust anyone else to control inflation. They didn’t trust anyone else with their taxes. They didn’t trust anyone else to keep the state of industry’s back.

    Mr President, we must – and we will – deliver upon that trust.

    But today even the world’s most successful economies face difficulties. In the United States. In Japan. Throughout Europe – yes, and in Germany, too.

    And here in Britain I know how great is the personal hardship that many people are facing. Some have lost their jobs; some their businesses; some their homes. We must pursue policies that will bring hope back into their lives.

    I know how hard people are hit by the misfortune that befalls home after home, family after family, in a recession. Unemployment is a bitter experience. I don’t want a temporary cure. I want a lasting recovery. To come out of this recession safe from the threat of its repetition. If there is one thought that goes through my mind wherever I see this recession Mr President, never again! That’s why we’re looking for long-term solutions. That’s why we’ll take no risks with inflation. And that’s why we will continue to do everything possible to create the prosperity that is the hallmark of a Conservative Government.

    But we must not forget what has been achieved and is essential for lasting recovery.

    Inflation – down from nearly 11% to just over 3.5% in the past two years. And today I can tell you that even the underlying rate – that hard core we have found so difficult to reduce – has come down to 4%.

    Interest rates – down from 15% to 9%. The starting rate of income tax – down from 25% to 20%. Mortgage payments down, on average, 80 pounds a month. All putting more of people’s own money back in their own pockets.

    And, yet, despite that progress, it’s been taking such a long time for things to get going. I know hos frustrating that is. Here as abroad, debt has made people cautious. Slow to spend. That’s made things tough for small businesses. Tough for industry, too.

    That’s what makes British industry’s successes all the more remarkable. Exports – close to record levels. Manufacturing output rising – and productivity at record levels. Investment began to rise in the spring. And even in the High Street, sales have been picking up again.

    It is not enough. It is only a beginning. But now, I believe, we can aim for more.

    With a low inflation rate, we can compete with the best in Europe.

    Let’s not forget how we managed to bring inflation down and the man who did it – Norman Lamont. As he reminded us yesterday, for nearly two years it was the discipline of the ERM that helped us do so. But last month, we faced turmoil in the markets and rising interest rates across Europe. Germany’s troubles had driven European interest rates so high that the mechanism was no longer the servant of Europe’s prosperity.

    But let us not waste time looking back. We have to deal with the world as it is. Let’s take advantage of our circumstances to win new success for Britain.

    With a lower exchange rate, we have a new competitive edge in Europe. And provided we don’t blunt it with inflation, it gives us a real opportunity, in a single European market of 330 million people.

    A market for British computers. British cars. British televisions. British textiles. British services. British skills. The biggest free trade area in the world.

    That’s the market in which British enterprise must succeed. And the Government will back British business all the way.

    Let us return to that old and vivid slogan: British means business. And let me say a little more about what I believe Government can do to make it true.

    First, low inflation. Down to the point where it no longer interferes with the decisions people and businesses have to make in their daily lives.

    Second, we must create an economic environment in which more people are willing to invest their effort, their savings, their skills in new businesses because of the rewards that exist.

    Those who risk their savings should know that if they build up wealth by their efforts, they will be able to keep more of it. What families have worked a lifetime to create, the taxman should never be allowed to destroy.

    Those who build up new businesses must be confident they won’t be stifled by taxation. And we know what that means for Government – it means standing firm against all those pleas for extra public spending. All so attractive to someone – so disastrous in combination.

    Where more is really needed we will spend more. Our plans allow for that. But more for some programmes may have to mean less – for others. Because we have set our limits – and we will stick to them.

    Mr. President, it’s going to be a tough spending round. All my colleagues know it. But they also know they’ve got to do what business does. Protect the quality – cut the cost. We can keep improving our public services – if the public sector doesn’t pay itself what the taxpayer can’t afford.

    It’s too easy – when spending is under pressure – to forget the long term. To let the burden fall on private industry alone.

    We must work with industry, to see whether the public and private sectors working together can do more to invest in our future. More to improve the infrastructure of this country. I know the problems. But it is time to look afresh at whether we can find new solutions.

    But that’s not enough. We must also see what more we can do to help our exporters win for Britain. In the single market – and in the world trading system.

    We are battling for free trade – and to make sure we take the best advantage of it. I want to see British enterprise succeeding across the globe. Winning contracts. Creating British jobs. Generating our future prosperity.

    And as part of this we must do more to lighten the burden of government regulation. Government should stand behind business – not in its way.

    Mr President, this is a battle we’ve been fighting since 1979. But it’s a battle that is never won. And now is the time to mount a new offensive.

    We’re already on the march against the Eurocrat and his sheaf of directives. But you know, it isn’t just Brussels that rolls out the red tape.

    It’s Whitehall. And town hall. Everyone likes to tie another knot. Admirable intentions – disastrous combinations. Piling costs on industry. Mr President, that must stop.

    It’s not just big business that suffers. Far too often, it is the small firms who really suffer. Small firms – fed up with filling in the forms – who feel that it is just not worth being in business at all.

    Of course, we want to have confidence in the safety of the food we eat, the homes we buy, the place we work in, the people who take charge of our children. But when this reaches the point where you may need 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations just to start a business, then I say again, this sort of thing must stop.

    I have asked Michael Heseltine to take responsibility for cutting through this burgeoning maze of regulations. Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into them!

    You know, deregulation isn’t just about making life better for business. It’s about making life easier for everybody. Take the bureaucratic controls which mean Whitehall decides whether you have the chance to stop off the motorway. Every parent knows what I mean. Next services, 54 miles – when your children can’t make 10!

    They’ve got to go. And so those rules have got to go!

    Or take the system that keeps air fares far too high. It’s absurd that international air travel is regulated under rules set out before the jet airliner was even invented.

    And why should so many people, from all over Britain, have to come to London when they want to fly abroad? I want to see more flights directly out of Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham and all our regional airports. That’s better for the people who live there – and better for London too.

    Mr President, it is vital that we get the economy back into strong – and sustainable – growth. We can do it. We must do it. But that is only the first of our ambitions for the course of this Parliament. The manifesto that won the Election set out a full programme for five years. Now we’re going to put it into action.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the year 2000 is less than a hundred months away. That, at any rate, is the latest Treasury forecast. I want Britain’s example, its ingenuity, its decency and principle to be in the forefront as we cross that threshold.

    In all we do we must speak to the instincts of the British people. For 300 years, the Conservative Party has reflected those instincts in a way that no other political party has ever been able to match.

    So let’s go out and tell the people about the things we’ll be working for, and fighting for, in the next four years of Conservative Government.

    We’ll be fighting for better public service.

    For services that put the parents, the patients, and the passengers first. Fighting bloody-minded and petty bureaucracy wherever we find it. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is about.

    We’ll be fighting for good local Government, closer to local people. That’s why in Wales it’s set to be goodbye to the likes of Clwyd and Gwent and back to Pembrokeshire and Anglesey. In Scotland, the Scottish Secretary will be consulting the public on change – but I rather suspect it could be an Ian Lang farewell to monstrosities like Strathclyde.

    In England we will give everyone the chance to put their views on the future of councils like Cleveland or Avon. I can’t predict the outcome. But can you imagine Len Hutton walking out to bat for Humberside?

    We’ll be fighting for better health and social services.

    For a Health Service run by local people in patients’ interests. For more GP fundholders and more of our successful hospital trusts. We want better care for the elderly and vulnerable in the home and the community – wherever they choose to be. And we must make sure local councils respect the wishes of those who do go into homes. People in their last years are entitled to as much choice and dignity as anyone else. Not less choice and no dignity.

    And Mr President, we have all been deeply shocked at the reports of scandals in some social security departments. It’s terrible when children are involved. That’s why we are going to set up regular independent inspection of social work in every council. We will not let vulnerable people and children be put at risk.

    We’ll be fighting to strengthen the rights of ordinary trade union members.

    They must have freedom to join the union of their choice – and fairness in union ballots and finances.

    And, under the Citizen’s Charter, we’re going to give you – all of you – a new right. To take direct action in the courts against those who disrupt public services through unlawful strikes, and hold the country to ransom.

    And we’ve already blown the whistle on one of the last bastions of the closed shop – student unions. The days in which they march and demonstrate at the taxpayer’s expense are numbered.

    When it comes to education, my critics say I’m old-fashioned. Old-fashioned? Reading and writing? Spelling and sums? Great literature – and standard English grammar? Old fashioned?

    Well, if I’m old-fashioned, well, so be it. So are the vast majority of Britain’s parents. And I have this message for the progressives who are trying to change the exams. English exams should be about literature, not soap opera. And I promise you this. There’ll be no GCSEs in Eldorado – even assuming anyone is still watching it!

    I also want reform of teacher training. Let us return to basic subject teaching, not courses in the theory of education. Primary teachers should learn how to teach children to read, not waste their time on the politics of gender, race and class,

    I don’t know if you feel as I do, but I think it is intolerable that children should spend years in school and then leave them unable to read or add up. It’s a terrible waste of young lives.

    We want high standards, sound learning, diversity and choice in all our schools. But, in some – particularly in those inner cities – Isaac Newton would not have learned to count and Anthony Trollope would never have learned to write.

    We cannot abandon the children in schools like these. And we will not. So if local authorities cannot do the job, then we will give the job to others.

    In the place of the local authority which has failed, new Education Associations will be set up to run and revive these schools. Governments have always shied away from it. But I am not prepared to any longer.

    Yes, it will mean another colossal row with the educational establishment. I look forward to that. It’s a row worth having. A row where we will have the vast majority of parents – and the vast majority of good, committed teachers – squarely on our side. They believe what we believe – that children must come first.

    Mr President, there was a time when Britain was a watchword for good behaviour across the world. I want to restore that good name. People are horrified when they see mindless vandalism; old people attacked by young thugs; drunken louts on the rampage, blackening Britain’s reputation abroad. Not only horrified, they’re ashamed.

    Mr President, to excuse crime may seem understanding. But it’s wrong. Sympathy doesn’t curb crime. If society wants to protect itself it must condemn crime, not condone it. We must create a climate in which people know the difference between right and wrong and yours and mine. We must spell out the truth. Crime wrecks lives, spreads fear, corrupts society. It is the fault of the individual, and no one else.

    We are cracking down hard on crime – particularly violence. And that includes – as I promised last year – tough sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving or drunken driving. Nothing can excuse those who kill in this way. We are taking action. And I hope the courts will respond.

    There’s another problem we are dealing with – the illegal occupation of land by so called “new-age travellers”.

    You will have seen the pictures on television or in the newspapers; if you live in the West Country and Wales you may have seen it on your doorstep. Farmers powerless. Crops ruined and livestock killed by people who say they commune with nature, but have no respect for it when it belongs to others.

    New age travellers? Not in this age. Not in any age.

    They say that we don’t understand them. Well, I’m sorry – but if rejecting materialism means destroying the property of others; then I don’t understand. If doing your own things means exploiting the social security system and sponging off others, then I don’t want to understand. If alternative values mean a selfish and lawless disregard for others, then I won’t understand. Let others speak for these new age travellers. We will speak for their victims.

    Mr President, the things I care most about are the long term things – stability and security at home and in Europe; rebuilding standards in education; the long-term strength – economic and moral – of our nation. Preserving Britain’s pride and purpose and belief in itself. That’s what I care about. That’s what I stand for.

    Isn’t that what we’re all about together in this Party? That’s what our forebears worked for when they built it, when they sent its roots down deep – right into the very heart and marrow of Britain. That’s why we are all in this Party together – you and I.

    That’s why I fought so hard in the Election to keep our country one. For me that is the highest and greatest of our causes – to defend the unity of the United Kingdom, and all that binds our nation together. For unless we stay united, unless we stand together, as a Party and as a nation, this country will never prevail. There is not a man or a woman in this hall, or listening outside, who doesn’t know in their heart that is true.

    So let’s be confident at home and in Europe. Let’s not turn away and say “It’s all too difficult”. Let’s not hang back because we don’t believe our voice will be heard. Right across Europe, now, in this critical hour, people are looking and listening to us and to what we have to say.

    It won’t always be easy. It won’t always be comfortable. But in all we do, there is one thing I will never forget. This is our country.

    What we do, we do for Britain. What we do, we do for the future of our children and for generation yet unborn. For their prosperity and their security, and never for short term political advantage.

    Let us have faith, and courage, and pride. Britain’s interests will come first – for me, and this Party. First. Last. Always.

  • PMQT – 25 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Betts : Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that dentists in Huntingdon are to refuse to treat any new patients, including children, under the national health service because of Government cuts in funding? How will the Prime Minister explain to his constituents that, despite repeated excuses, the Government are failing to give the NHS the level of resources necessary to enable it to provide a first-class level of treatment for all?

    The Prime Minister : There is no question of anyone needing to go without a national health service dentist in Huntingdon. Dentists in Cambridgeshire have more patients than the national average because of population growth. A recruitment campaign for dentists has been planned for some time and will go ahead in September. If necessary, the local family health services authority will seek agreement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to employ salaried dentists. Four dentists are already interested in such appointments. If people have any trouble finding dentists, they should go to their family health services authority, which should be able to help.

    Mr. Dykes : May I wish my right hon. Friend well in the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community? Will he ensure that Ministers work hard in the coming months to explain the immense benefits of the Maastricht treaty to the interests of this country– [Interruption.] which will become clearer over time? If that work is successful, it will help to diminish some of the grotesque xenophobia and hysteria of recent weeks.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Maastricht agreement was made within the negotiating terms agree by the House, was subsequently endorsed by the House and was agreed at a general election. The Second Reading of the Bill has been approved, it remains Government policy and in due course we shall carry it through.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government now support the extension of Mr. Delors’ term of office as president of the European Commission ?

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter that will be discussed at the weekend. There is, as I understand it, likely to be only one candidate. If that is Mr. Delors, we shall support him.

    Mr. Hattersley : Since I take it that that answer is as far as the Prime Minister’s reserves of courage are liable to go towards the answer yes, will he give Mr. Delors the Opposition’s congratulations– [Interruption] and tell Mr. Delors that we confidently expect him to continue to implement policies which are necessary for this country, are supported by the Labour party and are anathema to Tory Back Benchers?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman carried all his Friend’s with him.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent survey that showed that 91 per cent. of British exporters reported either good or very good orders for the first three months of this year ? Does he agree that the efforts made by British exporters will lead the way to recovery?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Last month’s export figures were extremely good. They were up 6 per cent. by value and 4 per cent. by volume. I think that that shows the extent to which our competitiveness has increasingly enabled us to penetrate export markets which were previously not open to us.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Michie : When will the Prime Minister stop going on about his wonderful citizen’s charter which, so far as I can see, has had only one effect until now, which is that British Rail passengers can keep their tickets ? At a much more serious level, pregnant women cannot keep their jobs. What good is a charter which does not allow women to be pregnant without being punished for it ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the whole range of citizen’s charters that we have produced, he would realise that it is a far wider-ranging initiative than he has begun to understand. It puts the consumer and not the producer first, and it will remain right at the heart of Government policy throughout the rest of this decade.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he said that there would be another debate in the House on the Maastricht Bill before Third Reading? May I recommend the attitude of one of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who allowed a free vote of the House in similar circumstances when he was piloting the European Communities legislation through the House? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that would be an excellent way to test the water before we come to voting on the Maastricht Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I was not a Member of the House at that moment, and I am not entirely sure that I recall that free vote. The House has now debated and voted on the Maastricht agreement on three occasions. As I indicated a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), we contested the general election on that proposition–a general election at which all my hon. Friends were returned on a manifesto to which they all subscribed. The Maastricht treaty was negotiated in good faith by all member states. I have no intention of breaking the word of the British Government that was given on that occasion ; nor do I have any intention of compromising what we agreed on that occasion and wrecking this country’s reputation for plain and honest dealing and good faith. In due course, therefore, I shall be inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government and the Bill.

    Dr. Wright : The Government have devoted many millions of pounds and many millions of copies to telling people about the glories of the parent’s charter and the patient’s charter. Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many millions of pounds and how many millions of copies have been devoted to telling the British people about the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : From memory, I think that the House spent 30 hours debating it before we even went to Maastricht. I do not think that there is any doubt about the realities of what the treaty stands for in the minds of the British people. They knew that at the election, and they supported it at the election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Milligan : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment on her triumph in Luxembourg yesterday? It is good news for pay packets, good news for jobs and good news for investment. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that it shows that the best way to fight for British interests is to negotiate strongly, but with a reputation as a country which keeps the agreements that we make and ratifies the treaties that we sign?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I wholeheartedly agree with him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment achieved an outcome at yesterday’s Economic and Social Council which meets every one of the United Kingdom’s most crucial objectives. She has preserved the flexibility which employers and employees in the United Kingdom enjoy and which is one of our greatest assets. I must tell the House, however, that the directive is still not–and may not be– agreed in the European Community. In any event, it is still our case, irrespective of the negotiating triumph by my right hon. Friend yesterday, that the treaty base under which it has been brought forward is wrong and that if it is passed we may still challenge it in the European Court.

     

    Homelessness

    Q5. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment regularly meets representatives of the voluntary organisations in London who work with homeless people.

    Mr. Corbyn : Does the Prime Minister realise that the 25 million sq ft of empty offices in London and still more under construction are an insult to the 2,000 people who sleep on the streets of the capital city every night and to the 18,000 people living in hostels? When will the Government direct the construction industry to build houses for rent for those who need them, rather than speculative office blocks to lie idle for the benefit of property speculators? This is a crucial matter and the right hon. Gentleman stands condemned by those who are forced to sleep on the streets at night.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman, standing in a glass house, should be careful where he throws his bricks. Of the top 10 authorities with empty properties, six are Labour controlled and none is Conservative controlled. If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned, he would be putting pressure on Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Hackney, Knowsley and Newcastle upon Tyne. He might then get homeless people back into accommodation.

    Several Hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the House that this is a closed question.

    Mr. John Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that homelessness in London is the result of decades of rent control, which Conservative rule got rid of, and of incompetence by high-spending Labour councils?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is scope for the private rented sector to grow and to provide low-cost flexible accommodation. The hostility of the Labour party over the years has cramped that growth and prevented that property becoming available for people who needed it. We have consistently sought to expand the privately rented sector, most recently with our proposed tax exemptions to help people who want to rent a room to do so. I hope that Opposition Members will support that policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Beggs : May I invite the Prime Minister to make time in his busy schedule to visit my constituency to see for himself why Larne is the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom and to hear from the people there why he should use his influence to persuade the European Commission that Larne, Belfast, Stranraer and Dumfries be recognised as Euro-routes to and from Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I should be happy to take up that invitation from the hon. Gentleman. Northern Ireland is well served by its ports and I am confident that they will continue to provide the routes for most of the Province’s business and tourist traffic to Great Britain and onwards to Europe. They have performed magnificently in the past and I believe that they will continue to do so, and to grow, in the future.

    Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters most to people is the amount that the Government take in tax from their wage packets? Bearing that in mind, may I ask him to confirm that he has no plans to follow the tax policies advocated by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) which, even in the view of many Labour Members, contributed greatly to the Opposition’s defeat?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our policies of low taxation and low inflation were clearly what the electorate wanted at the last general election. I am aware of the dispute about why the Opposition lost the election, and I am sorry to note that for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the honeymoon is over before the marriage has begun.

     

    Q7. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the National Children’s Home report issued this week, which shows that each day in Scotland 41,000 families on income support cannot afford to buy food, that 500 families are now housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that the city of Glasgow has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe? If the Prime Minister really believes in the family, does he share my disgust at that situation and my desire for urgent action?

    The Prime Minister : The definition used by the National Children’s Home for “poverty” was misleading, as the hon. Gentleman will know. He will also know that this year’s uprating of income support was substantially higher than the retail prices index. The definition used by the National Children’s Home defines someone as poor if he or she spends less than half the national average spending per head. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that measure of poverty excludes a Greek spending the average in Greece, while a richer person in the United Kingdom spending less than half the national average is classed as poor. That definition does not stand up to examination.

    Mr. Rupert Allason : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to declassify as much material as possible dating from before the second world war before it is all released in Moscow and Washington?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friends will have heard my hon. Friend’s advice.

  • Mr Major’s Comments at Citizen’s Charter Meeting – 19 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments at the start of a meeting on the Citizen’s Charter, held in London on 19th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe we’ve made very considerable progress over the last year. But having said that I think we must recognise in this meeting it is just the beginning, there’s a huge amount still to be done. A huge amount to change the services and a huge amount to change the culture which lies behind the delivery of the services.