The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Conservative Women’s Conference

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – love of freedom;

    – enrichment of democracy;

    – faith in the individual;

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

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

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

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

    The Bosnian peace agreement is a very helpful beginning.

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

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

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

    This wasn’t an easy or cheap decision.

    But it is the right decision.

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

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

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

    Northern Ireland

    Peace is relevant at home as well as abroad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We, the Government, can facilitate the process.

    But we can’t decide it.

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

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

    No-one can have a veto on progress.

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

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

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

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

    And there’s a second aim to our initiative.

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

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

    Words aren’t enough.

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

    People who mean peace don’t need guns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Budget

    Madam Chairman, I said my theme was pride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ken Clarke’s Budget had three clear objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In time, 20p will become the basic rate.

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

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

    Welfare

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

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

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

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

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

    We’ll go on working at this problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Instead of sensible economic policies they offer gimmicks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Think what that would mean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The strongest foundation of our society is our United Kingdom.

    Some say the nation state will soon be irrelevant.

    I disagree.

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

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

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

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

    But we are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peroration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The fruits of those decisions are now becoming clear.

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1994 Conservative Women’s Conference – 2 December 1994

    Below are extracts, published by Conservative Central Office, of Mr Major’s speech to the 1994 Conservative Women’s Conference, held at the International Centre in Hammersmith on Friday 2nd December 1994.

    [significant sections missing from transcript]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Northern Ireland

    Yesterday, after three months of ceasefire in Northern Ireland, we announced that exploratory talks with Sinn Fein would start next week.

    The peace process is about to move into a new phase. A critically important phase. Before Christmas we shall be starting talks about talks not only with Sinn Fein but also with Loyalist political representatives.

    These talks are not yet political negotiations about Northern Ireland’s future. They are the gateway to public life and democratic politics for groups who have long excluded themselves.

    These groups must learn the rules of democratic politics. And those rules can’t be reconciled with gun law, intimidation, or any threat of violence.

    [section missing]

    Not peace at any price, but the lasting peace which can only come from the principles of democracy and law.

    Not just a season of goodwill but goodwill through all the seasons.

    1993 brought hope to Northern Ireland. In 1994, hope has begun to turn into reality.

    In 1995 we must make that a lasting reality, a life for the Province free from violence.

    Strong Economy

    Daily Britain is growing stronger – and it is doing so because of the policies we have followed. So, today, I want to look forward to some of the key issues at the next General Election.

    What will be the economic conditions at the time of that Election? And what will be the issues?

    We can foresee the economic conditions.

    Next time we will not be in the middle of a recession. Instead, we will be campaigning on the back of four years of high growth; of low inflation; of falling unemployment; of investment in industry; of competitiveness; and of rising exports.

    This is not idle speculation – not a wish list. This is the probable background against which we will fight.

    We now have before us the brightest economic prospects any of us have ever seen.

    Over the past 12 months growth in the economy has been a little above four per cent. Rarely have we seen it grow quite so fast. But even that isn’t really the significant point.

    [section missing]

    It hasn’t been easy. It has been painful. Painful for many people. Painful for us politically. Many people said ‘ease up.’ Many a seductive option was urged on us. An interest rate cut here, a bit more protection there – all the short-term palliatives.

    They were often offered for good reasons, these easy options. But they were wrong. And our policy was right – it was long-term and it was necessary. Now we will see the reward. We have now laid the groundwork for sustained growth with low inflation for many years to come.

    We were following a long-term strategy – not a short-term fix.

    We took long-term decisions, not short-term expedients.

    What we did was right for the long-term future of this country.

    We may have faced unpopularity – but we have done what had to be done. And we’ve done it successfully.

    The Conservative agenda is clear. To turn our present low inflation economy into a permanent low inflation economy.

    Not for abstract reasons; but because such an economy delivers security, opportunity and prosperity – and they are important to us all.

    Of course we still wish to cut taxes where we can. And we will.

    And we’ll continue to improve the strength of industry, raise standards in our schools, give better training to our young people. and get more of those long-term unemployed off welfare benefits and back into jobs.

    All that is now happening although there is still much to be done. I am not complacent….

    [section missing]

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference – 4 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference, held in London on 4th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, it is over 30 years since I joined the Conservative Party.

    I still recall why. Because it was the Party of the individual.

    The Party of the family. It offered choice. It spoke about how people could better what they had.

    How each of us could have more control over our own lives. Build up something more – then leave it to our children. They are simple enough objectives. They are what I believe in. What we all believe in.

    We stand for them as strongly today as we ever did. Individual liberty in everyday matters. That is fundamental to a free society. But that is not the only appeal of our Party.

    We help each generation lay the groundwork for the next. We keep our roots in the past, but we plan far into the future.

    And we have persistence. What we start out we complete – however tough the prospects may look.

    But, Madam Chairman, I don’t need to tell you that. Just remember the last Election. Win it? Many people were telling you that we hadn’t a cat in hell’s chance.

    It would have been easy to give up then – but we didn’t. We didn’t do it then. We haven’t done it since. And, Madam Chairman, we’re not going to do it now. I know it’s not been easy for Conservative supporters. It’s easy to wear the blue rosette the day after an Election win. But it’s not so easy to lift hopes and hearts when things have been difficult.

    But that’s what you all do. That’s what you did last March and April. That’s what you’ve been doing these last few months. And I know how much I owe you.

    Madam Chairman, these have been difficult times for Britain, but things are looking up here now. And don’t let’s forget – as some people too often do. Look around Europe.

    In France, in Germany, in Spain, in Italy – wherever you look – things are worse than they are in Britain. Higher interest rates. Higher inflation. And economies that are shrinking. In Britain the position is changing. We are now out of recession and returning to growth.

    Inflation has fallen: down from around 11 per cent to under 2 per cent.

    Interest rates: down from 15 per cent to 6 per cent.

    Exports: soaring.

    Manufacturing: beginning to re-employ again.

    Over 1000 new businesses are started every day.

    Unemployment has fallen over the last three months and job vacancies have risen.

    Britain is now back into growth. And that is the way to get Britons back into work. Of course we still face problems ahead. As a Nation we are borrowing too much. That is almost inevitable in a recession. The Government’s income falls – fewer people in work means less income tax. Less spending means less VAT and excise duties. Fewer home sales means less Stamp Duty.

    But it is not only that income falls in a recession expenditure increases. Social costs increase to protect the unemployed and others facing difficulty.This too, worsens the public finances. But I know of no Conservative Government that would abandon the vulnerable in a recession.

    Quite simply, that is not our way. So, income down, expenditure up. That is one of the main reasons we are borrowing too much.

    A good deal of our deficit will automatically disappear as we return to growth – the mirror image of what has happened over the last three years.

    In the Budget we set out a clear strategy for raising revenue over the next 3 years. The main task now is to keep a firm grip on public spending to help bring the books back towards balance.

    We must look across Government to see where savings can be made. As we do so we will not forget our Manifesto promises. We will not forget our commitment to the vulnerable – and especially the elderly. Nor will we forget our instincts and priorities as Conservatives.

    Over the next few months you can expect a whole crop of scare stories. Our opponents will be unscrupulous in their willingness to frighten anyone and everyone if they believe it will frighten them into their political camp.

    We have seen it all over the last two years.

    ‘The Government will privatise the Health Service.’ Remember that scare? Untrue.

    ‘The rural Post Office network will close.’ Untrue.

    ‘Pensioners won’t be able to collect their pensions from the Post Office.’ Untrue.

    Three wrongs that were not right. And there’ll be more.

    Be warned. Our opponents will scare and scare and scare again.

    What they will not do is address the reality that – in the interests of the country – we must put the finances in order.

    We have to take a good hard look at public spending – quite apart from the financial pressures of recession.

    Let me tell you why.

    More of our young people are going into further education. We want to encourage that – but it’s very expensive.

    More people are living longer. We want to provide them with the care they deserve – but it’s very expensive.

    Britain needs a modern industrial economy. So our young people need more and better training – but it’s very expensive.

    All are important. But we can’t pile cost upon cost. We have to pick our priorities. More spending somewhere means more savings somewhere else. I know it will be unpopular in the area where savings are found. But – if we are to do what is right for the country – we must do it.

    I believe the British public will understand this.

    They know you can’t spend what you don’t have.

    And all of us have to take that message – uncomfortable as it is – to every constituency in the land.

    Some areas of public expenditure will continue to grow – year by year. We must answer the question – how are we going to meet rising needs without ever higher taxation? I believe the answer lies in policies that will sustain the recovery – low taxes on larger profits and more incomes.

    Madam Chairman, I want our country to be economically powerful again. To build up its industrial and commercial strength. The economic conditions are in place. Now we need to shape policy so that it supports business and allows it to grow.

    Only growth will provide jobs, yield taxes, invade foreign markets, replace foreign imports and boost our prosperity.

    Madam Chairman, I believe the Government does have a role to help industry. It has a responsibility to shape the economy; to keep taxes as low as possible and to produce economic conditions that favour investment. But it can do more than that.

    It can curb unnecessary regulation. And we will do that.

    It can stop costs being loaded on British companies by unnecessary action in Brussels. And we will do that.

    It can help exporters to win in overseas markets with strong support and the full use of British political influence abroad. And we will do that.

    It can produce the reforms that help industry.

    The trade union reforms. The education reforms. The training reforms. And we will do that.

    The economic conditions are in place for growth. Slowly, but certainly, confidence is coming back.

    Confidence to encourage investment.

    Confidence to expand.

    Confidence in our economic prospects.

    That confidence will ripple through the economy – from the greatest companies to the village shop.

    And the sooner it does that, the better it will be for everyone.

    We are now at a turning point. The recession is slipping behind us. Steady growth lies in front of us. And if the OECD and European forecasters are correct, next year Britain will grow faster than any of the leading EC countries.

    They are saying it abroad. So let’s hear it at home. It is time to stop knocking Britain. It is time to talk Britain up – and talk Britons back into work. And it is also time to protect Britain from well-meaning but damaging legislation.

    At Maastricht I refused to accept the Social Chapter. Not because I want to damage workers’ rights. But because I don’t think that being priced out of a job and being made unemployed is much of a right. The Social Chapter loads costs on employers and will cost jobs for employees.

    Throughout Europe over 17 million people are unemployed.

    All Europe competes with the US, Japan, and the Pacific Basin. But if Europe piles costs on itself, it will not be able to compete – and unemployment will rise across the Community.

    Earlier this week, under the provisions of the Single European Act, our European partners were able to agree a directive by a qualified majority vote that tries to change British working practices. I believe their proposals are folly.

    In any event that should be a decision for this country. It should not be a decision made in Europe. So we will fight it politically. And we will take our case to court. Our partners have also proposed the establishment of works’ councils. Let me tell them now. They are wasting their time.

    They need unanimous agreement for that – and Britain will not give it. We have a veto on this issue. And we will use it. But let us not forget that Europe is changing.

    Today’s European agenda is not about federalism, still less about some fanciful “superstate”.

    It is about making Europe competitive; securing a GATT agreement; stimulating growth and jobs building up the single market.

    About decreasing regulation and increasing national decision- making.

    About bringing new members into the Community, and building up links with Eastern Europe.

    These are the realities of life in the Community today. They reflect our ideas. They are good for Europe. And, Madam Chairman, they are good for Britain.

    Madam Chairman, over the last few days I have had the opportunity of reading your paper on crime. It comes at a good moment. Three weeks ago – at the Scottish Conference at Edinburgh – we heard from a very brave woman who spoke about being the victim of a violent crime.

    It was a harrowing account delivered with great dignity. The chances of being a victim may – statistically – be remote. But fear of crime is not remote. It is all too real to too many people. People living on their own. Women. Pensioners. And people living isolated lives in our big city estates.

    That fear limits freedom blights lives and corrodes society.

    How many people here, when they get into the car, press the central locking with their elbow before they drive off?

    Quite a lot, I bet. Across the country millions do. I’ve seen my own family do it.

    How many women think twice before venturing out into their own town or city in the evening?

    We really shouldn’t have to give that a second thought. It cannot be right that people feel so insecure.

    Madam Chairman, we intend to respond to those fears. Of course, we will give the police and courts the powers and support they need to fight crime on our behalf. We are doing that. But that’s only half the equation. The police and the courts can’t do the job on their own.

    The fight against crime – if it is to be successful – must involve us all.

    Parliament can’t solve crime with legislation. Governments can’t solve it just with expenditure.

    Both have a part to play – but it is only a part.

    If we are to have a successful long-term crusade against crime we have to change the general attitude to crime.

    We must end the all too easy tolerance of petty crime – because it breeds an appetite for more serious crime.

    We need to encourage self-discipline. And we need the help of the public.

    Some months ago I said of crime: ‘We must understand a little less, condemn a little more.’

    Some people were outraged. But I wouldn’t change a word of that view.

    If we understand too much we condone.

    If we condone we encourage.

    If we encourage we will not bring down crime.

    In understanding crime you can, literally, kill with kindness.

    Our long-term battle against crime must start in the home.

    We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong while they’re young. Children need rules. To be shown that life on the right side of the law offers so much more than life on the wrong side. Violence is not a routine part of life. And it should never be portrayed on our videos or television screens as if it were.

    We don’t want our children saturated by violence. We want them to grow up appalled by it.

    Madam Chairman, we will not shrink from taking any necessary steps to combat crime.

    In this session of Parliament we will be taking the action you asked for.

    We will be giving the courts the powers they need.

    Cracking down on arrogant criminals who ask for bail, get it and then commit crime all over again.

    We will be extending the maximum penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.

    And we will let courts take previous convictions into account when passing sentence.

    Madam Chairman, that is just the beginning of the changes to come.

    Next year Michael Howard will make the battle against crime the centre-piece of our legislation.

    We’ll be acting on criminal justice.

    And we’ll be acting to strengthen and to modernise the police.

    We will be developing new institutions for young offenders – so that they’re where they belong – off the streets.

    We will be tackling those so-called ravers, squatters and new age travellers, who treat other people’s property as if it were the municipal rubbish dump.

    And, yes, we will be clamping down more comprehensively than ever before on fraud in the social security system.

    If there are to be cuts in expenditure, let the first cut be fraud.

    We will also reform the police. We have the men and women we need – but all too often they are having to spend time sitting in offices filling in forms.

    We want them out of offices, catching those who have form. That’s what our new plans are about. That’s what we want.

    And isn’t that what the people of this country want too?

    Madam Chairman, the whole country will agree we need to tackle crime. But they won’t all agree about tackling some of the other problems in front of us.

    I know what many of our supporters are saying. ‘Why can’t they leave well alone? Why are they always changing things?’ I understand that. No one likes change for its own sake.

    That’s normal; that’s Conservative. It’s an everyday instinct.

    And it’s my instinct, too.

    But when I see something wrong then, yes, I do want to change it. To change it for the better – and change it for good.

    Continuity and change weave together into the living tradition of modern Conservatism.

    Continuity of institutions is the bedrock upon which we can make changes elsewhere.

    Above all, there is the continuity of the Monarchy.

    Forty years ago this week, the nation celebrated the coronation of our Queen. Millions lined the streets and millions watched on flickering black and white televisions. I know that I did.

    Britain is a constitutional monarchy. And I for one hope and believe it always will be.

    The Church, the State, Parliament – all help provide solid anchors for our way of life.

    So does our language – the richest in the world. So does our evolving way of life in town and village that provides a comforting mixture of the old, the familiar, and the new.

    These are lasting things, living things that evolve and do not change dramatically. And nor would we want them to. Yet, at the same time, we enforce change elsewhere.

    We promote it. We deliver it. But only where necessary.

    Not change for change’s sake.

    Madam Chairman, one area we do need change is education.

    I’ll tell you why. A third of those going on to training courses needed remedial help with English. Two in every five need basic help with numbers to get through their courses. One adult in six has problems with skills which can be tackled by a well-taught 9-year old.

    Yet, Madam Chairman, how can this be?

    How can this be when we are spending more public money per pupil than ever. Half as much again as we spent in 1979?

    Something is clearly wrong.

    Yet that is the reality in some classrooms.

    I don’t regard these bad results just as statistics. They tell us about children who don’t reach their potential.

    About opportunities lost.

    They tell us something too about the effect of lack of discipline.

    About the blind eye turned to truancy.

    Madam Chairman, that does mean change.

    To opt for the quiet life in education would be to accept the second-rate. Frankly, we’re not prepared to do that. For the worm is in the apple. And it’s time to face this problem square on.

    That does not mean we want a battle with teachers. We do not. We want to work with teachers.

    Few jobs carry greater responsibility than that of the teacher.

    The future of our country is shaped in our schools.

    The prospects for millions of lives are determined there.

    The overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated and able – and we must help them.

    I am determined to see the high professional standing of teachers restored.

    That is why two years ago I gave teachers a Review Body on pay – to emphasise their professionalism and importance.

    I want teachers who are working day after day to help their pupils to know that the Government will support them.

    And I want them to know something else.

    Some of the tests are too bureaucratic. And I want them slimmed down.

    We are going to take some of the burden off their backs. It crept in – and we must remove it.

    There is strong support for a national curriculum in schools. We want to see greater emphasis on the basics. So, I believe, do parents.

    That’s why we must monitor every stage of a child’s progress at school. And that means tests. And that is why we are insisting on the publication, school by school, of exam results, testing scores, and truancy rates.

    Those who want to hide this information are quite wrong. Parents and public have the right to informed choice. They need to be able to judge how their schools are performing. Those performance tables are crucial – and they are here to stay. And in case there be any doubt, let me be crystal clear about some of the things I want to see.

    More attention to the basics of reading, writing and maths for our 5-7 year aids.

    Experienced people who are good with children coming into the profession.

    Children introduced to subject teaching and timetables at an earlier stage.

    And simple pencil and paper tests to find out what each pupil has learned – and what he has not.

    I want to see schools developing pride in the traditions and achievements of Britain – it is nonsense to have a history curriculum that is strong on the Aztecs but doesn’t mention Nelson or Wellington.

    I want to see truancy and absences cut back.

    Homework set and marked.

    Gifted children and those with learning difficulties stretched to their limits. And I want to see teacher training courses concentrating on subject knowledge, with experience of how to teach learnt where it can be learned best – in the schools. And, Madam Chairman, that will be the objective of teacher training reforms which we shall bring forward for next year’s programme for Parliament.

    People say there is too much jargon in education – so let me give you some of my own.

    Knowledge. Discipline. Tables.

    Sums. Dates. Shakespeare.

    British history.

    Standard English. Grammar.

    Spelling. Marks. Tests.

    And, Madam Chairman, good manners – good manners are important for children.

    But children learn by example.

    So good manners are important for headteachers as well.

    Madam Chairman, it won’t be easy.

    Our education reforms were never going to be plain sailing all the way.

    Our goals are clear.

    To put in place a high quality education system.

    To bring the best out of the skills of our teachers.

    To meet the needs of all children, whatever their abilities and wherever they live.

    To be on the side of pupils and parents.

    Nothing – and no-one – will deflect us from that task.

    Madam Chairman, I’ve spoken about the prospects for the economy. The need to control public expenditure. Tackle crime. Continue with our reforms on education.

    All of this falls within a classic Conservative agenda. Whatever we do we need to remember always that at the other end of our policies – are people.

    People with their own ambitions and their own hopes.

    They are not always grand ambitions.

    But we should always remember that a private triumph for a private man is as important to him as a public triumph for a public man.

    Our job is – wherever we can – to help everyone meet their ambitions – not stand in their way.

    But, Madam Chairman, one of the glories of our country is that people’s ambitions are not always for themselves. Often they are for others.

    At the beginning of the year I issued a call for more recognition of voluntary effort. We in government are looking actively at how we can promote and add value to the work that is done. And we have announced already that those who give of themselves for others will gain a more prominent place in our system of honours.

    We are a caring country. That is true of individuals – and it’s also true of industry. We should not forget the great part that British industry plays in voluntary support. There are those who talk glibly of the selfishness of capitalism.

    Frankly they don’t understand it.

    It is high time we heard more about the huge contribution of private enterprise to our national well-being.

    Not just in the goods it produces – or the jobs it creates.

    But in sponsorship, gifts, secondments, administrative help, and joint ventures with private voluntary groups.

    This private sector contribution grows year on year. Capital and charity hand in hand.

    Help worth over £200 million last year from just 216 companies in one survey.

    Giant contributions to health, education, sport and the arts.

    There are some who say news must reflect reality.

    Well, there’s some good news about Britain. Caring people. And caring capitalism.

    That is the reality – it would be nice to hear it in the news.

    Madam Chairman, Britain’s prospects for the future are looking up.

    Our economy is strengthening, our place in Europe secure.

    And as prosperity grows, so too will confidence and trust return.

    A country fashioned by the craft and skills of its people.

    One in which every person feels – heart and soul – that they belong.

    In whose prosperity all have their own personal share.

    People ask what we stand for. That, Madam Chairman – that is what we stand for.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Women’s Conference – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Conservative Women’s Conference in London on June 27th 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your generous introduction. I’ve been looking forward to this Conference. I knew it would add spice to an otherwise dull week. As you will all know, it’s been pretty quiet recently. Not a lot has happened. This afternoon is typical. I’ve just come from answering questions in the Commons – always a gentle occasion. Full of charm and old world courtesy. You may have seen it.

    Next I’m off to the European Council – equally gentle. Full of balm and Euro-courtesy. At least I hope so. But for now, have no doubt. I am delighted to be here in the very midst of our Party to say to you how grateful I am for your welcome and your support.

    As I have said, immediately after this session I shall be leaving for negotiations in Luxembourg on economic, monetary and political union. Our European partners know where we stand on these vital issues.

    So today I will say just this. There are only three options for our future in Europe. We can leave the Community. That option is barely credible. It is advanced by those who have not thought through the consequences.

    Or we can sit on the sidelines. Treat Europe as a spectator sport. Join the game too late to affect the outcome. And then, in the end, inevitably be forced to follow where others lead. That is no role for us.

    Or there is a third option. We can put ourselves at the very heart of the Community. Initiate policy. Form alliances. Debate wholeheartedly. Fight for the future Europe we want to see. That will not be a federal superstate, but a Europe of ever closer union between Governments and peoples.

    I am in no doubt that is the way ahead for us. And when we have finished our negotiations, we will place the results before Parliament. In the meantime. I know I will carry the full support of both the Conservative Party – and people outside it. And with that support I am confident we will achieve the right outcome for the future.

    But today I want to seize the opportunity to consider our domestic agenda.

    To talk about what we stand for – as well as what we must stand against.

    We stand – as we have always done –

    – As defenders of the peace: for personal security at home and abroad

    – For a society of opportunity.

    – For the freedom and dignity of personal ownership.

    – For free enterprise and sound money.

    – For quality and choice in public services.

    Those are the principles of our Party. They are the values which go to create a nation that is both confident – and at ease with itself.

    Everyone’s attitudes are influenced by personal experience, judgment and instincts. I know mine are. But I also know that many of the themes I care about most will strike a chord with you.

    They will do so because it is women who are most familiar with the changing pattern of life. It is women – still – who bear most of the daily burden of caring for the very young. And tending to the very old.

    So I believe you will instinctively understand the ambition I have – to create a country in which the generations live in harmony with each other.

    In peace.

    In prosperity.

    In personal and financial security.

    And I know you will share my aspiration to create an opportunity society. For women as well as for men. For women are now reaching forward, outside the home, taking up opportunities in every field of endeavour. Into Boardrooms, not just backrooms. Even into the Lords and Commons – if not yet into the MCC!!!

    Today more women want what most men take for granted: career, marriage and family. Sometimes in combination; sometimes in sequence. It must remain a matter for individual choice. But the role of Government is to set a framework so that women can make their own choices.

    And that explains much of recent policy. It explains why, in the Budget, we not only increased child benefit but safeguarded its value for the future. For child benefit goes to all mothers. It does not discriminate between those who go out to work and those who do not.

    It is why we reformed the taxation of married women.

    And it is why we have eased the tax burden on women’s savings. It is also why as Chancellor, I opened new avenues – the Tax Exempt Special Savings Accounts, “Tessas” – through which 2 million people have already decided to build up their financial independence.

    But these policies are part of a wider philosophy. Of personal independence and security. For men and women alike.

    There has been much talk recently of “isms”. But there is only one “ism” that I want to talk about. Conservatism. Our joint inheritance.

    The ideas that have carried us with such success from the seventies to the nineties.

    But more than that: the ideas that have carried our party through in an unbroken line from the eighteenth century. And still show no sign of losing their attraction as we move towards the twenty-first.

    It is no surprise that Labour should pretend we are changing one “ism” for another. For their ‘ism” has wilted. Throughout the world it has become a philosophy of yesterday with relevance to the future.

    Socialism today is no longer an ISM. It’s an ISN’T.

    Its demise has left Labour devoid of principles – envious and resentful of the enduring quality of Conservatism.

    For Conservatism is not cobbled together from sociological jargon.

    It is born out of the hopes and aspirations of millions of people. Out of the attributes of the kind of people we would like to be – the kind of people we would like to live among.

    When we talk in terms of Conservative values, we talk in terms all can understand.

    We talk of decency. Tolerance. Hard work. Thrift. Efficiency. Generosity. These are values we can all aspire to. Values that Government should encourage. And never undermine.

    As Conservatives we should not claim too much for Government – or expect too much. For, as a Party, we have an humility about the capacities of government that distinguishes us from Labour. As, too, does our sense of the duties of government.

    First and foremost, a good Government must provide a sense of security for the nation as a whole.

    It must maintain strong defences. For there are battles which cannot be won by force of argument – when we have to resort to force of arms.

    As we did, most recently, in the Gulf. Everything our armed forces were asked to do, they did. With a skill and a courage that all of us in this Party salute.

    As Conservatives, it is our unchallengeable claim that we stood firm on defence – when others were ready to toss it away. We backed NATO one hundred per cent. And we will go on doing so.

    We developed modern, professional armed forces whose quality equals anything in the world. And we will go on doing so.

    We maintained our independent nuclear deterrent to insure our safety in an uncertain world. And I can assure you of this. We will go on doing so.

    But what of others? I call on Neil Kinnock to give an unequivocal pledge. That he will maintain – and where necessary modernise – Britain’s nuclear deterrent, just so long as dictators like Saddam Hussein are plotting to put their finger on the nuclear trigger.

    And if there is no such pledge from Mr Kinnock, the British people will know what we suspect: Britain’s defence is not safe in Labour’s hands.

    But security does not just grow out of the barrel of a gun. It comes from working with friends abroad. From alliances through which – in peace, not just in war – we can secure support for our initiatives. And wield power for good.

    Safe havens for the Kurds.

    Debt forgiveness for the poorest countries.

    New approaches to arms control.

    All these were British initiatives, advanced by persuasion and argument.

    British diplomacy in the 1990s must keep us at the hub of separate, but complementary alliances. Within Europe. Within the Commonwealth. Within NATO and with the United States. Alliances that no other nation in the world can match.

    We stood firm in our friendship with the United States through all those years when the Left’s idea of a day out was to join a mob in Grosvenor Square. We will not change now.

    We have safeguarded our links with the Commonwealth, which brings together peoples from every continent of the world. And we will not change now.

    And we have worked with our partners to make the European Community develop and grow. You can be certain. We will not change now.

    Madam Chairman, I have spoken of a “classless society”. I do not mean by that a bleak uniformity, or a rejection of our rich tapestry of traditions. I do not mean a society in which high-fliers have their wings clipped. Where the politics of envy pin them down. I mean one in which opportunity is not confined to the fortunate few, but wide open to all.

    So of all the initiatives taken by the Government in a busy seven months, I take perhaps greatest pleasure in our education and training proposals – to increase choice and to raise standards.

    I can remember vividly what it was like at 16 to believe that school was a waste of time. I don’t want the 16-year-olds of the 1990s to feel the same way. They must feel that school has given them what they need: the first steps up a ladder of opportunity.

    A ladder offering qualifications in which they can take pride, leading towards jobs in which they can perform confidently and well.

    A ladder not just for some – but for all teenagers.

    They should not be forced to fit in with the system the system should be forced to fit in with them. I want youngsters to have a real choice.

    Choice between academic and vocational qualifications that are respected in the world outside school.

    Choice between different kinds of training. Our new policies put choice into young people’s hands – quite literally – in the shape of a new training credit. A “smart card” they can spend on the kind of training they want.

    That is the way to channel the energies of the young towards the achievements of the future.

    But to help all children, we must first ensure they are present in school to benefit from the education we offer.

    It is a tragedy that too many children are denied opportunity – and often end by drifting into crime – because they stay away from school or are not made to go.

    I am not prepared to tolerate the position in some of our inner city schools, where one child in four is a regular truant.

    Such tolerance does not help children. It fails them.

    So we will be placing tighter control on school registration. We will make sure that unauthorised absence is recorded. And, for schools as a whole, published each year for parents and public to see.

    And if truanting children turn to petty crime, we will see that their parents are brought to court with them.

    This Conference understands the principles of parental responsibility and the value of discipline in our schools. I can promise you this. In the 1990s we are going to spread that understanding into every classroom in Britain.

    We need, in all aspects of national life, a full sense of involvement. And we gain this, most of all, through personal ownership.

    That is why for me, no principle is more crucial than what I call the Right to Own.

    To have a home of your own.

    Savings of your own.

    A pension of your own.

    And your own stake in the business you work for. These things spell independence and security.

    That is something Labour still finds desperately hard to understand.

    No one will trust a Labour Party that still plans to place obstacles in the way of the Right to Buy. That still proposes extra taxes on savings. That admits to tax plans which would condemn millions to working three days a week for the State.

    No-one could trust Labour with all that they have built up through the Right to Own. It’s against nature. Like asking the cat to feed the goldfish!

    So it would be with the Labour Party. For they still believe in the old dictum. From them that hath, the State must take away.

    In the 1990s we will offer new routes to home ownership.

    We will encourage more individuals to take out personal pensions. We will promote more personal savings. And we will sell more state holdings to spread ownership in shares still wider.

    More homes. More savings. More pensions. More shares. That is what everyone in this country would wish – for themselves and their children.

    For the Right to Own carries with it a further right: to hand on to the next generation a proper proportion of the fruits of a lifetime of work.

    Madam Chairman, I know the Labour Party. I grew up with it. It thinks differently from us. It has a vested interest in promoting class division. In keeping people dependent. And, all too often, despondent as well.

    You don’t have to look back to the 1970s to know what a disaster Labour would be. Listen to what the Labour Co-ordinating Committee said about Labour Councils. And I quote: “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned what a Labour Government would be like, how it would treat people.”

    That’s what they said. Well, let’s take them at their word. Just look, for example, at Liverpool. See how a Labour Council has treated people. How they are suffering. Their own miserable, summer repeat of Labour’s nationwide “winter of discontent”.

    Liverpool is the product of unbroken Labour and Liberal rule. They talk rubbish in the council chamber. And they leave rubbish on the streets.

    Or look at Lambeth – where head-teachers have appealed to the government to save them from a Labour council.

    All of you know the effect of Labour government, both national and local. But we have to ask ourselves: why does Labour so often go wrong? What are they doing, those left-wing councillors who should be raising standards in schools and housing and social services?

    We don’t always know. But sometimes we find out.

    We find a committee laced with the problem of £130 million of debt. And what is their priority? A decision taken in secret to paint the lamp-posts red.

    And you’ll remember, of course, those absurd campaigns to purge children’s literature of childhood favourites, like Enid Blyton.

    What a contest!

    Big Brother versus Big Ears!!

    Or perhaps more aptly. Little minds versus little Noddy!!

    And, no doubt even poor old Mr Plod will be caught by a left-wing ban on policemen in schools.

    Somehow, under Labour, it’s always the man and woman in the street who get hurt.

    In Liverpool, the better-off can put their rubbish sacks in their cars and drive them to a dump.

    In Lambeth the better-off can take their children across the river to schools in Conservative Westminster. Just like Jack Straw, who wants to exercise parental choice himself, while denying it to others. All too often, it is the least well off who suffer from Labour misrule.

    Our approach is different. Because these people matter to us.

    So, for the 1990s, we need Conservative policies that will turn more of Britain’s “Have Nots” into “Haves”.

    To do so, we need a strong economy. And it is all too easy, when I know times are difficult, to lose sight of our achievements. But current problems are not unique to this country.

    This is the worst year for the world economy since 1982. Yet our exporters are entering new markets and setting new records. And while the number of jobless has been rising, our unemployment rate is still far lower than in many European countries, such as France, Italy and Spain.

    But I know that is little comfort to those in this country who have been made redundant. To those here who are looking for their first job.

    I know what it is like when the family business runs into trouble. I remember what it felt like to be a teenager without a job.

    And that is why – whatever it takes – I am determined to secure a stable framework for this economy in the years ahead.

    We need to drive inflation so far into retreat that none of us will have to worry about it, when we take our decisions for the future.

    Decisions about our savings, as individuals. About investment, as businesses. And about exchange rates, when we sell British products into Europe – where our economic future lies. Our opponents simply do not understand the consequences of inflation.

    How inflation destroys profits – and jobs.

    How hard inflation makes it to manage a budget, in industry or in the home.

    How it destroys confidence – and peace of mind.

    But that is hardly surprising. Because there is so much else Labour does not understand.

    How a minimum wage forces people on to the dole queue.

    How public spending promises – a cool thirty five billion pounds of Labour promises – would have to come out of taxpayers pockets, today – or tomorrow.

    You’ve seen it – I’ll say it.

    Labour’s going for broken again.

    We all know what Labour threatens. Interference. Incompetence. Overspending.

    Red roses may grow on trees; but money does not.

    We all want good public services.

    But it is never sensible to judge them simply by what they cost. We focus on what those services provide.

    No one should defend waste and incompetence.

    That attitude shows contempt for the citizens who depend on public service. It also demeans those who give that service. That is why those who work in public services, as well as those who use them, will support and gain from our plans for a Citizen’s Charter.

    The Charter will be comprehensive and effective. It will give the customer more clout and the manager more responsibility.

    And I intend, once and for all, to remove the sense of inferiority and apprehension that too many people still have when they face officialdom across a desk.

    Of course this upsets people who are comfortable with low standards. They would like to dismiss this new idea as an “irrelevance”.

    Tell that to the Parents seeking information from which to choose a school for their children.

    Tell that to the pregnant mother given a so-called hospital “appointment” at the same time as half a dozen others.

    Tell that to the grandmother queuing for her pension.

    Tell that to the midwife who has had to take most of the day off waiting for the gas man to come.

    What these people ask for is simple.

    A service that puts them first.

    They ask for clear information about their services and how they perform.

    They ask for phones that are answered.

    Individuals they can identify to deal with their case.

    And an easily accessible avenue for complaints when things go wrong.

    They ask for explanations and advice that they can understand, and sometimes – just sometimes – an apology.

    So our Charter will do several simple but necessary things.

    First, it will ensure that people know where they stand in dealing with public services.

    We will see that clear performance targets are published, together with full information about what services actually deliver. Why should parents have to battle to find out school results?

    Second, it will give citizens support in exercising their choice – and seeing that higher standards are achieved.

    We are going to toughen up inspection and audit so that sloppy service cannot be swept under the carpet. And we are going to introduce more widely pay that relates to performance.

    Third, we are going to insist on proper courtesy and attention to public needs. We will ensure that the way to complain is no longer shrouded in mystery. And that redress is available for some of the worst levels of service.

    We will publish a White Paper on the Citizen’s Charter shortly. But that will be only the start. It will display the tool kit of ideas for raising standards. We must go on to apply them to each and every service. There will be a series of initiatives – and where necessary we will legislate to put them into effect.

    But in addition we will face a busy parliamentary schedule next year. Leaving aside our European negotiations, we have a full domestic agenda before us.

    We will be putting to Parliament an Education Bill that will transform further and higher education.

    We will be bringing in our new, fairer system of council finance – our vital reform of local taxation.

    We will take action in other fields as well.

    To take forward our successful industrial relations reforms.

    To strengthen the position of charities.

    To improve the training of nurses.

    And to act on safety following the Piper Alpha disaster.

    Through this essential business of government, we will never lose sight of the unifying principles behind both our Citizen’s Charter and our policies on the economy. Their impulse is always to seek to redress the balance between the State and the individual.

    For our Conservatism is about developing personal independence. It is designed to give people a hand up, not a hand out. And it is about placing a restraining hand on the power of the State.

    I believe in simpler Government. More approachable Government. That is the best guarantee that the citizen has against highhandedness. expropriation, and the abuse of power.

    I want Government to leave people with room to breathe. Free to display the best characteristics of the British character.

    Our sense of fairness. Our friendliness. And good neighbourliness.

    I believe we are now seeing a “quiet revolution” in Britain, involving people more in their communities, helping them have a far greater say in the way they are run.

    Since 1979, we have opened up new ways for people to demonstrate the care they have for their families and friends

    The pride they have in their homes and neighbourhoods. From Tenants’ Associations to the Local Management of Schools.

    From Neighbourhood Watch Schemes to Training and Enterprise Councils. People are gaining more involvement in the decisions that affect their everyday lives.

    They are winning back from the bureaucrats control over their own communities and how their future is shaped.

    When I talk about voluntary organisations to a Conservative audience, I know that I am talking to a large extent about you and the work that each of you do. For our belief in personal action and in concern for others is central to our philosophy.

    And a party in which they are honoured can have purpose, pride and confidence for the future.

    For Conservatism is grounded in fairmindedness, a sense of what is right: in shared aspirations and mutual respect. It builds on self-respect, not envy. It seeks to unite, and not to divide. To create, as this Conference asks, a Britain without barriers.

    We must be outward-looking. Open-minded. Ready to embrace new challenges. And in the 1990s we will have many to meet.

    But our first task is to be true to ourselves. To our ideals. And to our country. I have no doubt that Conservatism will be equal to that challenge. That we will go on giving the people of Britain the lead that they look for.

    And the hope they ask for, throughout the decade to come.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Women’s Conference – 22 June 1990

    The text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1990 Conservative Women’s Conference, held at the Royal Horticultural Halls in London on Friday 22 June 1990. The speech was issued as a Conservative Party news release, reference 455/90.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    Earlier this week, some of you may have seen Neil Kinnock on television. I did not myself see him since he clashed with the football. It was a difficult choice and Mr Kinnock lost. Nonetheless, I read the transcript. I found that he had got his facts wrong, as he always does. And John Smith had to issue a hasty correction, as he always does. And this added to the confusion, as it always does. It’s nice to know – in a changing world – that some things never change.

    But despite this carnival the truth remains as it always was. Labour cannot hope to honour their spending promises without increasing tax for a great many basic rate taxpayers. It simply cannot be done. Fourteen out of fifteen taxpayers will not pay the same as now. They will pay more. There are only two conclusions. Either Labour know their plans will put up taxes and are trying to hide it – if so, that is simply deceit – or they haven’t costed their plans and they don’t know the implications of them. That is simply incompetence. Either way it is no recommendation for Government.

    But I don’t want to spend time this morning talking about the deficiencies of the Labour Party. I have, after all, only twenty minutes. I do want to talk about where Britain’s economy has come from and what its prospects are. And in particular, I want to talk about inflation, savings and the present marketing of credit.

    The economy generally is the most important issue for us to face. Important not simply in terms of material wealth – for that is by no means all we care about – but important because without economic growth our long term plans for social and other improvements simply cannot be achieved. As Iain MacLeod once memorably put it: “Money is the root of all progress”.

    We should not underestimate what has already been done. In the 1980s we have seen enormous changes. Many problems that seemed insurmountable ten years ago have been swept away:

    – We have a proper balance in trade union legislation;

    – We have introduced the most far reaching corporate and personal tax reforms this century;

    – We have deregulated and hugely improved the supply side of our economy;

    – Investment has been growing on an unprecedented scale;

    – And these days, far from being a debtor constantly borrowing to finance spending, we have actually been able to pay back a large proportion of the debts accumulated by Governments over the last two centuries – over £25 billion repaid in the last three years.

    Whatever short-term difficulties now confront us, these are enormous achievements.

    But, the question for the future is clear: how do we build on these achievements? What are the essential prerequisites for further success?

    In essence we have one problem, inflation. But the question must arise:- why has inflation proved so stubborn? Why, indeed, has it actually risen recently, despite our anti-inflation credentials and our real determination to reduce it? I believe this genuinely puzzles many people and is a legitimate question we must answer.

    Whatever our critics might say, the problem does not lie in any relaxation of policy before or after the 1987 Election. On the contrary, it was in many ways the very success of our policies which caused the problem.

    We saw a tremendous surge in confidence in 1987 and 1988. Confidence on the part of industry, resulting in a 40 per cent increase in business investment in the three years to 1989. That investment was very welcome because it will lead to an increasingly effective industrial sector. But the scale of it did add to demand.

    And just as businesses felt confident and invested, so did millions of individuals. And they invested too – in a new house, a new car or some other expenditure. And that created a further bubble of demand. The combination of such strong growth of business and consumer investment was unprecedented in the last 50 years. And that is what created the growth of demand that is at the root of our present inflationary problem.

    As it becomes apparent what was happening, we responded by tightening policy. But with hindsight, we can see that our response underestimated the problem. But that was clear only with hindsight. It was not clear at the time when almost all outside commentators underestimated the extent of the inflationary pressures we faced. We need to reduce these pressures and that is why we have had to maintain a tight fiscal stance, with high interest rates.

    And we must continue that policy until we get inflation down. And when we have done so we must keep it down. It is not proving easy; certainly I know it is not painless; and it is slower than we had hoped. But that cannot lessen our determination.

    So our opponents misjudge us when they suggest we will engineer what they call a short-term pre-election boomlet. We will not. What we will do is to maintain a long-term attack on inflation so that we can build on the progress of the past decade and take up the opportunities of the present one.

    There are two over-riding reasons why we must defeat inflation – the first familiar, the second perhaps less so. The first is the damage that inflation does to our industrial competitiveness. This cannot be disguised. The higher inflation is, the less competitive our goods are in international markets; and if that continues, in due course, inevitably our relative standard of living will fall.

    The second – perhaps less often stated reason – is the social damage done by inflation. Inflation does most damage to those who are least able to protect themselves and often those who have contributed least to the problem.

    And the damage lasts. I suspect there are many elderly people today who are on social benefits – not because they failed to save and prepare for their retirement. They did – often from modest incomes. No, they are on social benefits because Governments failed to control inflation which destroyed the value of the savings on which they were expecting to live in comfort in their retirement.

    I have no intention of taking any risk of that happening again. We cannot have a society where saving is penalised in this way. For saving is vital. Vital to the economy. Vital to finance investment. And vital for individuals too.

    Too often as individuals we spend too much and save too little. And often that which we spend is from money that is borrowed and not saved.

    But those who have savings – and even more, I am afraid, those who do not – know only too well that savings provide security. To have money put by cushions people against the unexpected; it gives them freedom to make choices. It puts families in a position to take the opportunities that are available to them.

    These are the reasons we have consistently encouraged savings, throughout our time in Government. And also why, in this year’s Budget I introduced the new concept of a tax exempt special savings account, or TESSA, which will start next January. This is a five-year savings plan with a bank or building society in which everyone is entitled to save up to £9,000. And provided the capital is left untouched for the whole five years the interest will be completely free of tax. Early indications are that this scheme will be hugely popular. It is a tax incentive for the modest saver.

    In April of this year independent taxation for married women began. Your Committee campaigned for that for years, and rightly so. And one of the greatest benefits of this change is it removes the iniquitous penalty on married women’s savings. For the income from a wife’s savings, whether she had other income or not, used to be added to her husband’s income and taxed at his rate. From April this is no longer so. Nor, indeed, need she any longer inform him of how much she saved unless she chooses! Independent taxation means that 3 million married women will pay less tax, of whom two-thirds have incomes of less than £5,000 a year.

    But in this year’s Budget I also dealt with a further anomaly thrown up by these changes. Under the composite rate tax arrangements, those who save with banks and building societies have tax deducted from the interest they earn, which cannot be reclaimed. That deduction was automatic. But many of these wives, and pensioners and children too, had incomes below the tax threshold. That is why I decided to abolish composite rate tax from April 6 1991 – the earliest date that such a big change could be made. The principle was that tax should not fall on those who are not liable for it. From next April, it won’t.

    Taken together these changes represent a milestone in the taxation of savings; and they remove a number of anomalies that were particularly unfair to women. I would like here to pay tribute to the help I had last year – and that I know Nigel and Geoffrey had before me – from your National Committee. Their realistic submissions on budgetary matters were enormously helpful and played an important part in the final decisions we took. They should start work now: it is not too early to be thinking about the next Budget!

    I know too how worried many of you have been about the pushing of easy credit, particularly at the young and at those who may be tempted to incur debts beyond their capacity to repay. I share that worry, and I believe we should address the problem.

    Of course the vast majority of those who borrow are aware that interest rates can rise as well as fall and they can borrow responsibly. And those who offer credit usually look carefully to see that they do not grant credit beyond a person’s capacity to repay. But that is not always the case.

    And I believe there are worrying trends in the way some providers of credit market their products. Too often the implication is that further borrowing is a good idea for all regardless of their income or their existing level of commitments.

    That is why I have asked the financial institutions to reconsider their policy in this area and the banks and building societies to cover this in the code of good practice which they are drawing up. We shall look very carefully at what they propose to see whether it is sufficient, or whether any further action is necessary.

    For I believe there is a lot that lenders can do to improve the information available to potential borrowers, and to improve the tone of their marketing. For example, quoting a particular interest rate often does not bring home to people the full impact of their commitment. That impact ought to be made wholly clear to borrowers, in readily understandable terms. People need to have a full understanding of what it is they are taking on, and what the main terms and conditions of the loan are.

    And I would urge lenders – all lenders – to be conscious of the distaste many people feel for indiscriminate mailshots and credit advertising. Many people do not like unsolicited offers of free gifts and other inducements to borrow. They are an irritation when they arrive with the morning post – frequently sent to people who do not wish to borrow or who are in position to do so. I wish too that lenders would not constantly stress, as some do, that potential borrowers have instant and easy access to credit. This sort of approach contributes to the impression of carelessness in lending.

    Responsible lending is the flipside to responsible saving. In the Budget I announced changes which should give a real boost to saving in its most accessible form – in banks and building societies. I hope that the banks and building societies will put as much effort into marketing saving vehicles and their attractions as they have put into marketing loans in recent years.

    And since the Budget we have improved the return on National Savings products too. All these forms of savings are very desirable – low in risk, and for many people they are the essential first step towards share ownership or building up the capital to branch out on their own – start a new business or become self-employed. For at every level thrift and enterprise are closely related. And that is why, at every level, we shall continue to promote them.

    Madam Chairman, I have referred to inflation, which we must keep down. To savings, which we must increase, and to credit, which we must handle responsibly. These are all important policy ingredients as we continue to build a stronger economy.

    I have no doubt that we have the policies to keep Britain’s economy moving forward. The policies that will bring inflation down and keep it down. The policies that will promote saving. The policies that will allow enterprise to flourish, and the policies that will enable British businesses to take advantage of the opportunities before them.

    And as we look down the next decade these opportunities are enormous. The coming years will see great changes. The realisation of the single market in Western Europe. The dramatic opening up of wholly new trading opportunities in Eastern Europe. A wider and more prosperous world market. It will be a world in which British businesses can prosper and grow and help build a greater prosperity for all our citizens. After the economic changes of the ‘80s, we are formidably equipped to take advantage of the ‘90s. We start from a sound base, and with a determination to build on it. Provided we persevere, and stick with the policies we believe in, then our prospects for the future are bright indeed.