Tag: Crime

  • PMQT – 5 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

    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. Mitchell : As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun –I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No quoting ; paraphrase, please.

    Mr. Mitchell : In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain’s Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is a terribly long question.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.

    What I said on that occasion was to confirm a policy agreed with the hon. Gentleman’s own party. He has obviously forgotten that the Government decided not to introduce a tax on world income in 1989, following consultation and representations from the Labour party.

     

    Q2. Mr. Butterfill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said :

    “30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible”

    because the beds are not available? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a terrible indictment of the health policy of a Government who have been in power so long and could have made things so much better?

    The Prime Minister : But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving–are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:

    “I’m aware that what we’re saying may be used but we do believe it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP It has been good for care, public health and management.” That is a Labour party former candidate, a doctor, supporting our Conservative party reforms of the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.

    The Prime Minister : That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service–far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system– [Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Member has a right to put his question.

    Mr. Kinnock : We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?

    The Prime Minister : We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6.5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

     

    Q3. Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country’s defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition’s position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour

    “have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND.”

    What can he have meant? According to the chairman of CND more than 100 Members still belonged to it late last year. Have they all resigned? Have they all let their membership lapse?

     

    Q4. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Wareing : The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

    Mr. Wareing : Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour’s own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.

     

    Q5. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Moss : Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI’s views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.

     

    Q6. Mr. John P. Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Smith : The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?

    The Prime Minister : I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

    Mr. John Browne : I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom’s existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1992

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : The Prime Minister recently told the House that the British economy had grown faster than any other in Europe, when it has not; he said that the Japanese economy was in recession, when it is not ; and he said that German unemployment was over 3 million, when it is not. Given that series of gaffes, will he now compound his confusion and tell us that he bears no personal responsibility for the appalling slump that is devastating Britain today?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a recession in a number of countries. I quote from what Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met said yesterday :

    “One thing which no one could predict a year ago was exactly how long the recession would last This recession has not been an exclusively British phenomenon–as some people would have us believe. It is a worldwide problem ; only last week we heard the news that Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, had slowed down.”

    Those are not my words, but those of Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met.

    Sir Peter Blaker : Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the attempt being made to steal the emblem of the duchy? Is he aware that on a previous occasion when such an attempt was made, the miscreant–an imposter named Lambert Simnel, who attempted to steal the red rose from King Henry VII– was not only defeated but sentenced to serve as a scullion in the royal kitchens? What does my right hon. Friend think would be the appropriate sentence now?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to find anything entirely appropriate. Perhaps continuous service as Leader of the Opposition would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying a short time ago in his personal statement–in this document from the Conservative party– that “if” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes have to go up”

    Does he still take that view?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was Chief Secretary for two years and Chancellor for one year. Because of the repayments that were made of borrowing during that period, in the midst of a recession we are now in a better position to borrow prudently– [Interruption.] than we have been at any stage in the past : to borrow prudently and to maintain our commitment to a balanced budget in the medium term. Before the right hon. Gentleman reflects further, he may recall that the borrowing requirement was 9 per cent. of GDP under the last Labour Government–the equivalent to borrowing today £55 billion.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is now borrowing billions to try to finance a pre-election tax cut, so will he tell us exactly which other taxes he would raise to pay for the bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s Budget, and I have no intention of doing so. He should also realise that tax is levied on people’s own money : it does not belong to the Government ; it is their money that the Government compulsorily take away from them in taxation. Taxation levels determine how much. We know that the right hon. Gentleman would add to taxation, for he needs to in order to sustain his promises.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister said a very short time ago that “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes”–

    [Hon. Members :– “We have heard this before.”] And you are going to hear it again : “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes but the next generation’s too–have to go up.”

    Does not the Prime Minister think that he owes it to the country to say exactly which other taxes he would put up to pay for his bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should have done a little more research. If he had done a little more research and had seen the evidence that I gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1987, he would have seen then–when we had a fiscal surplus of many billions–that I indicated that it would be right, in a downturn, to borrow money in a recession. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to do what Labour last did–cut the hospital building programme and cut the other programmes? That is what it did before.

    Mr. William Powell : I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Corby last Friday to open the magnificent Brooke city technology college. Does he agree that this type of secondary school has a substantial part to play in the future education of our children in the secondary sector, and will he encourage the development of further city technology colleges in our country?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly enjoyed my visit to the Brooke city technology college last week. It is an excellent establishment and has attracted a good deal of support and resources from the private sector. I think that that is the sort of choice that parents want for their children, and it widens the opportunities in education. It is inexplicable to me that the Labour party would wish to stop this continuing and successful experiment.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : As the Prime Minister has now had time to appreciate the significance that Scots attach to the phrase “taking stock”, will he elaborate on what that means in the Scottish constitutional set-up? Is it an affirmation of what his junior energy Minister says : that it will be acceptable for the Scottish Office to be staffed by Members from constituencies south of the border, or of what his Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland have said in the past 24 hours : that nothing will happen, or is he considering the possibility of affording the Scottish people the right to determine their own future in a democratic fashion? Will there be a referendum or any other mechanism to establish a Scottish Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady’s party seeks isolation for Scotland. I do not believe that that prescription is in the interests of Scotland or of the rest of the United Kingdom. I said that we would be taking stock, and I meant precisely that–taking stock on the basis of an increased vote in Scotland, on the basis of more Members of Parliament for Scotland and on ways of seeking to increase the strength of the Union. That is what I mean by taking stock.

    Mr. Dover : Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people are fed up with having to pay extra community charge to cover those who do not pay? Will he encourage all local authorities to ensure that people pay their bills promptly and will he ensure that future charges are reduced when that money comes into council coffers?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to pursue those who do not pay the community charge and, in particular, we should pursue those Members of the House who do not pay the community charge and set a bad example to everyone else.

     

    Q3. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that it is entirely sensible for a Government to borrow prudently in order to fund capital investment to build economic recovery but that it is sheer folly for a Government to borrow in order to buy votes for an election? Would that not be fiscal philandering of the worst kind?

    The Prime Minister : Without in any way prejudging what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do in the Budget, I seem to recall that the last Labour Government–on the back of a huge borrowing requirement–cut taxes just in advance of the 1979 election. But if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about investment, let me give him some information about investment. We now have the largest investment programme of capital investment in the national health service that we have ever had. Next year hospital spending in capital terms will be 75 per cent. up on the last year of the Labour Government. Those are the fruits of an improved economy over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Tracey : Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to the assisted places scheme in our schools, which is an extremely cost-effective way of sending children of high ability to good schools? Is it not short- sighted for both Opposition parties to be pledged to the abolition of this scheme?

    The Prime Minister : It is an extremely popular scheme, as my hon. Friend knows. We will sustain that scheme in the next Parliament. The Opposition parties would abolish it, given the chance.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Williams : Having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury before becoming Chancellor, and Chancellor before becoming Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that he bears no responsibility whatever for the recession? Why is the Prime Minister continually trying to blame everyone else when it is his own errors of judgment, mistakes and economic incompetence that have produced the current recession?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman builds too much on too little. I made it clear on a number of occasions over recent years that there was, in retrospect, one change that I wish we had not made at the time, but it was one that was urged on us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the reduction of interest rates immediately on the back of the stock exchange crash, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were urged to cut them even more by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What responsibility will they accept for that?

    Mr. Butcher : Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that he will never propose the introduction of unnecessary and expensive regional assemblies in England and Wales? Does he agree that when Opposition parties advocate such bodies they do so with the entirely cynical objective of maintaining the over-representation of Scotland in this House in the aftermath of the dog’s breakfast called devolution?

    The Prime Minister : Such assemblies are neither wanted nor needed, and we will not propose them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979 the crime figures in England and Wales have gone up by 102 per cent., that in the north of England they have gone up by 123 per cent. and that in the Northumbria police force area–my area–robberies have gone up by 240 per cent. and criminal damage by 238 per cent? The Home Office is advising the police to increase the number of officers while at the same time the Department of the Environment is capping local authorities’ spending. How does the Prime Minister square that circle?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about law and order, perhaps he could explain to me why his party refuses to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which was introduced initially by a Labour Government and is now opposed by a Labour Opposition. He might also have mentioned in his remarks that spending on law and order is up by 80 per cent. in real terms and that there are 15,500 more police officers, whereas Labour left the police force under establishment by 7,000 when it left office. Labour has opposed our measures which have led to stiffer sentences, it would shackle the police with political controls and its answer to rising crime is to blame everyone except the criminal.

  • Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech, made on the 11th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Earlier this week this Conference welcomed Mrs Thatcher. You gave her the most tumultuous reception. She deserved it. She led our country for over 11 years, our Party for over 15. We owe Margaret a great debt.

    The Britain she left us is immeasurably stronger than the Britain she found. Above all, she helped others to believe in us and us to believe in ourselves. And on those foundations she laid three great Election victories.

    It’s good to applaud; it’s grand to cheer. But the greatest tribute we can pay her is to do as she did. To win, and win, and win again. At this Conference – and what a successful Conference it’s been – you have heard how the next Conservative Government will secure the best future for Britain.

    We’ve heard some cracking speeches this week. From the right team. A young team – in fact the youngest Cabinet this century. A professional team.

    Just think for a moment. When the going gets rough in international affairs, who would be the first person you would send for? Gerald Kaufman? No. He would be the second person. The first person would be anyone but Gerald Kaufman. But far and away the best person would be Douglas Hurd, one of the finest Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had.

    Of course, Labour’s Captain tries to talk up his team. “A winning team” he calls them. After three election defeats? Well, it goes to show that there must be more than one way to look at history. Take waterloo. You thought Wellington won Waterloo? No, Waterloo was a smash hit for Napoleon. But we can help Labour to win one thing – the record for the longest run of election defeats. Played four. Lost four. And a probable vacancy for team captain.

    Last week at Brighton we had speech after speech about a fairy-tale future for the British people. In Labour’s Never-Mind-the-Cost-Never-Never Land. Then there was singalongaleader. It was all good fun if you like that sort of thing.

    But while this was happening out front, there was something thoroughly nasty seeping from under the platform. I refer, of course, to what Labour pretends to believe are the Government’s plans for the National Health Service. There’s only one way to deal with a lie: nail it to the wall of truth, as William Waldegrave so conclusively did yesterday. We have all been brought up with the Health Service. We use it. We cherish it. We are proud of it.

    I know that for millions of people in this country the National Health Service means security. I understand that. Because I am – and always have been – one of those people. I know that even when you’re fit and well, it brings peace of mind – just to know it’s there. It is unthinkable that I, of all people, would try to take that security away. A genuine belief I can respect, even when I profoundly disagree with it. But deliberate lies – repeated, repeated and repeated – merely diminishes its authors.

    The Health Service has been in existence for over 40 years. And who has been in Government for most of that period? We have. For 29 of those years it has been a Conservative Government. It has been under Conservative Governments that the National Health Service has been built up, enlarged and improved. And our reforms will carry that right through into the 1990s. So let me say now, once and for all, and without qualifications – under this Government the National Health Service will continue, to offer free hospital treatment to everyone.

    And so that no-one can misunderstand the position – and I hope the whole country is listening – let me make it even clearer. There will be no charges for hospital treatment, no charges for visits to the doctor, no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, not in part, nor as a whole. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not after the next election. Not ever while I’m Prime Minister.

    And if, after all I have said, there are still those who set out to frighten the vulnerable, the weak, and the old, with carefully calculated smears, then the public will know where to find them – in the gutters of public debate. Such people are not friends of the Health Service. They are the parasites that live on its back.

    No Conservative need be defensive about the Health Service. On the contrary, every Conservative has the right to share my disgust at what is said. Go to your local hospital. What do you find? You’ll find Conservatives. In the hospital shop. Serving with the League of Friends. Working on the wards. They are not just friends of the Health Service. They are part of the Health Service.

    The National Health Service doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. As its name makes clear, it belongs to the Nation. And – in both senses of the phrase – Labour isn’t going to get away with it. The Health Service is not a political football to be kicked around in the hope that, somehow or other, it will reopen the door of Downing Street to a Labour Government. It won’t. Neither by hook or by Cook.

    This is the first Conference I have addressed as Leader of the Conservative Party. It is hard to explain how I feel about that. It is a long road from Coldharbour Lane to Downing Street. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that that road can be travelled.

    Perhaps at the back of this hall today there is another young man or woman who stands where I did 30 years ago. Who knows few people here. Who feels it is a long road to this platform, too.

    They should remember the last two leaders were a builder’s son from Broadstairs and a grocer’s daughter from Grantham. We don’t need lectures in the Conservative Party about opportunity. We are the Party of opportunity.

    This Party is open to all. And to all those who may be watching, wherever you come from, whatever your background, I say simply this, “Come and join us”. There are no barriers in our Party, just as there will be no barriers in the Britain we are building together.

    Some people ask whether we will have a different sort of Conservatism in future. Of course we will. We all bring our own beliefs, our own instincts, and our own experiences to politics. And I am no exception.

    But the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, those beliefs that brought me into this Party, are the beliefs that Chris Patten expressed so brilliantly on Tuesday. They remain as strong today as ever. Old though our Party is, the values behind it are older still. They are rooted in the instincts of every individual. And it is through our policies that we make them come alive.

    What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defences, firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, free from the threat of inflation, in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

    I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives.

    – Every mother, every father, a say over their child’s education.

    – Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work.

    – Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them.

    – Every business, every worker, freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militants.

    – Every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future – and for their children’s future.

    Building the self-respect that comes from ownership. Showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect. That is our programme for the 90s. I will put it in a single phrase: the power to choose – and the right to own.

    Do you know what Labour believes? That choice is something for them. They just can’t accept that choice is something most of us can be trusted with. You might make mistakes, they say. What arrogance. As if the State have never made mistakes, in our name, with our money. Try telling that the tenants of the crumbling tower blocks that disfigures our cities.

    And tell that to the citizens of Eastern Europe, who have risked their very lives for these freedoms, for the right to own, and for the power to choose. Ordinary values – for which ordinary people have, in our time, fought an extraordinary fight.

    During the summer I did quite a bit of travelling – Headingley, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Oval. Also Moscow, Peking, Hong Kong and Kennebunkport. Wherever I went abroad, I found the same story. Britain is respected again. We don’t always realise the admiration and affection for Britain abroad.

    We’ve earned it, because when others have hesitated, we have always stood firm and given a lead. As we did again this year. In defence of freedom in Kuwait. We didn’t want that war, its waste, its suffering, its grief. But to achieve greater security in the world, we had to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. And to keep that security we must destroy Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity. They are still trying to cling to it, still cheating, still lying.

    They cannot be permitted to succeed. One way or another that nuclear capacity must go. I hope it will go peacefully. If not, it must go by force. But go it will. In January I flew by helicopter over our army in the Gulf. I can still see the scene below me. A great convoy of troops and heavy equipment moving forward across the sands. For mile after mile. You could only marvel at the organisation and planning involved.

    But down on the ground, I had a different impression. Dug into position each unit seemed almost alone. Young men – mostly very young – thousands of miles from home in the wastes of the desert. Let me tell you what was in my mind when I met them. What would they think? Here was a new Prime Minister, unknown to them, untried, asking them to prepare for battle, perhaps not to return. How would they respond to that? And would they understand the reasons why they were there?

    Whatever doubts I had soon disappeared. They knew why there were there. They knew the cause was right. And they knew that they could do the job. They asked only to be allowed to get on with it. And, when they did, my goodness, how they proved their point. They really were the best of British.

    I learned something else from that extraordinary war and especially from that precision bombing that amazed the world. It’s this. If our troops are to do the job we ask, it is absolutely vital that their equipment and their training are the best.

    That is why in the last few weeks we have bought the new anti-submarine helicopter from Westland – the best. Why we are moving ahead with the new Challenger tank from Vickers – the best. And that’s why we will keep our own independent nuclear deterrent, Trident. The best security for Britain.

    And we will take with just a little pinch of salt the conversion of those who campaigned for CND for the past thirty years – and then suddenly let their principles ….what was the word? … lapse? What principles? First, peace at any price. Then power at any price. I know what this country will say to that. Never at any price. For a man who with no fixed view on the defence of Britain, there can be no fixed abode in Downing Street.

    As we saw again in the aftermath of war, a confident Britain is a force for good in a troubled world. If we had not created those safe havens in Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Kurdish people would have died last winter in bitter, freezing mountains. We spoke out strongly for human rights in Peking and spoke out first against the return of tyranny in Moscow.

    Alone among all the nations of the world we stand at the hub of three great interlocking alliances. Of NATO, which is and must remain the core of our defence. Of the European Community. And of the Commonwealth, which meets in conference next week. There we must persuade 50 nations, some – frankly – with a chequered political history, to a formal commitment to democracy and human rights.

    And in the 1990s I hope to see one former member of the Commonwealth once more take its rightful place. We have always fought for an end to apartheid. But we have worked just as consistently for the long-term goal of a fully free and prosperous South Africa. I believe that both goals are now in sight. And when they are reached I want to see South Africa back where she belongs – as a fully-fledged member of our Commonwealth of nations.

    A great debate is now underway in Europe. One in which the Conservative Party can speak with authority. Harold Macmillan first sought to take Britain into the Community, Ted Heath finally led us there, and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act – with its vision of ever closer union between states. Closer union between states. Not a federal merger of states. That is still our policy.

    I believe strongly in partnership in Europe. Britain, as a great European power, has gained from our membership of the Community. That is the verdict of those people in our country who live by business, banking and trade, the very people on whom our prosperity and jobs depend. But it must be the right Europe. Let me set out for you the objectives that I have in mind, the principles that I will fight for, and the propositions I will resist.

    First we want a Community that will in time embrace the new democracies of the East. We have the chance to heal the scar that divided and disfigured Europe for two generations. The nations of Eastern Europe – Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States – need to know now that when their economies are ready for the Community, the Community will be ready for them.

    Second, I want a genuine single market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules. And these rules must be obeyed. When we sign up to something, we put words into actions. Some of our partners, I fear, are keener on making new rules than on keeping them. We need a system that can deal effectively with those who call themselves good Europeans, but who hijack lorries or hold up free trade.

    We are now negotiating new Treaties on political and economic union. I am always ready to listen to new ideas. But they must be workable ideas. Ideas that make sense for Europe, and for Britain. There are vital issues at stake. They involve hard judgments of where our true interests lie. The idea of a single European currency is one with enormous ramifications, both practical and political. At best it is an uncertain prospect. And treaty must provide for a separate decision to be taken – not now – but at a future date by the British Government and the British Parliament. It’s our decision. A single currency cannot be imposed upon us. And I would not accept, on behalf of Britain, any treaty which sought to impose a single currency – at however distant a date.

    We already work closely with our European partners in financial affairs. So, too, in foreign policy and defence. When national interest and Community interest coincide, then common action is only common sense. But in no circumstances – not now, not at Maastricht – will a Conservative Government give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

    We are working to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. But I cannot guarantee that our negotiations will succeed. For it is no easy task to get 12 nations to agree. And for my part, I shall put the interests of our country before any agreement. Not any agreement before the interests of our country.

    I hope we can reach agreement. If we do, I will submit that agreement to parliament. For it is here in Britain that the crucial decisions must be taken. Not in the European Parliament. Not in the Council of Ministers. Not in the Commission – certainly not in the Commission. It will be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people of Britain who elected it.

    So far I have spoken of alliances. Of how much we can achieve if we work with other nations. But when it comes to the search for new markets, even our closest allies remain our competitors. I have never accepted the craven argument that Britain can’t compete with Germany or Japan. And I have contempt for the defeatists who run down our country and write of its future.

    Those who said we couldn’t compete in Europe when we led Britain into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism.

    Those who said that we would have to push up interest rates. And that our inflation was bound to stay far higher than the rest of the Continent.

    All that was just a year ago this week. And look what has really happened since.

    We have cut interests rates – eight times.

    Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been almost wiped out. And in case you haven’t heard this morning’s news, our inflation rate has fallen to just 4.1%. For the first time in a generation we have brought inflation down to German levels.

    They said we couldn’t do it. We did it. And in just one year. Let me remind the sell Britain short brigade of just a few facts. We attract more American investment than any other European country, and twice as much investment from Japan.

    Only two years ago, this country had a 17,000 million pound deficit on manufactured trade. This summer, we had a surplus. Our manufacturers sold more abroad than ever before. They didn’t sell Britain short. They sold for Britain. And they had to fight for their markets when the going was hard.

    I know times have been tough. Unemployment has risen. Many people have faced great difficulties. I know how they feel – what it’s like for a family when a business collapses. What it’s like when you’re unemployed and when you have to search for the next job.

    I have not forgotten – and I never will.

    It is because of that that I will never play fast and loose with the economy. Many have pressed us to do so this past year – siren voices, urging us on to the rocks of inflation, and off the course to recovery. The Chancellor and I ignored those voices. And, as he told you, we can now see the way ahead out of recession, to the recovery that will bring investment. To the investment that will bring jobs.

    And the clearer the signs of recovery, the louder the Labour Party complains.

    Look how they rounded on the Governor of the Bank of England. All because he dared to confirm what everyone else was saying. That recovery is on the way. When he said there was a recession – they cheered him. When he said it was coming to an end – they called for his head. What are they going to do with those hundreds of businessmen telling the CBI exactly the same thing? Will Labour threaten to sack them too? All of them?

    Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

    – Stab it in the back just when it’s winning the battle for trade

    – Impose new levies

    – Pile on new costs

    – Bring back union power.

    It may be true that a Labour Prime Minister would no longer get his marching orders over beer and sandwiches at No 10. In these days of designer socialism, he’d get them over a G&T – down at the Old T&G.

    A minimum wage would create the very unemployment they claim to care about. New burdens would drive business out of markets. Higher taxes would drive business talent abroad. Above all, inflation would drive our economy out of the future and back to the past.

    Remember who suffers from inflation.

    – Infant businesses

    – People on fixed incomes

    – Pensioners

    Inflation is a tax paid by those least able to protect themselves. It is Labour’s invisible tax. It wouldn’t come through the letter box, though there are plenty that would.

    They have eight new taxes lined up already.

    Well, that’s not surprising. We’ve costed Labour’s spending promises. 35 billion pounds extra and still rising. Of course, they say there would be hardly any more tax for hardly anyone. But that’s hardly credible.

    The next Labour Manifesto will be the biggest tax demand in history. They love nationalisation. High taxes nationalise choice. It won’t be a case of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. It will be – they take your money, they take your choice.

    High taxes would enrich the businesses, the laboratories, the the universities of American and the rest of Europe at the expense of the businesses and universities of Britain. We’d be back with something we haven’t heard of for twelve years – the brain drain. Our low tax policies have built up a brain bank for Britain.

    Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so.

    Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. Support their favourite charity, pursue their hobbies. Go fishing or to a football match, the theatre or the cinema, or just save up for a holiday.

    But lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life – and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone.

    We can now see the lifeblood of ownership – of wealth – running through the veins of the country. Nearly four million more families now own homes. And eight million people more own shares. And four and a half million people now have personal pensions.

    But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. And we now have the chance to make enduring change. For people in their middle years are inheriting homes, businesses, farms on a scale never before seen. The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come.

    We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.

    So, in the next Parliament, I believe that we must go much further in encouraging every family to save and to own. To extend every family’s ability to pass on something to their children, to build up something of their own – for their own.

    Labour have their eyes on the money stored in the homes in which millions of people now live – and in the businesses they have created. But I believe that what people have worked to build up in life, the State should never destroy.

    As Harold Macmillan once memorably put it, people walk in public gardens, but they tend their own. I want to build a pride in our common inheritance of town and city, coast and countryside. In the very fabric of our nation.

    I want to foster ownership in its widest sense. In making people feel that public property belongs to them. Giving them more say – at the local level – in how things are run. Giving them a choice. Putting them in control.

    That’s the idea behind our Citizen’s Charter – about which Francis Maude spoke so well yesterday. It will be a centrepiece of our policies for the 1990s. I want to see public services in which the passenger, the patient, the parent can have confidence. And in which public servants can have pride.

    I see that Labour are now trying to copy my ideas. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Even the Labour Party has to have some good ideas amongst all the bad. It’s just that they filch the good ideas from us. The bad ones of course they think up for themselves. They don’t even hide it when they steal some of my clothes. Did you see how many of them were wearing grey suits last week? Have they no shame?

    The test for Labour will come in the next session of Parliament. We will be legislating on the Citizen’s Charter. We shall be giving parents a greater say in schools. Making the big utilities more responsive to customers. And as Michael Heseltine promised us yesterday, exposing incompetence in the council chamber.

    And how do you imagine Labour will vote? With us? For the charter? And for the consumer? Or against us? For the trade unions? For the old ways? For the past? But it’s not just a matter of changing the way we run things. It’s a matter of breaking down the false and futile divisions, based on class and envy, that have been around for generations. They are wholly artificial. Labour fosters those divisions. It thrives on them. Our task is to end them for good.

    I spoke of a classless society. I don’t shrink from that phrase. I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued.

    And where the greatest respect is reserved for the law. There can be no harmony in a lawless society. The recent outbreaks of violence in some of our council estates involved a brutal disrespect for other people and their property. Such behaviour cannot be excused and will not be tolerated. In the face of such violence, I know that this Party will give the police the support that we always have. We admire the bravery and the professionalism of those young policeman and women who have been the front line against violent attacks. This Conference must leave no shred of doubt. Rioting is a crime – a serious crime. And it will be dealt with as such.

    But dealing with crime is not just something for other people – the police, or the courts, of the Government. It’s a challenge to everyone. And the way to fight crime is to change the attitudes that lie behind crime.

    The attitudes of people who say that theft of vandalism are somehow less serious. They call it property crime. Property crime? Tell that to the widow who has been robbed of treasured mementoes of her past life. That’s not a property crime. It’s a personal wound which can never be healed.

    This Government is going to crack down on crime, as Ken Baker made clear this week. Let me give you an example. What the irresponsible call joy-riding, we know as simple theft; dangerous driving, a disregard for human life, and the destruction of other people’s property. Some of these people are too young for a licence. We will ensure that when they reach driving age they can be banned from the road.

    As for those parents who stand by and watch while their children commit crimes, they are going to be held responsible for their children’s actions. Those in authority – parents and teachers as well – should use their authority to teach a sense of respect for others, for their rights, not just your own; for their opinions, their welfare and their possessions. Without respect for others, there can be no proper respect for the law.

    We don’t help our children by excusing bad behaviour, we betray them. And we lead them into worse behaviour. Sometimes it’s right to say no.

    A great deal has been written about my education. Never has so much been written about so little. Perhaps that’s why I am so keen on the subject. I believe that Ken Clarke’s programme of reform is a turning-point in education. It will mean that parents and pupils come first, that the key subjects are studied properly, and that the status of teachers is restored.

    Some have said that Ken Clarke and I are wrong to insist on simple pencil and paper tests for children in schools. Well, I’ll tell you what marks I would give to people like those. Nought out of ten for concern. Nought out of ten for interest in our children. Nought out of ten for commonsense. And, so long as there is a Conservative Government, they’ll get nought out of ten for influence in our schools.

    What Labour Governments did, and what all too many Labour Councils are still doing, is unforgivable – the years of levelling down; the destruction of good schools; the harassment of good teachers; the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity by those who climbed up it themselves; the setting of the union rule book above all other text books; the neglect even of spelling. That is where the long march of the Left in education has led us. Well, we are now rooting these ideas out. We are giving parents more influence in schools. If we want them to exercise responsibility for their children, we must give them a say in the education of their children.

    I will fight for my belief in a return to basics in education. The progressive theorists have had their say. And they’ve had their day.

    In the last twelve months we have seen the Socialist philosophy collapsing in ruins. Who will ever forget those days of high drama in the Soviet Union last August? Or the three young men in Moscow who gave their lives for reform.

    When I visited the place where they died, I was struck by the number of young people who pressed in around me. They had copied Western fashions, wore Western gear. For decades they and their parents had been taught that Socialism was the destiny of their future. That the Soviet Union would bury the West. But it wasn’t the West that the Socialist system had buried, it was the hopes and dreams of their own people.

    Socialism has gone in Czechoslovakia, gone in Poland, gone in Hungary, gone even in Sweden. And here in Britain, I’ll tell you what you’ll see over the next few months. You’ll see the Red Flag dying here. It’s going. Going. Gone. Suddenly, it’s just so old fashioned, so irrelevant, so out of date.

    What I owe to this country and to its people is difficult to put into words. My greatest wish now is to give back something of what I have been given.

    I want to work for a Britain that is the best educated and the best governed.

    Where schools and universities are the finest and accessible to all. Where inner cities don’t mean deprivation, but communities that bind and belong. And where no-one has to go in fear at night.

    I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure.

    If that is what you believe in, then go back to your constituencies. Tell them what we stand for. Tell them what we care for. And ask them to choose.