Tag: Education

  • Sir John Major’s Royal Anniversary Trust Speech at Mansion House – 10 September 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major at Mansion House, London, on 10 September 2025.


    Sir Damon, Ladies and Gentlemen ….

    Congratulations in getting here on a day when the tube system is on strike:  perhaps, one day, AI will replace London transport altogether.  I live in hope.

    Thirty years ago, I had the pleasure of congratulating the first winners of The Queen’s Anniversary Prizes – as they were then known – and addressing the first of many Prizewinners’ Dinners at Guildhall.  

     So, when the Royal Anniversary Trust invited me to speak to you, their Prizewinning alumni, supporters, and friends I was delighted to accept.

    Much has changed in those thirty years.  The world has moved on – and so has education ‒ in ways that are welcome, and some that are not.

    Today, far more British students have the opportunity to attend university, together with growing numbers from overseas.  The choice of subjects to study has widened, and reflects our modern world.  

    There is a greater demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths;  the search for places for the latter two courses is at an all-time high.

    This interest in STEM subjects is excellent news for our future economy, but comes with the downside of a comparable decline in study of the Arts, Languages and History.  

    As Artificial Intelligence looms, the drop in Humanities Studies is likely to continue.  Personally, I regret that ‒ although I cannot deny the necessity of school and University studies mirroring the national need.

    Even so, my instinct is that our troubled world needs Humanities Studies as much – if not more – than in many past years.

    To lose History is a shame.  I have always believed that to prepare for the future one must understand the past, or previous mistakes will be repeated.  Certainly, that is true of politics and public life.  Too true, sadly, as we see today – both at home and overseas.  

    Although we are born with a unique DNA, it is our education and environment that shape us as adults.  In particular, it teaches us how to think and make judgements.  And, as adults, we need to see our country as it is ‒ and not as once it was.

    Our United Kingdom is 70 million people in a world of 9 thousand million, and the reality of that is unmistakable:  if we are to flourish in an ever more competitive world, we need the highest intellectual and vocational skills to safeguard our future.  Our wellbeing will be rooted in our education.

    I have a particular respect for education – perhaps because I had so little of it:  my fault, I should add, not that of my school.  But, post school, I had no choice but to study – for many yearsto make up for what I had casually thrown away.

    This experience had one great advantage.  It taught me at a young age that learning is lifelong:  it does not end upon leaving formal education.  In many ways, that is where it begins.  [Certainly, that has been my experience].

    Experience of life tells me, too, that a rounded education must reach beyond the formal curriculum.  Culture ‒ in all its aspects, Sport, inter-personal skills, and inquisitiveness must be stimulated and nourished if the young are to make the best they can of their lives.  [Life must include leisure and pleasure as well as duty].

    We cannot be content with things as they are:  certainly not in education.

    Although great improvements have been made – and continue to be so – not all children have the same good fortune, the same opportunities, in every part of our country:  there are wide disparities.  

    It is beyond time that the promise of “Levelling Up” ‒ in education, in investment in the regions, in jobs, in social mobility ‒ is given political priority.  The circumstances of birth should not determine the quality of life.

    In saying this, I am talking of improving opportunities for those with little or none – not cutting back on the best to produce a false benchmark.  That is not only self-defeating, it is wrong.  

    Our national interest is to nurture merit, not waste it – as, sadly, we often do.  Destroying the best is short-sighted and foolish:  improving the worst is a national obligation.  

    When I was leaving Primary School in the early 1950s, only 16 Universities in England offered Higher Education courses – to a total of 100,000 students.  In those days, twice as many people laboured on farms as worked in financial services.  The past truly was another country.

    We are changing still ‒ only faster.  Last year, over 2 million students were enrolled.

    I talked once of what I called “a classless society”.  One of my aims – within that much misunderstood ambition – was to seek parity of esteem between white and blue collar employment – between intellectual and vocational skills ‒ both of which are vital if our nation is to prosper and thrive.

    Over the past thirty years, the numbers entering skills-based, vocational training have risen dramatically, and opened barriers to education that many felt were closed to them.  

    The learning of a Skill meets a national need, and offers personal independence, professional pride and – mostly – a better quality of life.  It is, as they say, a “Win, Win”.

    The demand for Skills will both change and grow in the years ahead.

    I am delighted that The Queen Elizabeth Prizes evaluate and acknowledge those twin strands of intellectual and vocational skills.  

    I believe that the Royal Anniversary Trust is unique in bringing these two communities together, and recognising them to be of equal value.  I warmly congratulate them on that.

    Over recent years, in a testing environment, our economy has performed below our expectations.  As we look ahead, our Universities and Colleges will educate the talent that can re-ignite growth – with all that means for our future.  

    Estimates tell us that Higher and Further Education contributes over half a trillion Pounds to our economy each year and – as the demand for STEM courses shows – it has the capacity to greatly increase that figure.  As it does, it will contribute to a higher quality of life for everyone.  To pervert an old saying, “Education is the root … of all progress”.  

    I don’t use those words idly.  Our best Universities and Colleges are among world leaders in finding solutions to global problems.  

    • Was it not an Oxford team behind the Covid-19 vaccine?  
    • Was it not Scotland’s Rural College whose genetic selection trials are transforming milk yields for subsistence farmers in Africa?  
    • Was it not the University of Surrey which developed cutting edge satellite technology to aid the UK’s first space exploration?  

    The answer is “Yes”, “Yes” and “Yes” again.  

    And these are but three examples of many more.  

    Earlier, I referenced overseas students.  Why do they come here ‒ these days at considerable financial cost?  It is because these young people – from far away – see our country as a global leader in Higher and Further Education.  People equate excellence in education with the United Kingdom, and it is our job to ensure they continue to do so.

    Yet we must be watchful as innovation changes our world.

    A mere thirty years ago, only a very few of our global population had access to the internet.  Today it is nearly universal, and almost impossible to imagine life without it.  

    We had high hopes of the internet, and many of them have been met.  

    But … the internet has its dark side, too, and – at its worst – it is very dark indeed.  

    As policymakers grapple with this, they must police Artificial Intelligence to inhibit ‒ and, if possible, prevent ‒ its misuse.  Education must navigate it, too ‒ and that challenge will be very great.

    I hope educators will not be too daunted.  Their role is crucial.  Scientific advance will ensure that education is a life-long journey, not merely a youthful rite of passage.  It is one of the principal sources of happiness, and success, and compassion – without which no conscience can be at ease.  We are all in debt to those who teach us.  

    To have such a responsibility is a unique vocation ‒ to my mind, among the first in any land ‒ 

    The legacy of education is our future, which is why this afternoon – on behalf of our country’s past, present and future pupils – it is my privilege to thank you all

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at CCHQ on Launch of Apprenticeship Scheme – 25 February 2014

    The press release issued by the Conservative Party which contain extracts from comments made by Sir John Major at Conservative Central Head Quarters on Tuesday 25th February 2014.


    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Speaking at Conservative Campaign Headquarters today, having been invited by Chairman Grant Shapps to launch a new apprenticeship scheme named in his honour. John Major:

    Celebrated the moral mission of the Conservative Party, saying:

    “We exist as a political party to help people reach their ambitions and to make sure our country is safe and secure militarily and economically.”

    “Look at our policies: Education reform to make sure that people are being better educated in order to maximise their abilities. Opportunity, by creating jobs. And we should bear in mind that – when we are creating jobs and wish people to move around the country and take those jobs – they need houses to move to as well.”

    “The world has changed, it’s moving faster and in a more bewildering fashion than it has ever done before. That isn’t going to change.

    Science and technology isn’t going to stop so we can catch up and become familiar with it.”

    “We need to understand that, use technology in the many ways we already are, but also reassure people that behind today’s often bewildering and frightening changes there lies a political party which understands the modern world, and whose primary purpose is the wellbeing of the individual.”

    “That is what the Conservative Party is here for. We’re not just here to sit in parliament and become ministers. We are here to improve the lives of those who put us in parliament – as well as those who voted against us.”

    “That is our job. That is our mission.”

    Criticised the Labour Party’s record in Government, saying:

    “I was brought up in Lambeth, where the Labour Party had kind hearts but empty heads.”

    “They were perfectly prepared to come round and say, we will help you eventually when you get to the front of the queue, but don’t you dare try to step out of that line to help yourself.”

    “We Conservatives want people to help themselves. To make their own opportunities. To create something better for themselves, for their families, for their community and for their country.“

    “I don’t believe that the Labour Party can do that.”

    “The Labour Party is the party of class warfare and class division. They set people against people, rich against poor, north against south, haves against have nots. If it’s for their political convenience they will sow division not unity.”

    “That is the way they have operated since their foundation. And we have all seen what their record in Government is.”

    “It is an astonishing truth – but a truth nonetheless – that every single Labour government we have ever been cursed with has left the country bankrupt or near bankrupt, with incoming Conservative governments having to clear up the mess they left behind.”

    “There are people in this country who will be paying the debts of the last Labour government for a generation or more.”

    “There are young people who were at school, and are now in work, whose taxes are higher, and who will have fewer opportunities because of what that last Labour government did.”

    Welcomed the new Sir John Major Apprenticeship Scheme, saying:

    “I was delighted to hear about these apprenticeships and I only wish I’d had one fifty years ago, who knows what I might have ended up doing?”

  • Sir John Major’s Ditchley Annual Lecture Speech (Ditchley Foundation) – 9 July 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s Ditchley Annual Lecture speech, made at Ditchley Park in Oxfordshire, on Saturday 9th July 2011.


    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    First, let me add my welcome to Jeremy and Anne Greenstock and John and Penny Holmes.

    Jeremy and Anne have been great servants of Ditchley; John and Penny are already showing they will be. We are lucky to have them.

    When John invited me to speak to you today, I was very reluctant to accept. I was dismayed that, once again – with impeccably bad timing – the Ditchley Lecture clashes with a Test Match. I also recalled some outstanding Lectures at Ditchley over recent years. I nearly said – No.
    I didn’t, because there are things to be said, questions to be asked – and ideas to be floated – that can more easily be done by a former politician than a current one. And where better than Ditchley – for so long a home for rational thought and considered debate? An oasis of calm in a world of frenzy.

    Every time I come here I am reminded of our debt to David Wills – and now, Lady Wills and Catherine.

    I just want to say to Eva and Catherine: we owe you more than we can repay.

    In preparing for today, I took to heart GH Hardy’s observation that one ought never to waste time stating a majority opinion. I will try and follow that advice.

    Accepted opinion is often wrong. Even more often, out of date. And, frequently, complacent.

    Let me say at the outset that nothing I say should be taken as a trial balloon for anyone else. I speak for myself alone and – reluctantly but possibly – will offend political friend and foe alike. Nevertheless, I shall set out what I believe Western Governments must do to secure our well-being, in a world that is moving faster than we are.

    This world is digitalising, urbanising and ageing. It is also migrating. The age of the single language, single culture state is over. Medicine, science and technology are carrying us where we have never been before. Social networks can elect Presidents and foment revolution. Global markets have outstripped the control of nation states.

    The world of 20 years ago, let alone 50, has long since vanished. In every field of human endeavour – and nearly every aspect of life – yesterday’s certainties are today’s imponderables and tomorrow’s dilemmas.

    The future raises uncomfortable questions, and even more uncomfortable answers. Some challenges are domestic, others can be resolved only by collective action. And, even if they are faced, and even if there are successful outcomes – and these are two big “ifs” – they will merely head off future problems.

    Pain now for gain later has never been an easy sell for politicians and, in a social climate that expects instant gratification, it becomes even harder. It was easier being a politician yesterday than today. And it is easier today than it will be tomorrow.

    The core question is: what must our Governments do to ensure our future prosperity? Must we change our policies, our expectations, our tribal politics – or all of these? It simply defies logic that the whole world can turn upside down, while we meander on in the same old way.

    At stake is our material well-being – and our status in the world – in 20, 40, and 50 years’ time.

    Some may say the battle is lost – that this will be China’s – and Asia’s – Century. I don’t believe that is pre-ordained. China, in particular, has many problems. The Communist philosophy is discredited. Her Government is not elected. Its only legitimacy is growth.

    In China and Asia, we are already seeing that rising living standards will bring greater demands – for social welfare, pension and much else besides – that will eat away at their present competitiveness.

    So this economic triumph of the East isn’t assured, but we do know they will be formidable competitors. So how are we placed to respond?

    Our present position, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable. It is axiomatic that every generation has an obligation to pass on to its successor something better than they themselves inherited. In recent times, we have failed.

    We have spent tomorrow’s money on yesterday’s gratification, and there is something immoral in that. And we have presided over a systemic financial collapse that has forced the prudent to bail out the reckless. There is something unjust in that.

    This is a sharp reminder that our democracy doesn’t guarantee efficiency. The democratic checks and balances we so cherish can become roadblocks. The tyranny of the electoral cycle can push politicians to short-term decisions.

    Equality replaces quality. Sound-bites stand in for home truths. It feels odd to point up the short-comings of democracy, when it has achieved so much – but if we don’t recognise them, we can’t correct them.

    Democracy has entrenched an enviable liberty of thought and action and presided over a quality of life our forebears could not have imagined. We are safer and, until now, richer. It has had a civilising influence. We have learned that decent people come in all colours. We abhor racism and bigotry. We have developed good human instincts of care and compassion.

    In due time, electors can vote Governments out and mostly they depart peacefully into Opposition. No wonder it is widely admired and copied. It has served us well but, on its own, democracy will not secure our place in tomorrow’s world.

    ECONOMY

    The financial crisis has highlighted a reality the West can no longer ignore: our days of easy economic supremacy are over.

    The drift is undeniable. The West has lost its competitive edge against China, India, Indonesia and Brazil as well as many smaller countries, notably in Asia and Latin America. Financial firepower is moving from West to East. Thirty five years ago, the fifteen core countries of the EU accounted for broadly 36% of global GDP, and Asia only 16%. Projections suggest that, in twenty years’ time, that will almost precisely have reversed. As we stutter, the rest of the world grows.

    America has, largely, held decline at bay: but, even so, her share of global GDP has fallen from 26% to 23%. Economically, in one lifetime, the world will have turned on its head.

    It’s easy to see why. Where ambition confronts complacency, ambition wins. In countries that are one generation away from poverty I see a passion and drive for success that sweeps away barriers. Even if we are aware of the tidal wave of competition that is coming, we have not prepared for it. We are falling behind and at risk of falling further.

    We shouldn’t deceive ourselves this is simply the fall-out from the financial crisis. It is a long-term trend.

    Some see no danger. They argue that the West can be sanguine about Eastern competitiveness because our quality of life is so far ahead.

    Such people should get out more. Let me cast an unforgiving eye on that complacency: the UK first.

    In terms of GDP, the UK is the sixth most wealthy country in the world. But our national Balance Sheet carries many liabilities. Our physical infrastructure is old. Our health service is creaking. Whilst the best of our education – especially higher education – is world-class, some of it is unforgivably awful.

    We are up to our ears in debt. The Exchequer is empty. The Gold is gone. The post-dated cheques are accumulating interest. We are over-taxed. We have an under-class: poorly educated, poorly housed and unmotivated.

    We are no longer an Empire, nor will be ever again. Today, we are a shrinking military power. By choice, and with majority public approval, we are semi-detached members of the EU. And even America – for so long our closest ally who generally sees the world as we do – is turning her face to the East, as self-interest determines she must.

    There is absolutely nothing here to be complacent about.

    America faces many similar problems – most obviously debt, which was 40% of GDP in 2008, 69% in 2011, and is projected to be 85% by the end of the decade – and rising. Yet only about one-half of the population pays federal income taxes.

    The risk remains of the US Treasury defaulting on its debt as it runs up against the legal limit it can borrow. I daresay a compromise will be reached, but this flirting with brinkmanship is dangerous. The collapse of Lehman Brothers was catastrophic. A Treasury default could be as bad. I hope those playing political games realise that the effect of their actions could spread far beyond America.

    In the foremost free market economy in the world, average household debt comfortably exceeds average annual income. And a rising proportion of that income now comes from the State.

    About 45 million Americans now receive food stamps: the modern equivalent of bread lines. Medical costs threaten to spiral out of control.

    Huge housing debts held by Banks are not written off: if they were, there would be lower profits, and lower bonuses. Total mortgage debt has quadrupled in 20 years. Today, there are two million mortgages not being paid.

    And so the merry-go-round continues: Banks are still lending 95% mortgages on a falling market at a multiple of income: admittedly now – they say – only to more credit worthy customers. No one should assume the financial crisis cannot be repeated: it certainly can. But, if it is, it will be unforgiveable.

    EUROPE

    As for Europe – the word is engraved on my heart. Northern Europe is healthy but Southern Europe is sunk in debt and uncompetitive. The EU as a whole is divided on how to handle budget deficits, the crisis in the Eurozone, control of the Central Bank, nuclear policy, as well as how to react to Libya, Afghanistan and the Arab/Israeli conflict.

    Twenty years ago, led by France and Germany, a confident EU was paving the way for the Euro. The assumption in the European Council was that, before the Euro could be launched, the economies of nations wishing to be part of it would converge: by that piece of jargon, we meant operate at broadly the same level of efficiency.

    But that didn’t happen. It was politics – not economics – that launched the Euro in the late 1990s. Sterling did not join because, in 1992, I had opted out of the Euro at Maastricht. I didn’t do that out of sentimentality for the Pound – nor to placate sceptic opinion. If I’d wished to do that – with my Party or the Press – my life would have been much more comfortable. I didn’t. It wasn’t – because I thought then, and argued then, that the concept had flaws.

    Today, Germany – with its powerhouse economy – is locked within the same currency, at the same exchange rate, as the weaker economies of the Southern European States.

    In a sensible world, the Southern States would devalue but – of course – they can’t and so, to become competitive and stay in the Eurozone, they must devalue internally. Unemployment will rise, wages must fall, and so must living standards.

    This threatens Greece, Portugal, and – possibly Spain and Ireland – with many years of austerity. As we see in Greece, the scale of that austerity may not be acceptable in a liberal democracy. Meanwhile, others power ahead.

    It is not immediately clear how Europe will resolve this dilemma. But the present position is unsustainable. Either the EU becomes effectively a Union of transfer payments to offset regional disparities (as happens in Canada), or it creates a mechanism to shrink the Eurozone. Nothing else makes long-term sense.

    Germany and France will not permit – cannot afford to permit – a reprise of the present crisis. In Germany, in particular, it is causing immense political agony. When the President of the ECB proposed a European Ministry of Finance with power to intervene in national economic policies, he caused commotion. But something will have to be done. Somehow, binding rules will be imposed on debtors.

    Despite Eurozone members insisting they will not surrender fiscal sovereignty, it is not hard to look ahead and imagine a Eurozone with fiscal – as well as economic – union, in practice if not in name. I don’t like this – it was a prime reason for not joining the Euro – but, if it happens, it may have the effect of pushing the UK further away from the mainstream of the EU.

    The UK is often accused of being half-hearted over its commitment to Europe. Continental politicians bemoan our caution. “If only the UK took up its responsibilities” … it is a familiar theme, and we will hear more of it.

    Let me respond. I am not anti-European. I am not a sceptic in the accepted sense. I never have been. I see the nobility of intent in binding together nations that fought one another over many centuries.

    I see the economic advantages of the single market, and the political advantages of extending democracy to nations that were locked in the Soviet embrace. But I am wary of many European policies. If they are flawed, or unworkable, or alien to our instincts, our Government has a duty to question them.

    Where we can work together, let us do so. That is sensible. But the Union cannot succeed if nations are – sullenly and resentfully – bound into policies they believe are damaging to their national interest. Far better to plan for a multi-speed Union, with nations opting-in to policy rather than opting-out. In a 27 Nation Union, I believe we will come to that, although it is far from the ambitions of some of our partners.

    If the UK is semi-detached, that is only, in part, because of British scepticism: it is also because the EU has chosen, time and again, to go in a direction they know Britain cannot follow. Every recent Prime Minister has ended up less European than he – or she – began.

    As to the future – it is difficult to see where Europe is going. Some would like to break away entirely from the EU. In a world in which many policies need collective action, that would be folly. If we are drifting apart, there is cause to beware: it is time to take stock.

    GOVERNMENT/POLITICAL SYSTEM

    In the search for future well-being that is true of our political system as well. At the moment, neither American nor British politics is in a state of grace. It has become too inward-looking. Too short-term. Our systems embrace politicians, and carry them off to a world the rest of us don’t inhabit. It’s time to bring them back. And focus them on the far distance as well as tomorrow.

    There is a fault line in our national policy-making processes:

    When do politicians have time to think?

    There is time to do, based on advice.

    There are policies to advocate, based on conviction.

    There are people to placate, based on necessity.

    But, in Government, too often, senior politicians are fire-fighting yesterday’s problems instead of thinking how to fore-stall tomorrow’s.

    Would it not be better to carve out sufficient time so that – routinely – they can frame policies to safeguard our future in 20/50 years from now?

    And – if they did think and plan far ahead – it would give them time to explain, to cajole and to carry electorates with them in controversial policy. That’s never easy – as we see today.

    To help bring this about, we should encourage governments to devolve more and do less: in some areas, we are ludicrously over-governed. The nanny state may be well-meaning, but it is also stifling.

    I am one-quarter American, so I hope I might be forgiven for speaking bluntly. At the moment, the American political system is dysfunctional.

    It is easier to stop good policy than to pass it. Bi-partisan co-operation is grudging and limited. Moreover, it is getting worse as re-warding of congress and district boundaries makes seats safer for Republicans or Democrats: the inevitable effect is fewer “middle of the road” candidates being elected. The first loser is compromise. The ultimate loser is sensible, non-ideological policy.

    The power of special interest lobbies is excessive. There have been 27 Bills affecting Energy over recent years where the representatives of six States, irrespective of Party affiliation, have voted for the Coal lobby position on over 80% of votes. In the Senate, this has been sufficient to block anything the industry does not favour. This is not in the national interest. It is naked self-interest. Sadly, it is not the only example (in domestic or foreign policy).

    I remember former Presidents bemoaning the introspection of Congress – my expression, not theirs – and their concern that only a minority of its Members travelled overseas to see the world for themselves. Since American foreign policy affects us all, this is lamentable.

    But it’s easy to see why. A competitive election contest in New York, or New Jersey, home to the most expensive media markets, could cost a candidate $10 million. On average, candidates must raise over $1.3 million to fight each campaign. And campaigns come every other year.
    To fight these elections, the average candidate must raise over $50,000 each and every month. No wonder they don’t travel. Such frequent elections also create obligations to donors – and lobbies. They put a premium on short-term populist policies.

    It would make for far better decision-making if elections were less frequent and there were limits on spending. This might also cut down on negative campaign advertisements, the net effect of which is simply to damage the reputation of politics.

    I claim no superiority for the British system.

    For generations, Britain has basked in the glory of our Parliamentary system. Much of the world flatters it as an example of a mature democracy, a supreme Parliament, an independent Judiciary and an impartial civil service.

    I cherish the traditions that add majesty to Parliament. Yet even I, who look at Parliament with affection, can see it must be made more efficient.

    We could begin by widening the pool of talent prepared to enter politics, by removing some of the disincentives to do so.
    I would pay MPs a fixed and generous salary, and cut out all living allowances. This is not entirely fair to Members with remote constituencies, but life is not fair – and such a system would avoid the recent scandals that have done so much harm to Parliament.

    We need, also, to attract to the Commons men and women at the top of their profession. It is one of the oddities of democracy that fundamental policy choices are made by men and women who, apart from the legitimacy of election and a native intellect, have no qualifications to make them.

    How many MPs can bring direct knowledge to how banks should be regulated? Or how hedge funds work? Or are familiar with e-money? Or nuclear energy? Or the social and medical implications of embryology?

    We would benefit from our legislators having more practical knowledge.

    Of course we can hire specialist advisers, but that can never be as effective as influential, knowledgeable voices speaking with expertise in the Chamber, in the Committees, in the tea rooms, in Party meetings.

    There is no solution to this dilemma that doesn’t cut across our traditions, and so I would do just that. Why not elect fewer Members of Parliament and appoint, on a basis pro rata to votes cast in the General Election, a similar number of Members without constituencies?

    I know the familiar arguments against this – a few years ago I would have used them myself forcibly – but, on reflection, I now believe enhancement of the talent pool is so vital it justifies the changes.

    If the Commons baulks at a further reduction in its Members then, as Douglas Hurd and I have argued before, let us appoint unelected Ministers, answerable to Parliament, but without being Members of it. Or, of course, let us do both. Douglas and I have argued also for fewer Ministers and fewer PPSs: we have far too many of each: they could be severely cut back.

    At the moment, all three major Parties are committed to an – at least partly – elected House of Lords. The Lords does need reform. It has too many inactive Members. It is too big and unwieldy. But election is the wrong reform.

    The case for election is democratic legitimacy. However, if we want an efficient legislature, the case against is far more compelling.

    An elected Upper House would cease to be a revising Chamber and would demand more powers that could only come from the Commons.

    There would be confusion and conflict. We should be reducing the number of politicians and adding to their quality. An elected Lords would add more politicians and reduce their quality. That is a bad bargain.

    Does anyone imagine that Chiefs of the General Staff, Cabinet or Permanent Secretaries, Captains of Industry, Chancellors of Universities, Professors of Medicine would stand for election?

    Of course they wouldn’t, and elected replacements could never bring such a depth of knowledge to the scrutiny of legislation. If the answer is more elected politicians, we are asking the wrong question.

    A better reform would be to improve Parliamentary procedures. Cut the number of whipped votes. And reform PMQs to discourage its vaudeville element.

    I offer only one further of many options. Parliament’s workload leads to legislation being poorly scrutinised, and often shown to be defective. In Criminal Justice alone, 68 sections and 25 schedules of 19 Acts remain unimplemented: many because they are unworkable.

    Why not subject all mainstream Bills to Select Committee scrutiny and public evidence before final drafting? If we did so, we would get better, more relevant, and more coherent, new laws.

    And must the Westminster Parliament oversee so much? I think not. It would be more efficient if it were less over-burdened.

    DEVOLUTION OF POWER

    There are options:

    Pass fewer laws – which is attractive, and to be hoped for: though I’m not holding my breath.

    But we could contract more to local government and devolve more to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. In a cautious and incremental way, the Coalition is taking action to do this. I welcome that and encourage them to go further.

    Some years ago, I opposed the creation of local Mayors. I was wrong. Mayors do put in place a dynamic and – as successive Mayors of London have shown – they can be effective megaphones for our big cities. But under present plans, Mayors will only inherit the existing powers of Council leaders: in future, I hope their remit can be widened.

    There is one caveat: their power of decision should be real, not illusory, and this implies a funding responsibility to pay for – at least the majority of – their policies. When next we look at local authority finance that should be the objective.

    Devolution can also reduce the Westminster workload. But there is some groundwork to be cleared first. The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved.

    The Union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.

    I opposed Devolution because I am a Unionist. I believed it would be a stepping stone to Separation.

    That danger still exists. Separatists are proud Scots who believe Scotland can govern itself: in this, they are surely right. So they point up grievances because their case thrives on discontent with the status quo. But even master magicians need props for their illusions: remove the props, and the illusion vanishes.

    The props are grievances about power retained at Westminster. The present Scotland Bill does offer more power to the Scottish Parliament.

    But why not go further? Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy?

    Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?

    My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly – bad for Scotland and bad for England – but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot – and should not – deny them.

    England is their partner in the Union, not their overlord. But Unionists have a responsibility to tell Scotland what independence entails.

    A referendum in favour of separation is only the beginning. The terms must then be negotiated and a further referendum held.

    These terms might deter many Scots. No Barnett Formula. No Block Grant. No more representation at Westminster. No automatic help with crises such as Royal Bank of Scotland. I daresay free prescriptions would end and tuition fees begin.

    And there is no certainty of membership of the EU. Scotland would have to apply, meet tough criteria, await lengthy negotiations and would find countries like Spain – concerned at losing Catalonia – might not hold out a welcome for Separatists. And, even if Scotland were admitted, they would find their voice of 5 million is lost and powerless in a Union of 500 million.

    But it must, ultimately, be their choice.

    SOCIETY

    Reforms within politics can – I believe would – improve policy-making, but it is the guts of policy that really matters. I simply observe that in considering future policy every Minister should ask one question: does this improve our long-term ability to compete and grow? If it does – good; if it doesn’t – think again.

    Growth is not just a matter of economic policy. Social policy is a part of the competitive structure – not apart from it. To grow, we need to improve our human infrastructure.

    EDUCATION

    Education and skill attainment are as crucial to economic success as cash investment. In the ancient world, Plato taught Socrates who taught Alexander.

    Rather more recently, Tony Blair famously declaimed “Education, Education, Education”. I had the same priorities but in a different order.

    Neither of us was original. Lenin first said it in 1917.

    And we were all right – except that we failed. And among the alienated and the under-educated, how much talent is lost? How many lives are wasted and unfulfilled? How high is the social and economic loss? Money has been put into education but the return on investment has been disappointing.

    It is a reproach to every Government over the last 40 years that employers routinely bemoan the numeracy and literacy of far too many school-leavers. As a Nation, we can’t afford that.

    A recent OECD survey, based on science, maths and literacy, put America – once top – at 26th, and the UK even lower: eight of the top ten performers were emerging Asian States. This isn’t some remote trend we can ignore: our children and grandchildren will be in direct competition with these young Asians.

    One reason for Asian success seems to be that they have invested heavily in teachers. Paid them well. Trained them well. And built up their prestige and social standing. As a result, they have attracted their brightest and best into the profession.

    Parents, too, have a responsibility for their child’s education. Too many opt out – none should.

    Events in California, in 1996, are suggestive. After positive discrimination had resulted in low graduation results and high drop-out rates, “Proposition 209” banned any reference to race, sex or ethnicity in University admissions.

    Students were selected purely on their Grades. Admissions from Asian Americans soared. The only explanation for this was parental influence. There is a lesson here. However good teachers may be, the role of parents remains the single most important input into any child’s life opportunity.

    If, as most of us accept, the economic future of the West lies, in part, with maintaining a technological advantage, we must produce the relevant skills. But we are just not doing so. China is producing over three times as many engineering, science and IT graduates as the United States. And over three times as many Chinese graduates at the top-most level with PhDs.

    In the UK, in the decade to 2007, there was a fall of nearly one-third in single honours chemistry courses, and 14% in physics. The West had better focus on the fact that Asian manufacture is already moving up the value chain.

    No Government is always right. Or wrong. In the UK, I applaud warmly the high ambition of Ministers in the previous Government who argued for long-term social reform. My only regret is that others, more senior and less far-sighted, sometimes over-ruled their efforts.

    “Thinking the unthinkable” was ditched. That was a pity.

    I welcomed their early ideas – as indeed I should: many of them were my ideas long before they were theirs, and – in some cases – Margaret’s before they were mine.

    That doesn’t matter. In a good cause, I welcome policy kleptomania. As someone who was opening Academy Schools 20 years ago, I was genuinely delighted when Andrew Adonis developed the policy and successfully carried it forward.

    Education is not our only social policy failure over decades. In our broadly prosperous country, there are still far too many graffiti-ridden slums, on soul-less Estates, in run-down areas, that dis-incentivise those who live there.

    There are too many neighbourhoods where unemployment has become a way of life; where an existence on social benefits seems normal.

    For too many people, self-determination has morphed into a belief in self-entitlement, where no-one is responsible for anything, and welfare is a legitimate career choice. America has problems that are similar in character.

    The Coalition is now embarked on reforms to health, education and social security that are long overdue, controversial and necessary. As Labour built on Conservative policy, now Conservatives will build on Labour’s.

    I hope everyone, irrespective of Party, who agrees with these reforms will support them publicly when Ministers face the inevitable protests that are to come. It will be a lost opportunity if they are sacrificed to our adversarial political system.

    Within the compass of my direct experience, I have tried to look forward. I have focused on what is not working well. But I am optimistic.

    The Western democracies always over-estimate what they can do in the short-term and under-estimate what they can achieve in the long-term. If we accept what needs to be done – we can do it. But – as Goethe noted – “until one is committed, there is hesitancy”. We must be committed.

    I would like to see a senior Minister, of Cabinet rank, given responsibility for “The Future”. His or her role would be to cast an independent eye on what needs to be done that is not being done; and what is being done that could be harmful in the future.

    Such a Minister would be the voice of the next generation. The conscience of the Government. The guarantor of the legacy. To do the job well, he or she should be an enormous irritant to Departmental Ministers and the Treasury but, with the backing of a committed Prime Minister, would ensure the interests of the next generation are not sacrificed on the altar of immediate consumption.

    Mr. Chairman, time is a tyrant and I have only skimmed the surface of policy for tomorrow.

    I have not touched on traditional foreign policy issues – much as I wished to: that must await another occasion. On that, and on so much else, there is a great deal to be said and – as my Grace Note – let me observe that those of us gathered here are well-placed to say it.

    CONCLUSION

    We are, or were, the Establishment – or part of it. Some still are. We are winners in the Ovarian lottery. Gathered here are intelligent, civilised men and women, skilled at diplomacy and dispassionate judgement. If the late John Osborne were to categorise us, it would not be as “Angry Young Men or Women”, but as “Mellow Old Achievers”.

    We are, many would say, the past: Neanderthals from the pre-internet age. But we have one huge advantage: we have seen the world as few others have seen it. So I want to end with a plea. It is that – in an age that glorifies youth – we should use our collective experience to help signpost a path for the future.

    We may have a shorter lease on that future than the young, but they are our young, and we have an obligation to care about their future.

    Whether British, or American, or Continental European, the task facing our respective Governments is herculean. We can stand aside, shrug our shoulders and smile benignly on their efforts, our own work done. Or we can pitch in and help them.

    That, surely, is the right thing to do.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Washington University – 19 May 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Washington University, St Louis, held on Friday 19th May 2006.


    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Chancellor Wrighton, thank you for that warm welcome. I often come to St Louis but it is a special pleasure to be here for this wonderful occasion.

    I would like to direct my remarks specifically to the stars of today – the graduates who will soon be awarded their academic degrees.

    For all of you, today’s ceremony is not only the result of years of study and hard work – but also the beginning of the next phase of your life.

    I envy you. I never attended university. I left school at the age of 15. Circumstances compelled it. My father was sick and blind and bed-ridden. My mother was chronically ill. They had many needs – and no money. In 1959, the US $8 a week I could earn was crucial to our family finances.

    So the choice to leave was easy. But I can still see the tears in my father’s eyes when he realised there was no alternative.

    I began my working life with employment that had no future, while I studied morning and evening, in an Aladdin’s Cave of literature and reference books that served also as my bedroom.

    I gained some academic qualifications and joined a bank. Once there, I took a banking degree and applied to work overseas. My employers must have felt I was disposable, because they sent me to Nigeria during the Biafran Civil War. Whilst there, I witnessed scenes that I wish I had not. As a young man starting out in life, it made me realise how lucky I was to live in a civilised democracy.

    I mention my own background, only to point out that learning continues well beyond academia. In the University of Life, it never stops.

    My own experience has taught me that a good education benefits not only the recipient, but everyone influenced by them. It is a priceless asset.

    Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Three of the great minds of the ancient world shaped one of the great Commanders of history. In just such a fashion, knowledge accumulates and is passed on through the generations.

    That is one reason I am confident about the future, despite the myriad problems confronting our world. It is likely that many of today’s graduates will be tomorrow’s leaders. By leaders, I don’t just mean statesmen and women, or captains of industry, or military heroes. I mean leaders in the professions, our communities – in all aspects of life – who will look at the resolution of long-term dilemmas.

    “Soundbite” leadership will not do. You know what I mean by soundbites: a glib phrase that is supposed to cure a serious problem. Such statements are a fraud. If it’s a serious problem, it can’t be solved by a soundbite. And if it can be solved by a soundbite, it’s not a serious problem.

    It is an odd concept, leadership.

    There is no template for it. Abraham Lincoln was a leader who we revere. So was Stalin – a psychopathic monster – who we emphatically do not.

    Genghis Khan was a leader. He laid waste to half the known world. So was Mother Theresa – who laid waste only to poverty and hardship.

    As you take leadership roles you will discover leadership has many facets. It cannot easily be defined.

    Is it winning personally … or is it taking long-term action to benefit others – perhaps beyond one’s own lifetime?

    Is it achieving something worthwhile … or heading off something damaging?

    Is it defeating an aggressor, or preventing the aggression in the first place?

    It may, of course, be any or all of the above.

    Sometimes, successful leadership brings odium.

    Take Mikhail Gorbachev:

    Changed face of Russia. Hero in West. Not in Russia – very unpopular.

    Stood for election as President. Polled only 1% in election.

    [Indistinct, anecdote about Gorbachev].

    GLOBAL TERROR

    Two of the daunting problems we face today may need leadership beyond one generation:

    The fear of global war has gone; only to be followed by the fear of global terror. Terrorism has been with us since ancient times: but now it is globalising. Thus far, the worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo all bear the mark of terror. Moreover, terror has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of extreme religion, and a vehicle to oppose the free market.

    But we should put terror into a proper context: so far, it has failed to gain any of its political objectives.

    The threat before us is the attempt to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim by playing upon prejudice and by fostering hatred.

    This campaign can cause mayhem – but often it merely entrenches more securely what it most wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – ineffective. Gandhi had far more success at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    We will win this battle – but we will win it more swiftly if we work with other Nations threatened by terrorism … to deny terrorists safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. We must stop the free movement of terrorists; attack money laundering; reduce their supply of weapons; agree extradition; and penalise States that fund terror. Above all, democracy must deny terrorists their causes.

    Terrorism is not going to go away and, although it is tempting to ignore it – and hope that it will ignore us – we dare not do so.

    The Radicals case may be crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, we must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: we must accept obligations that show the morality of democracy.

    POVERTY

    One of these takes me back to what I saw in microcosm as a boy in Nigeria. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The rich nations do help: at present, they spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    Let me put that to you as the radicals – who wish to do us harm – put it to their audiences: America and Europe spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.
    Greater help is not simply altruism. It is in our interest to remove grievances. It is in our interest to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. It is in our interest to foreclose on misery and hardship to come. It is in our interest to undermine the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    And it is in our interest to build the alliances that will result – unless we want a bitter and divisive world.

    Moreover, if we do not, we may let fester a problem that will – quite simply – overwhelm us.

    In twenty years, 6 billion people will become 8 billion. Of that additional 2 billion, 97% is in that part of the world that live on less than $2 a day. I cannot think of a more potent recipe for an unstable, unsafe world.

    Some years ago, I was in Peru and visited a small shanty town outside Lima: a dismal place, which seemed to be entirely without hope. The local Priest invited me to breakfast. “There is”, he said, “something I’d like you to see”.

    I was intrigued. We ate early and, just as the church clock struck 8.00, went into the street.

    Almost in concert, the doors of the hovels opened and out poured children on their way to school. All were spotlessly clean, their uniforms immaculate. Their faces smiling in greeting at one another as they carried their rather well worn and bulging satchels towards the schoolhouse.

    The Priest stopped one little girl: “Tell me”, he asked, “what do you want to be when you grow up?”.

    She looked up at him puzzled – for she knew that he already knew the answer. But nonetheless, her eyes shining with optimism, she replied:

    “I want to be a brain surgeon”. I have never forgotten than moment: it was a soaring ambition for a child from the slums of Peru.

    That little girl will now be around 30 years old. I don’t know if she will ever realise her dream. I do hope so.

    The message from that little girl is unmistakeable for the educated graduates of a great university like Washington.

    Be ambitious. Aim high. Do today what your instincts tell you could wait until tomorrow. Never under-estimate what you can achieve. With luck and skill and effort there is no ambition that is closed to you.

    In your world of tomorrow, change will accelerate. In the late 18th century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year ….. we should send a note.” Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone. We have a global economy: In China, India and Asia, an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Around the world, every emerging economy is out-performing every mature economy.

    The political map is fluid: The Middle East is a powder-keg. Iraq, Iran, and the Arab-Israel conflict are inflammatory problems. Events in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, are all capable of de-stabilising the region.

    In our world, each day, there are ground-breaking new developments, and the speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services in infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed. The past may give us an idea of the scale of change we might see.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    Charles Lindbergh could never have imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in St Louis.

    In those days, the United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface. How things have changed. The Ottoman Empire has gone. The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone. The French Empire has gone. The British Empire has gone. The Russian Empire has both come – and gone. The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers. The impact of all this on our future is far beyond economics and politics. Those of you who graduate today will see the conquest of the stars.

    You will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. You will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond your wildest imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to your forebears.

    Today is a proud day for all graduates – and one you will never forget. But it is – believe me – an even prouder day for your parents and grandparents. For them, it is the day you have begun to achieve the high hopes and dreams they have always had for you.

    They will wish you many things: A happy life. A healthy life. A life of personal and professional fulfilment.

    On the early canvas of your life, you have today painted in a great achievement. May there be many more.

    I wish you ALL every success for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on GM Schools – 21 April 1997

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on grant-maintained schools, made on 21st April 1997.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    At the moment, a large amount of money is siphoned off by the education authority. Some of it does need to be as there are some things the education authority needs to do for the schools. But there’s a huge variety across the country about how much is creamed off by the local education authority. And that means that many schools are not actually getting the money per pupil that the Government intended them to get per pupil.

  • 1997 Conservative Party Manifesto – 2 April 1997

    Below is the text of the 1997 Conservative Party manifesto.


    Foreword

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Our Record

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

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

    Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels for 30 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Doubling Living Standards

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

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

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

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

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

    A Low Tax Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Stable Prices

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

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

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

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

    Rising Living Standards

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

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

    We are on course to achieve our goal.

    2. Jobs and Business

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

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

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

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

    Small Businesses – Britain’s Risk-takers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reducing the Burden on Companies

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

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

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

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

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

    Welfare into Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Information Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Science

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

    2020 Vision

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Opportunity and Ownership for Individuals and Families

    Our Record – Opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3. Choice and Security for Families

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

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

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

    Families and Tax

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

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

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

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

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

    Family Savings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Support for Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disabled People

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

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

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

    Security in Retirement

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

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

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

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

    A Better Social Security System

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

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

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

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

    Social Security fraud must be stamped out.

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

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

    Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Opportunities for Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Looking Outwards

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Education and Opportunity

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

    Our Education Guarantee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We propose also to assess every child at five.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Choice and Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lifetime Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    World Class Health and Public Services

    Our Record – Health and Public Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Security in Health

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

    Growing Resources for a Modern Health Service

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

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

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

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

    Investing in Skilled Staff

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

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

    Higher Standards of Service

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

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

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

    Better Primary Care

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

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

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

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

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

    Mental Health

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

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

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

    Health of the Nation

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

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

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

    A Modern Health Service

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

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

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

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

    6. Better Public Services

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

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

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

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

    We will require all government agencies to apply for Chartermarks.

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

    Privatisation and Competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Local Government

    We are developing a new vision for local government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Strikes in Essential Services

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

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

    Transport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A Safe and Civil Society

    Our Record – A Safe and Civil Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    7. Law, Order and Security

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

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

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

    Safer Communities

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

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

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

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

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

    Identity Cards can also make a contribution to safer communities.

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

    Tackling Juvenile Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Catching, Convicting and Punishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Support for Victims

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

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

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

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

    Strengthening the Fight Against City Crime

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

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

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

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

    Faster Justice

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

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

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

    Civil Justice

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

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

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

    The Legal Profession

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

    Legal Aid

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

    But more is required:

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

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

    Drugs

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

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

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

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

    A Confident, United and Sovereign Nation

    Our Record – The Nation

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

    The area of green belt has doubled since 1979.

    Water and air quality in the UK have improved significantly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. The Best Place in the World to Live

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

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

    Britain’s Cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rural Communities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Agriculture and Fisheries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Animal Welfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Britain – A Tolerant Country

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

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

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

    A World Leader In Sports, Arts and Culture

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

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

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

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

    The development of young talent is important in all fields.

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

    9. Europe and the World

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

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

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

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

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

    Britain and the European Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A Single Currency: Our Referendum Guarantee

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Defence in an Unstable World

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

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

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

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

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

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

    10. The Constitution

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

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

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

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

    Open, Accountable Government

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

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

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

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

    Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Union

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

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

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

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

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

    Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

    A Choice of Two Futures

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

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

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

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    Our Vision for Britain:

    25 Pledges for the Nation

    The Enterprise Centre of Europe

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

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

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

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

    SMALL BUSINESS. Reform business rates to help small businesses.

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

    Opportunity and Ownership for Individuals and Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    World Class Health and Public Services

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

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

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

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

    A Safe and Civil Society

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

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

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

    A Confident, United and Sovereign Nation

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Central Council in Bath – 15 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held in Bath on Saturday 15th March 1997.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today, I’m going to set out what I believe.

    And why you can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    We’ll win because our policies work. And Labour’s don’t.

    Because we say what we believe in. And Labour don’t.

    Because we’re proud of our record. And they’re trying to hide their past.

    That’s why Labour make such a performance of saying that they’ve changed.

    Mr Chairman, who were the leading lights of the Labour Party when the Blairs, the Cooks and the Browns joined it?

    I’ll tell you. The Kinnocks, the Benns, the Foots, the Healeys.

    Now they’re non-persons.

    They’re not talked of – except in private, where Mr Cook says Mr Foot is the best Prime Minister we never had.

    in public he supports Mr Blair – just – but in private he says something else.

    New Labour in a nutshell.

    But our real opponent is much more formidable than Labour.

    We’re fighting the argument that “it’s time for a change.”

    Economic change

    Time for a change?

    Odd, isn’t it – in 1979 Britain was near bankrupt, scorned, a great nation on the slide. Our country really did need change then.

    Why? Because in that harsh, unforgettable winter, Britain was governed by Labour.

    This spring, children born that winter will be voting for the first time.

    In their short lifetime, an old, decaying – some said dying – nation has been rejuvenated, restored, revived.

    Those young people won’t know it. Far too many others out there seem to be forgetting it.

    But Britain has changed – from being a European basket case to an international role model.

    People once talked of the British disease. Now they’re copying the British solution.

    The once sick man of Europe is setting the pace.

    So, when you hear siren voices wailing ‘It’s time for a change’ – fix them in the eyes and challenge this nonsense:

    ‘A change to what?’

    Is the nation moaning, out there “Low inflation. Who needs it? Let prices rip”?

    Are they frantic at the lowest basic rate of tax for sixty years? “I can’t bear it. Let’s put a penny on income tax again”?

    Do they despair as unemployment falls, month after month? “How boring. Why can’t we lose jobs like France and Germany”?

    Do they weep that we’re number one in Europe for inward investment? “Forget it – we don’t want foreign money here. Let’s have that Social Chapter, load costs on those companies and drive the new jobs away”?

    Mr Chairman, you know they don’t. No sensible person is asking for that.

    So, I say to the “time for a change” merchants: “Find me a better country in the world in which to live”.

    If you can – well, bye, bye, we’ll miss you.

    If you can’t, pipe down – and let us get on with the job of building the well-being of our nation to a level it has never known before.

    A Smaller, But Better State

    Mr Chairman, my Conservatism is first about helping more people realise their own private hopes and personal ambitions.

    And second about removing the avoidable fears that blight too many lives.

    Over the years Government after Government has wanted to do this.

    Now we have the prize we’ve all been seeking – the strongest, most stable economy that Britain has seen since way before the war.

    So now, we can really make progress.

    My aim is to make the state smaller, but better.

    That’s why our target is a 20 pence basic rate of tax – and for state spending to fall below 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth.

    Working two days a week for the state – surely that’s enough for all of us?

    I believe that if things can be done better in the private sector, they should be.

    But I also believe some things should always be done in the public sector.

    And if so, they must be done well.

    Over the years we’ve reined back the size of the state. Steel coal, gas, electricity, water, airways – all once leeched on the state for subsidy.

    Now they’re in the private sector, yielding taxes for schools, hospitals, police.

    It’s a remarkable record – a smaller state, lower income tax and better services.

    And there’s further to go.

    The Next Conservative Government

    Mr Chairman, in the last few days some interviewers have asked me: “It’s been a tough few years, Prime Minister. Why do you want to go on?”

    I’ll tell you.

    Because I dream of a people’s Britain, in which all the people – not only the confident and well to do – can make their own choices and mould their own lives.

    I believe that’s their right. Their right – to choose, to save, to spend, to know that they own.

    I want to see everyone have these opportunities.

    To see the have-nots become the haves.

    That’s why we started the sale of council houses.

    Why we’ve sold shares and spread savings.

    And it’s why we’re going to provide secure pensions for everyone.

    Because the Conservatism I’m talking about isn’t just for the lucky, the fortunate, the able, the self-confident.

    It’s for everyone.

    For those for whom life is a struggle.

    For those who don’t have the best education.

    Don’t have a decent home.

    Don’t live in a safe neighbourhood.

    Don’t have a job.

    I should know. I come from them. I care for them. And I long to see them have their fair share of the good things of life.

    Opportunity for all: the next Conservative Government is for them, as much as for anyone else.

    We’ll make sure that those who don’t have, do have.

    People’s Pensions

    Mr Chairman, as Britain grows wealthier, we must see to it that more of what the State spends goes where the taxpayer would like it to go.

    I believe in the Welfare State – and the security and comfort it offers the British people. I’m determined it will be there for our children and grandchildren.

    But we can only guarantee its future if it remains affordable.

    We have set out recently big ideas to do just that.

    Today’s pensions, for example, rely on each younger generation being able to pay for the old.

    As more people live longer, can we be sure that would always be possible?

    It’s a giant of uncertainty that no truly caring government could ignore. A giant that the next Conservative government will begin to slay.

    We aim to build on what William Beveridge intended.

    To build up – over time – a secure pension scheme for all.

    But we’ll go one better.

    Ours won’t be a state pension – though it will have a state guarantee.

    It will be a People’s Pension, owned by everyone – personally. It will be theirs – by right.

    It will be funded by real investments – not unwritten promises and rising tax.

    It will guarantee the new generation – our children and grandchildren – not just the basic state pension, but their own personal pool of savings.

    By the time they retire, someone on average earnings should have built up £130,000 of savings. Enough to provide a pension of £175 a week.

    It’s a long-term plan – a true Conservative idea – one that will give our children a security and independence that previous generations could only dream of.

    Protecting Savings

    Often true security and peace of mind come from savings.

    People save for security. For comfort in retirement. Against a rainy day. To ensure the dignity of self-provision.

    They worry about the cost of care if they grow infirm when they are elderly.

    And they despair when their savings are eaten up to pay for care.

    This week we announced a plan to tackle this problem.

    We will lessen the worries so many people have about the cost of nursing home care.

    It’s quite simple. A partnership.

    We intend to help people who plan ahead and take out insurance against long-term care.

    In return, for every £1 they spend, we’ll disregard an extra £1.50 of their assets and protect them from being used to pay for care.

    This will mean people can protect more of their savings for themselves and their families.

    Too many people who have prudently saved still find their money stripped from them by the accident of illness in old age. This will protect them.

    It’s the second great aim for the next Conservative Government – to banish the fear of losing their lifetime’s assets to pay for care in illness.

    I believe in the cascade of wealth between the generations. So we’ll help build it up. Help protect it – and, as we can afford it, steadily reduce the burden of tax upon it.

    A Modern National Health Service

    Over the last generations we’ve seen the greatest leap forward in the health of the nation that we’ve ever known.

    People are living better and living longer.

    That’s good.

    But, as more and more people live longer and longer, the demands on our doctors and hospitals must grew.

    And that means constant investment in new science and new treatments in the National Health Service.

    If you spend all your time worrying what will happen when you lose your health, you’ve no time left to enjoy it.

    So here’s a pledge to fight the third great fear – the fear of disease.

    It’s a pledge that no other party has matched.

    A pledge for you to take to the doorsteps, to the millions of families who treasure the peace of mind the National Health Service gives.

    We will continue to improve the Health Service year on year.

    We’ll plough savings back into health care year on year.

    And the next Conservative Government will provide more money for the NHS, over and above inflation, year on year on year, for the next five years.

    It’s why prosperity matters.

    Because growing national wealth will mean better National Health.

    Our aim is to make good health more infectious than disease.

    As far as the NHS is concerned, if you’re ill we’ll make it better.

    A Guarantee of Standards

    Mr Chairman, Britain will live or die by whether British workers can think better and work faster than our competitors. The prizes of the next century will go to countries with the best educated workforce.

    That means we need the best education for every child, in every class, in every school.

    We’ve come a long way – but not far enough to meet tomorrow’s challenges or parents’ wishes.

    Parents deserve more choice. We’ll give it to them.

    No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No small print or sly evasions.

    More grant-maintained schools, more specialist schools, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what they want, that is what we – and we alone – guarantee they can have.

    Choice is crucial – but it’s no use if it’s a choice between two bad schools.

    Children have only one chance at education. Many schools are good. Exam results impressive. But it’s not universal.

    I’m not prepared to stand by and see children let down by bad schools and bad councils.

    That’s why we’ve put in place our reforms. A national curriculum. Local management. Tests. Tables. And inspections. We had to fight for them all – against bitter hostility from Labour.

    Our reforms have shone a spotlight on the dark corners of the education system. Exposed failing schools and the failing education authorities that run them.

    As a result, in our Manifesto, we can now do what no previous government has ever dared to do before.

    We can offer parents a guarantee of education standards.

    Where we need to, we’ll take action to turn failing schools around.

    And where whole education authorities are failing, – and, sadly, some are – we’ll send in professional teams to sort them out.

    Councils like Islington, Hackney, Haringey – the real Labour heartlands – have failed and failed and failed.

    They have betrayed generations of children.

    Time after time tests and tables show Labour councils to be the bleakest areas of the education landscape.

    And the Leader of the Labour Party has the gall to say that education is his passion. “Education. Education. Education.”

    But what has he ever done about those deplorable Labour councils?

    Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

    Nothing – but turn the car key and drive away to another borough and another school.

    Towards a GM school that Tory policies made possible – and which his policies would destroy.

    I don’t believe children are less clever in some areas. I believe they’re let down in some areas.

    I come from local government but I have no brief for it when it fails. So I offer this warning.

    We will not follow Mr Blair and Ms Harman as – head aloof – they pass by on the other side.

    We will go into those education authorities. We will examine them. And where they are failing, we will take their powers from them – in the interests of our children.

    The Inner Cities

    Our Conservatism must be for everyone – whoever they are, wherever they live.

    We want to spread the prosperity of the suburbs into our inner cities.

    Already we’ve transformed the face of many cities.

    But we must do far, far more.

    We’re going to tackle the problem of inner city deprivation more imaginatively than any Government before.

    We’ll bring to every tenant the choice of freedom from shoddy council control – for a fresh start with a better landlord.

    We’ll build a new partnership between public and private sector.

    Where tenants agree, we’ll bring in private capital to improve their lives on a scale never seen.

    To transform housing; improve schools; fight crime.

    Dignity, security, prosperity must walk down every street in the land.

    And that must include the inner cities.

    Grown up Government: Preparing for the Future – Now

    Mr Chairman, in the first years of this century Winston Churchill and Lloyd George laid the foundations of the Welfare State.

    The wartime and post-war governments, drawing on the work of William Beveridge, brought in state provision on a huge scale. It was right for its time. And, for a long time, it has served us well.

    But now we are on the threshold of a new century. Right across the world – even in the richest nations – people are looking forward and saying that the State cannot shoulder all the burden -and for ever.

    Some things, like the free National Health Service, is a principle we must never change.

    But, I believe it is time for the third great move forward in public welfare.

    To bolster social security with personal and family security.

    To build alongside State provision growing private wealth.

    To replace the insecurity of dependence for many with the security of independence for all.

    I have laid some of those ideas before you today.

    This is a bold vision – a grand ambition. It is what I have always longed to do.

    When it’s accomplished – and the next generations have the savings and security that we are preparing for them – then I believe people will look back and say: “How lucky we are that governments then looked forward – not twenty minutes or twenty days, but twenty, forty, sixty years.”

    Mr Chairman, government is a grown-up business.

    It’s not about clutching for the advantage of the hour.

    It’s about working for the advantage of future generations some of us may never even know.

    And to do that, whatever may be the short-term reaction – from the unthinking, the uncomprehending, the sheer opportunist.

    Doing the right thing, at the right time, for the ends we know to be right.

    Labour

    Our record is in the book, our policies are on the table, our principles are clear.

    So when people go into the polling booth, and put a cross in the box beside the Conservative candidate, they’ll know what it stands for.

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    But before they mark that X, I’d like them to think carefully – very carefully indeed.

    That X will decide the fate of Britain for the next five years.

    But they could mark X somewhere else.

    X for the unknown quantity.

    An X that might stand for … well, just about anything.

    Imagine waking up the morning if the X files stacked up for Labour.

    It would be like waking up on an aeroplane that’s taxiing for take-off. What would the new captain say?

    “Welcome on board. Before we take-off, I’d just like you to welcome your crew.

    You probably remember the last crew from the same training school crash-landed. So did the one before. Indeed, everyone before. But don’t worry, we’re new.

    In fact, we’re so new none of us have flown before, except on a television simulator.

    During the flight, our bar steward, John Prescott, will be coming through the cabin, offering a selection of goods, all of which cost more tax.

    I can’t tell you yet what altitude we’re flying at. Or what speed. Or what direction. But I’m hoping a focus group will tell me shortly.

    Our destination – is unknown. But I can tell you the flight time will be about five years.

    In the meantime, please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened.”

    Please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened. That’s surely true. You would certainly need it.

    Imagine.

    Trade union bosses licking their lips, their lunch boxes packed with their sandwiches and pay demands.

    Businessmen reassessing their options, thinking how many they’d have to sack once Labour signed the Social Chapter.

    Currency markets holding their breath, remembering how the last Labour government bankrupted Britain.

    Scottish Nationalists preparing to say ‘Whatever Mr Blair offers, it’s not enough’.

    And the European Federalists, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a Britain that will never be isolated in Europe, no matter what they proposed.

    If Mr Blair ever walked in through the most famous door in the world, half the hopes of Britain would disappear out the back.

    It’s taken 18 years of sound government and sheer hard work by the British people to get us here.

    We must not throw it away. Throw it away with the wrong economic policy.

    No, Mr Chairman.

    It’s not time for a change.

    And it would not be safe to change.

    Not safe to change economic management.

    Not safe to adopt reckless and opportunistic commitments to constitutional change.

    Not safe to toe the line in Europe and wreck our competitiveness.

    I’ll tell you what it is time for.

    It’s time for the clear-headed.

    Time for the far-sighted.

    Time for the experienced.

    Time to be sure.

    It’s time for us.

    That’s why we’ll win.

  • PMQT – 13 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th March 1997.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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. Chidgey: No doubt the Prime Minister will join me in condemning the leaking of the Select Committee report on nursery vouchers. Does he share the Committee’s concern that nursery vouchers appear to be failing to provide parental choice, failing to improve standards and failing to provide more places? Does he accept that there is great folly in pressing ahead with a national scheme before the pilot schemes have been properly tested?

    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s dismay that someone has chosen to leak a report. I have not yet read it, so I am unable to comment in detail on what may or may not be in it. As a matter of principle, rather than on the specific issue raised by the Select Committee report, parents have choice because of the voucher scheme. Without the voucher scheme, the only way to obtain a free nursery place would be to send one’s child to a state school. There was no choice or opportunity and the half a million parents who have taken up the option will be indicating that they believe that choice is right. The voucher scheme has also led to an increase in the number of places.

     

    Ministerial Visit (Kent)

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state and to play their part in our dynamic enterprise economy? They want nothing to do with those who spend their time selling Britain out or who would like to spend their time selling Britain short.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state. I agree that they and the rest of the United Kingdom have benefited enormously from the economic improvements of the past few years. They, like everyone else, enjoy the benefits of much lower inflation than we have had for many years, the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years and the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country. We intend to continue to pursue the policies that will ensure that they can continue to enjoy those things for many years to come.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of central Government control of non-domestic rates has yielded immense benefits to industry and commerce, especially to small companies? Does he also agree that placing decisions on business rates under local control would add billions to industrial costs in the United Kingdom, undermine our inward investment efforts and threaten the very existence of huge numbers of small firms throughout Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about that. The non-domestic rate set by central Government for England and Wales has never risen faster than the rate of inflation, and in Scotland the rate has been reduced in real terms. That is in sharp distinction to what occurred when local authorities set the business rate, often by attempting to hold down the domestic rate and pile costs upon business. That is one of the significant reasons why so many companies were forced out of inner-city areas, leaving the problems that we have been attempting to deal with.

    Mr. Blair: I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister notice of my question. Will the Prime Minister join me in recalling that it is a year to the day since the terrible events in Dunblane? We remember the little ones who died, and we grieve with their parents and their friends. They will not be lost to the nation’s memory. We all say to the people of Dunblane that our thoughts and prayers are with them today and in the years to come.

    One year ago, the House stood united in shock at the senseless and appalling tragedy in Dunblane. Today, whatever our differences are on any other matter, we are united again, this time in sorrow and in commemoration of those who died.

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for everyone in the House, and for millions beyond it. We all remember with great clarity the horror we felt when we heard of those appalling events. I remember visiting the school and the gymnasium with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not believe that either of us will ever forget the scenes that we saw there; neither will anyone else who visited the school. Clearly, this will be a very difficult and emotional time for the bereaved and for the entire community of Dunblane. I am sure that the thoughts not only of the House but of the nation are with them today.

    Mr. Harris: May I raise with my right hon. Friend another tragic matter–the loss of two fishing boats, the Westhaven, from Arbroath, and the Gorah Lass, from St. Ives in my constituency? Will he express the sympathy of all hon. Members to the relatives of the seven men who are feared dead? Will he also honour the debt that we all owe to the fishing industry, and ensure that the investigating authorities have the resources to conduct speedily and thoroughly the urgent task of investigating the cause of that double tragedy?

    The Prime Minister: Seven fishermen have lost their lives this week, in two separate incidents. I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending every sympathy to the family and friends of those involved in those tragic accidents. I understand that both incidents are being investigated by the marine accidents investigation branch. I will attempt to ensure that that occurs as speedily and as comprehensively as possible, and of course the findings will in due course be made public.

     

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

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Has the Prime Minister seen the written answer to me from the Secretary of State for Defence on 20 February 1997, which confirmed that most of the “British beef” consumed by Her Majesty’s armed forces is purchased from Spanish-speaking South American countries? Does he not think it more likely that the ban on British beef would be lifted by the European Union if it saw that the British Government were backing British beef?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the particular answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that the British Government back British beef. That has been apparent in the resources that have been put into supporting the beef industry during the difficult past year or so.

    Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will have read of the campaign being waged by the British section of the European Movement to persuade the voters to scrap the pound and to move towards a federal European state. In view of the vast sums being given by the European Commission to that movement, will he say how much British taxpayers’ money is being laundered through the Commission for that rather dubious exercise?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that without notice I can give a figure to my–to the hon. Gentleman on that particular matter. I would add that, from all that I read and understand, there is quite a lot of money available to both sides of the argument.

     

    Q5. Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Fraser: As this is probably the last opportunity I shall have to ask the Prime Minister a question, may I, as one ex-Lambeth councillor to another, wish him a long and happy retirement? It might have been otherwise–because does he realise that when he was running a housing department in Lambeth, under a Labour Government, he started more municipal homes to rent in one year than every single housing authority in England and Wales is now starting in the current year, and that the shortfall is by no means made up by housing associations?

    The Prime Minister: The reason for that, of course, was the dereliction and despair that I inherited from the Labour council, which had spent 30 years damaging the quality of life in Lambeth and has continued to do so whenever it has managed to persuade the people of Lambeth to re-elect it.

    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has the chance during his busy day, will he reconsider the strange question of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)–a man of unshakeable principles for many years, as we know–whose description of European Movement funding is a travesty of the truth? The sums involved are extremely modest compared with the millions spent by Sir James Goldsmith on his own campaign, which is triumphantly scoring 0.3 per cent. in the opinion polls?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and forcefully.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the impact on sanctions against Libya of the legal actions by the United States authorities against (a) Juval Aviv and (b) Les Coleman.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Aviv’s acquittal has no bearing on the case against the two Libyans accused in respect of Lockerbie. Legal proceedings against Mr. Coleman are pending in the United States, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on them.

    Mr. Dalyell: Have not the American courts driven the proverbial coach and horses through the case of the American Government on Libya? Does the Prime Minister realise that many serious people in legal Edinburgh doubt whether the Crown Office now has a substantial case to provide the basis for sanctions against Libya? Given the view of the families, could there be another fatal accident inquiry into these tragic events to get the truth?

    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to say whether the Crown Office has a case or not; it clearly believes that it does. I have made inquiries in the light of the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled, and I am advised that all the theories about responsibility for Lockerbie, including those of Mr. Aviv and Mr. Coleman, were thoroughly investigated. The evidence supports charges against the accused Libyans, and not against anybody else. The hon. Gentleman asks for a further inquiry of some sort. As he knows, there have been a number of inquiries already–a fatal accident inquiry that was held in public, a police inquiry, a Transport Select Committee inquiry, an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and the US presidential commission. In the light of those, I do not believe that a further inquiry would be productive.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend deplore, as I do, the increasing tendency for Government policy to be discussed as a result of leaks in the media and elsewhere? Does he share my increasing concern about that trend?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly do. It means that policies that are legitimately a matter for discussion in the House are often discussed and misunderstood before the details of the policies or the Select Committee report have been made public. That is damaging. I believe that the leaking of Select Committee reports, as happened last night, is an abuse of the procedures of the House. On that matter, I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend.

     

    Q10. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Barnes: It is probably seven weeks to the general election. Will not many people get a shock to find that their names are not on electoral registers? Why cannot we be told how many people are on the electoral registers in England and Wales, which should have been available for a month, before the House dissolves for a general election?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, electoral registers are published at the appropriate time. I believe that when he raised the matter about three weeks ago I told him that the full count is likely to be available towards the end of March.

  • PMQT – 11 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1997.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

    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. Hendry: Does the Prime Minister agree that parents everywhere will welcome today’s publication of league tables for primary schools? Does he understand their very real anger at those who would deny them the right to know how their children’s schools are performing? Whether or not schools are doing well, parents have an absolute right to know how their children and their local authorities are performing. We understand that, but Labour does not.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tables. For the first time, parents will have the information they need to help to choose the appropriate primary schools for their children.

    Mr. Foulkes: In Orkney?

    The Prime Minister: They do–

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to note that any prospect of choice or information is an appalling proposition for Opposition Members–no wonder they propose to do away with this information if they ever get the opportunity. The tables expose under-achievement and high truancy, and where they occur: in authorities run by the party of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware of the correspondence from the Association of Meat Inspectors sent to Ministers and the Meat Hygiene Service that shows that, contrary to what we were told last week, serious concern about contamination was being expressed to Ministers and others over a nine-month period and that contamination in abattoirs is getting worse, not better? Those are serious allegations. Will the Prime Minister institute immediate inquiries and ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes a full account of the state of abattoirs, of what warnings were given to Ministers, and of what action was taken?

    The Prime Minister: In the past few hours I have seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers since it attained some notoriety on the lunchtime media. I entirely share the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and the Association of Meat Inspectors to ensure the highest standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses. I am surprised by the contents of the letter for two reasons: first, I am surprised because the AMI is responsible for the enforcement of hygiene rules, and I understand that extra staff have been provided to the Meat Hygiene Service, including at least 250 staff who are responsible for inspection. Secondly, I am surprised because the vice-president of the Association of Meat Inspectors, who is a vet–unlike the general secretary to whose letter the right hon. Gentleman referred–said today that he is

    “fully supportive of the Meat Hygiene Service and everything they have achieved in raising standards”.

    Notwithstanding that point, I have not yet fully had the chance to investigate the letter, but I will most certainly do so.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but will he ensure that we are given a full account of exactly what was said to Ministers over that period of nine months and what the state of abattoirs is? Is there not an unanswerable case for ensuring that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not look after the interests of the industry and consumers together, and that we set up a proper, independent food standards agency that can look into these matters and monitor them on behalf of the public?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises two important points. Let me try to answer him in some depth on both of them.

    As to the importance of what Ministers have been doing, I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have had a total of 22 meetings on hygiene matters over the last year to deal with abattoirs and related matters. That series of meetings continues, which shows the extent of the Government’s concern. I will, of course, look personally at what has happened about those meetings.

    I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on the need for independent advice. The point of distinction between us is whether it should come from an agency, or independent advice from scientific experts, but not necessarily an agency–[Interruption.] I will explain why not necessarily an agency, and I will use the words that are often used by hon. Members when criticising agencies that exist. Hon. Members often say to me that agencies do not stand at the Dispatch Box; that they are not answerable for what is happening. On a matter such as food safety–the right hon. Gentleman just asked that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be held accountable–it is, perhaps, right that there should be independent advice. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that and we have set it in train, but a Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and answer for the advice that he receives.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but I would just point out to him that, in the letter written last Wednesday, the Association of Meat Inspectors said that

    “far from being encouraged to enforce stricter hygiene standards, MHIs are being actively encouraged to ignore breaches of regulations and in some cases threatened if they try to take action”.

    I understand that inspectors have a responsibility, but surely Ministers do as well. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether, as a result of his previous answer, he is prepared to look again at the possibility of an independent food standards agency–not to commit himself to it today, I understand that–as a better way to deal with these issues.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman poses his question. Let me deal with the first part of it and what instructions were given to inspectors.

    Inspectors have been given clear instructions to apply the rules firmly: for example–to pick up one of the points in the letter–if they see signs of any form of contamination, not to stamp meat as fit for human consumption. Their job is to stop such meat reaching the consumer. Abattoir managers and owners who flout those rules face prosecution. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the monthly report on observance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. In addition, members of the AMI–the inspectors–know that they face disciplinary action if they fail to enforce the rules properly. That is a real threat. The Meat Hygiene Service has dismissed a number of employees and disciplined rather more for inadequately carrying out the public safety responsibility of careful examination of abattoirs, and that is right.

    Of course I will look at the question of independent advice, but for the reason that I set out a moment ago I do not favour a food standards agency.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the high level of investment in the electronics industry in central Scotland? Does he recognise the importance to that industry of manoeuvrability of components and products? Will he consider the requirements of fifth freedoms, which could benefit that industry, particularly by using Prestwick airport as a gateway?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, I visited Prestwick airport 10 days ago to look at its excellent cargo facilities. Granting fifth freedom rights to foreign airlines using Prestwick is attractive, provided United Kingdom airlines are given a fair opportunity to compete and there are matching rights for UK airlines overseas. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of my hon. Friend’s comments. I share my hon. Friend’s belief that good transport links are vital to that success.

    Mr. Ashdown: If, as the Government claim–

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Welcome to the role of grandparent.

    Mr. Ashdown: Yes, we hope that we shall be.

    If, as the Government claim, today’s primary school league tables are a fair and accurate judge, will the Prime Minister consider two facts? Of the top 20 local education authorities, eight have Liberal Democrat control, three have Labour control and only two have Conservative control. According to the tables, Britain’s primary education system is now, in the words of The Express, the worst in the western world and a national disgrace. After 18 years of Conservative government, does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for that, or is it the fault of the teachers and the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: If it were not for the fact that we introduced this information, nobody would know precisely what was happening in schools. As to standards in secondary and primary schools, the fact is that, across the board, it is long-standing Conservative authorities that have the best results, certainly not Labour authorities. The 20 worst secondary schools and the 10 worst primary schools are in Labour authorities. The schools for which the right hon. Gentleman takes credit have been Conservative run for many years, and have only recently been run by the Liberal Democrats.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chartered Insurance Institute on its centenary year, which is marked by a major international insurance conference at Westminster today? Are not Governments throughout the world increasingly turning to the private sector to help to meet long-term social costs? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a partnership between insurance companies and the state is the best way of ensuring that future generations can meet their pension needs?

    The Prime Minister: If we wish to enshrine the welfare state for our children and our grandchildren, it is necessary to look again at how we can ensure that the provision that is made today is still affordable in years to come. That is why we produced the plans on basic pension plus. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday announced our partnership scheme for long-term care, and that is why further plans will be announced tomorrow. We are seeking to ensure that the welfare state is enshrined for the long term by taking decisions that every hon. Member knows need to be taken if we are to ensure the continuation and improvement of welfare provision.

    Mr. Ashton: As we are only three or four weeks away from the official start of the general election campaign, will the Prime Minister tell us whether, a few weeks before the last general election, the Conservative Government did a deal with the tobacco companies, in which several hundred hoardings were given to the Conservative party in return for an agreement that there would be no ban on tobacco advertising? Is that true? Will he confirm that that deal will not be done again?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm that no deals are being done, although I have noticed one: the substantial advertising campaign by the trade unions. Those trade unions fund the Labour party when the deputy leader is not abroad raising funds for the party before denouncing the Conservatives, whom he claims do the same thing.

     

    Q4. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Church primary schools on their exceptional performance, as shown in the league tables that were published today? Is that not further and conclusive proof that traditional teaching methods, employed in an atmosphere in which achievement is expected and there are strict rules and discipline, are not only the most successful but the only proper methods?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point to the excellent performance of the Church primaries. About 60 of the 100 best-performing schools in the tables are either Church or grant maintained. They show the success of a policy of promoting choice and diversity in our education system if we wish to promote excellence.

    [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I note the hatred of diversity and excellence on the Opposition Benches. I note Opposition plans to abolish grant-maintained schools, to undermine Church schools and to give local education authorities unprecedented control over them. It is very interesting indeed that members of the Labour party would like to deny other parents the opportunities that they exercise themselves.

    Q5. Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Ms Walley: Does the Prime Minister recall that, five years ago yesterday, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget speech that he would not increase VAT on fuel? Are we not entitled to know now why the Government did not go ahead with that?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we are entitled to know by what amount a windfall tax will add to the cost of fuel for people–and the cost of water, and the cost of all the other utilities. We are promised such a tax; we have not been given any information about the impact of that tax on either the consumer–

    Ms Walley indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Lady’s shaking her head; this is the fact of the matter. We have not been given any information about the impact of the tax on either the consumer or the dividends of hundreds of thousands of investors in those industries.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Rally – 22 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Rally, held in Birmingham on Saturday 22nd February 1997.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here in Birmingham today.

    Birmingham is one of the great industrial cities of the world. It’s a superb shop window for the United Kingdom.

    Each year, the G7 group of industrial nations meets to discuss policy. In recent years, they’ve been joined by Russia. Next year, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the G7 taking over from the United States.

    I’ve decided that Britain will host next year’s G7 summit here in Birmingham. The great economic nations of the world will meet in one of the great industrial cities of the world.

    Between now and then, we must achieve something never done before – a fifth successive election victory.

    The question we’ll face is simple: “After 18 years, why 5 more?”

    Well the answer to that is easy: it’s because on all the main issues we’re right and – as usual – Labour is wrong.

    After the election the government will inherit the soundest economy Britain has known for generations.

    We built it and I intend we shall inherit it.

    The longest consistent fall in unemployment since Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The longest period of low inflation since Mr Churchill was Prime Minister. The lowest basic rate of income tax since Mr Baldwin was Prime Minister. The lowest level of strikes since – well, since Mr Gladstone was Prime Minister. Britain is becoming the economic success story of Europe.

    That’s a fact. You can’t hide it.

    These days Britain’s economic success is so obvious – even Labour daren’t deny it.

    So they claim it would be safe with them.

    Well, you have to admire their nerve; they opposed our spending plans, tax changes, privatisations, deregulation – they opposed every single policy that has delivered success.

    And then they claim they can carry forward the success of these policies.

    They also claim they can be trusted with the unity of Britain when their priority is to break it up into smaller parts.

    And they say they can be trusted on Europe, when their policy is to copy its mistakes.

    On three main election battlegrounds – the economy, Europe, the Constitution – Labour are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

    The Foot-in-the-Door Salesmen

    To understand what New Labour is all about, you need to put yourselves in Labour’s shoes. When you’ve been wrong all your life what do you do?

    Imagine the PR men’s advice.

    “Ditch your past. Don’t say what you’d do. Just say what you’re against. Avoid details. Dream up gimmicks for headlines. Copy Tory language. And – above all – don’t forget to smile”.

    New Labour is one great marketing scam. They only say what they are told the customer would like to hear. The exact characteristic of the foot-in-the-door salesman.

    Nothing is quite what it seems. It depends on who they’re speaking to.

    They are for grammar schools in the Wirral, but against them at the Party Conference. They are for lower taxes in The Times. But in favour of more spending in The Guardian. They are tough on crime in The Daily Mail. But soft on crime in the House of Commons. Put it altogether, and what do you get?

    The world’s first:

    Federalist – Nationalist,

    Unilateralist – Militarist,

    tax-cutting, more spending,

    grammar school loving, grammar school hating,

    socialist, non-socialist party.

    There’s an old story of a seasoned politician who was once asked what time it was by a voter.

    “What time would you like it to be?” he replied. That, in a nutshell, is New Labour policy.

    If it would win a vote, please a newspaper editor, satisfy a pressure group, Labour would say anything.

    If it would win two votes, they’d believe anything.

    And if it would win three votes, they’d do anything.

    They’re prepared to disregard the views of a lifetime in the briefing of a lunchtime.

    As day succeeds day, the fraud that is New Labour becomes more transparent.

    You can’t take at face value a word that Labour say. That’s why they’re so dangerous.

    The Labour Leader claims he and his Party have changed.

    Well the oratory has changed.

    But have Labour really changed?

    New Labour runs Liverpool – the council with the highest Council Tax. No change there.

    New Labour runs Sheffield – the council with the largest number of empty homes. No change there.

    And, of course, New Labour runs Islington, the council with the worst education results in England. No change there.

    Mr Blair says – and I quote, “I don’t think the character of any party becomes clear until you’re in power”.

    Let’s take his word for it. In all these councils New Labour are in power.

    And what do we see?

    New Labour – same old story.

    One thing is clear, locally or nationally, you can’t trust Labour with Britain’s future.

    Why Five More Years

    But why does Britain need five more years of Conservative Government?

    Not just to protect what we’ve achieved but because there’s much to be done.

    In the 80s and early 90s we curbed inflation, extended private ownership, began to reform our schools and hospitals, toughened up the law.

    We should be confident and proud of what we’ve done.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has been transformed.

    No other Party would have attempted it – let alone achieved it.

    But the Conservative reforms aren’t over – not by a long chalk.

    Now we must carry them forward.

    What is it people are still concerned about?

    Where are the areas that still need reform?

    They’re the areas where the state still has too much control.

    Where the consumer is swamped by bureaucracy and the individual is forgotten.

    Education

    Take education.

    I believe parents have a simple wish: to know that when they send their children to school, that school – paid for by their taxes – will give their children a decent education.

    They should be able to count on that.

    After years of reform, our Manifesto will give them a Guarantee of Standards. The first pillar will be tests.

    In the next Parliament we’ll test children at 7, 11 and 14.

    We’ll publish the results so that parents can see how their children are progressing, and teachers can discover how much their pupils have learnt.

    And we’ll change the way tests are marked, so children get scores out of 100. I think you’ll agree that’s common sense.

    It’s also common sense that every child is different.

    So we will go on creating a range of schools, breaking up the drab slab of a solely comprehensive system.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    More specialist schools.

    And, yes, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what parents like, that’s what parents will get. Labour can’t bear any of this.

    They wriggle, they writhe. They twist, they turn.

    Never mind watching their lips – watch the agony on their faces as they perform their lingual gymnastics, trying to hide their hatred for choice and their dislike of diversity.

    Grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, assisted places – we Conservatives believe in extending choice, not opposing it. It’s the basis of our philosophy.

    And how Labour detest it.

    But choice is meaningless unless it’s a choice of good schools.

    A choice of bad schools is no choice at all and, tragically, in some Labour education authorities, that’s all you get.

    We can already take over schools that are failing their children, but sometimes the problem isn’t just with the school – it’s with the education authority itself.

    So where education authorities are failing, we’ll create new powers to take them over to drive up standards.

    Labour will say, “But you have had 18 years to sort out education. Why has it taken so long?”

    That’s rich, coming from them. Who’s opposed all our reforms? Labour. And here’s a fact for the doorstep.

    The twenty education authorities with the worst education results are, without exception, traditional Labour authorities.

    It’s their attitudes and their schools that have been failing our children.

    So, after the election, I intend to ask the Government’s watchdog on standards – OFSTED – to examine, in turn, every single one of those failing education authorities.

    We’ll improve them if we can, and replace them if we can’t.

    We’re going to join the parents’ revolt against Labour education.

    And if you don’t think there’s a revolt around ask them in Islington.

    43 per cent of Islington’s parents agree.

    They send their children to secondary schools outside the borough.

    Some of them are rather well known parents.

    43 per cent.

    Parents running from councils like Islington.

    Socialist-run councils – with Socialists running away from them, as fast as they can.

    The People versus the Planners

    That’s socialists for you.

    Well-intentioned, but in love with controlling things.

    But just look at our inner cities, choked by the dead hand of socialist planning.

    We’ve brought in private investment and enterprise. And that public-private partnership is transforming what were once no-go areas for jobs and business.

    But the toughest challenge still remains: large housing estates, soulless blocks where the only sense of community was snuffed out long ago, that have become deserts of despair.

    Parties of every colour built them, thinking they were the right way ahead.

    But they’ve become places where poor education, drugs, crime have created a vicious downward spiral.

    Where people live dependent on the state, but are let down by local councils who own their homes.

    Where the worst poverty is poverty of hope.

    These estates are concrete proof that the old way – of hoping the state and councils can provide for all our needs – has failed.

    These people deserve the chance to rebuild their communities and their lives.

    Ours is a fresh approach, giving tenants the opportunity to vote to transfer their homes to new landlords.

    This is People Power – giving people the chance to control their own lives.

    To create a new community.

    It isn’t just bricks and mortar that matter. It’s training and jobs, raising education standards, tackling crime.

    It’s the community itself.

    Our commitment is to transform the worst estates across the whole of the country and the lives of those who live on them.

    We won’t solve it in a year – or even a Parliament.

    But it can be done and will be done – by the next Conservative Government.

    Just this week, we announced that tenants on 40 housing estates stand to benefit from millions of pounds to help the private sector transform 22,000 homes.

    22,000 homes.

    22,000 families.

    I bet you didn’t read about that in your newspapers.

    It probably didn’t merit a headline in some.

    But that’s the reality of life in Conservative Britain.

    As Britain grows stronger, more and more people are beginning to feel the warmth of prosperity touch their lives, whoever they are, wherever they live.

    That’s why Labour have to knock it.

    A week doesn’t pass without them kicking their favourite political football – the National Health Service.

    Just look at the service they attack.

    More patients being treated than ever before.

    Shorter waiting times.

    Better treatment.

    Why is our health service such a success?

    Not just because we’re spending more on it, though we are.

    But because we’re giving the money to the hospitals and doctors themselves who know best how to use it.

    Under Labour, bureaucracy would come back at the stroke of a pen.

    They’d strip hospitals and family doctors of their freedoms and smother them with new layers of bureaucracy.

    Our modern health service would be thrown into turmoil as Labour pushed it back to its bad old ways.

    That’s not the way we should go.

    We’re going to give more freedom to doctors and nurses. They’ll be able to offer more care in surgeries and nearer home.

    And – where they want to – create a new generation of cottage hospitals, so patients can be treated by professionals they know in their own community.

    And the same applies to our social services.

    We’re going to end the politically correct regulations, which stopped couples who want to adopt children from doing so.

    Regulations like this might sound petty. But to a couple who long to raise a family they can, quite literally, stand in the way of making a lifetime’s dreams come true. That’s the heart of the matter.

    Politically correct beliefs that prevent this don’t fit into the British way of life.

    The Constitution

    Britain’s progress – our prosperity, widening choice, opportunity – depends on one thing: stability.

    Labour’s plans for Britain would rip up our nation’s fabric up by the roots. “The most radical” constitutional change our country has ever seen, they boast.

    A tax raising parliament in Scotland.

    An assembly in Wales.

    A splattering of regional assemblies across England.

    And a referendum on changing the voting system to PR.

    Why in the name of sanity do they want to start cutting up this country of ours? Why risk Britain’s success?

    Devolution is the ransom Labour would pay to buy off the voices of separation. But it wouldn’t buy them off – it would just build up their appetite.

    Then there’s PR. That’s the price they’d pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats. Why else does Mr Blair want a referendum on PR? He says he’s against PR and against referendums.

    The constitution, the Union, British history – they are all pawns to New Labour.

    No price is too high.

    Nothing too sacred.

    Labour are after votes – at any price.

    “What’s the point of history? What relevance has that to the future” they say. “New Labour, no history”.

    Well, Mr Chairman – let’s make New Labour old history.

    We treasure the stability and security of our Constitution.

    Careful reform that builds for tomorrow – yes. Reckless change – no.

    The Labour leader hasn’t the first idea how his plans would work. He’s like a weak contestant on Mastermind.

    “Name?” “Tony Blair.”

    “Occupation?” “Demolition specialist.”

    “Subject?” “British Constitution.”

    Would Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster be able to vote on matters affecting England, but not Scotland?

    “Pass.”

    If someone from Birmingham was employed by a Scottish company, would they pay the tartan tax?

    “Pass.”

    Why should Scotland get a tax-raising parliament, but Wales only an assembly. What have the Scottish done to deserve such a fate? Why not trust the Welsh?

    “Pass.”

    Would regional assemblies duplicate the power of local government and Westminster?

    “Pass.”

    And so it goes on, and so on, and so on.

    “At the end of that round, Mr Blair, you were asked twenty questions – and you passed on them all”.

    Labour haven’t begun to think through the implications of their plans. And yet this would be their priority for government.

    The last Labour Government fell, tied up in knots of devolution.

    It was a complete failure. That’s where Old Labour stopped. And this is where New Labour would begin.

    That’s not a route map for Britain’s tomorrow. It’s a masterplan for disaster. And it’s deadly.

    Europe

    And if devolution wasn’t enough, there’s Europe.

    Here Labour would damage both our economy and our constitution.

    They want us to follow the European way of doing things – the European Social Model.

    It’s that old-fashioned approach: you pretend governments can protect jobs by imposing regulations and burdens on business.

    All Labour have done is dress it up in new words: stakeholding. Social justice, social partnership.

    New words to try to camouflage reality.

    But they can’t.

    Over 4 million Germans, over 3 million French and about 3 million Italians know that. They’re all unemployed.

    That’s over 10 million people in Europe without a stake in a job.

    Where’s the social justice in that?

    They have a message that Labour should listen to.

    “Give us our jobs back.”

    And unless we want to lose jobs in the same way, Britons should listen too.

    Labour tells us we shouldn’t be isolated in Europe.

    Translated, that means “You may be getting back to work in Britain, but really you should be joining your European colleagues on the dole”.

    By signing the Social Chapter and inflicting a minimum wage, Labour would conscript British youngsters into the growing army of the European unemployed.

    That’s the message: if you want to get people into jobs don’t give one to a Labour MP.

    And that’s only part of the picture.

    Labour wish to undermine our veto and hand more power to the European Union.

    They’re prepared to ransack the Westminster Parliament of its power.

    Some would go to Edinburgh; some to Cardiff; some to the regions; and some to Europe. Parliament could keep what’s left.

    A United Kingdom reduced to regions, each competing one against another, with no one voice, no common cause, no national purpose.

    A Europe of the Regions, the Europe so beloved of Robin Cook.

    This surely cannot be the future for us.

    To consign it to the long list of failed, discredited policies New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour have to their name.

    We don’t take this position because focus groups say so. Nor out of party political advantage.

    We do so because we believe what Labour is proposing threatens this United Kingdom of ours with change on an unprecedented scale.

    Peroration

    We should be more confident as a nation about what we’ve done, what we are, what we stand for.

    If I had one wish, it would be that we could see ourselves as others see us.

    As one of the most secure democracies in the world. An outstanding success story. A nation enjoying a renaissance in enterprise.

    Behind us lie 18 years of building the foundations for rising prosperity.

    When we came to power in 1979, Britain was derided as the sick man of Europe. Today we are admired as the success story of Europe.

    The spirit of hope is around and growing by the day.

    We must build on that and broaden the smile across the face of Britain. We have a tale to tell that cannot be denied.

    Let’s not put it at risk.

    The polling booth is not a casino. Not a place to gamble with Britain’s future. It’s the opportunity to secure our future.

    An opportunity we Conservatives have created, and only we can build on.