The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Union

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty (Danish Referendum) – 3 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 3rd June 1992 following the result of the Danish Referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the implications of the Danish referendum.

    All 12 members of the European Community agreed and subsequently signed the treaty of Maastricht. The treaty amends the treaty of Rome, which can be changed only by unanimity. To come into effect, the Maastricht treaty needs to be ratified by all 12 member states. As the House knows, the Danish people voted against the treaty by a narrow majority yesterday. The Danish Government are now considering how to respond to that vote. One option is to resubmit the matter to a further referendum.

    The Maastricht treaty began to build the kind of European Community that we wish to see. It introduced the concept of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of Rome. It established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism. It established financial and other controls over the Commission.

    The House has three times endorsed our policy. It did so before the final negotiation, and again after it. Following the general election, the House gave a Second Reading to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill by a large majority. The Government continue to believe that the deal that we secured at Maastricht is in the best interests of this country. In the expectation that Denmark will in due course be able to join them, our partners propose to complete the ratification procedures. We share that judgment, and intend to continue with the passage of the Bill.

    It is clearly necessary, however, to consider further the legal and practical implications of the Danish referendum result before we can sensibly invite the House to proceed with the Bill’s Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a business statement later this afternoon to change the business for this week. We shall, of course, consult widely with our European partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend a meeting of the Twelve in Oslo tomorrow. He will report to the House on his return.

    The Maastricht treaty provided mechanisms for more broadly based development of the Community, and introduced procedures to reverse the trend towards centralism. These developments create a sound basis for co-operation, and open the way for the future enlargement of the Community. We hope that that enlargement will include the countries of the European Free Trade Association, and those of eastern and central Europe. The ratification and implementation of the treaty is in our national interest, and we shall continue during our presidency to work for the Community that we secured in that negotiation.

    Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): I thank the Prime Minister for responding to my request for a statement on the conditions arising from the result of the Danish referendum. I also welcome his agreement to postpone consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

    May I ask the Prime Minister to make arrangements to present a thorough report to the House about the discussions and consultations on the full implications of the Danish decision before any further progress is made on the Bill? Does he not agree that such a report should be in written form rather than in the form of a ministerial statement, or a series of ministerial statements, which would not be adequate for the purpose of informing the House properly? Does he not also agree that the House should debate such a report before any further progress on the Bill is sought? Does the Prime Minister accept that such clarification is essential because it would not otherwise be possible to justify continued consideration of a Bill to ratify a treaty which the passage of events and the requirements of Community law might well render incapable of implementation? Does the Prime Minister concur with the view that, unless and until there is an agreement in the Community that is capable of being implemented by the whole Community, it would be somewhat unreal to debate an agreement which, for the time being, has been cast into doubt by the votes of the Danish people?

    Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever occurs in the immediate discussions on the Maastricht treaty, the enlargement of the European Community is still important, that the European monetary system will continue, that the democratic deficit will remain in existence, that the single market will be completed on 31 December of this year and that the social dimension is far from being adequate? In view of all that, does the Prime Minister share my view that the conditions that gave rise to the treaty persist and that the need to achieve more accountable decision making, to improve social protection and to promote the co-ordination of economic policies therefore remains?

    The Prime Minister: I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the development of the Community, both in the short and long term. I am grateful for his support for the postponement of the Committee stage until the present situation is a little clearer.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to consider and report upon the Bill. We shall examine that. We shall be discussing the matter with our European colleagues, and I shall consider in what form a report might be laid before the House before we return to the Committee stage of the Bill. I would, though, suggest that the best way of considering the prospects for a debate would be through the usual channels. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about that matter.

    Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North): May I respectfully suggest to my right hon. Friend that the result of the Danish referendum merits neither triumphalism nor recrimination? However, it does place upon the British Government a responsibility to respond with the initiatives that will be at their disposal during their period as President of the European Community. May I suggest that there is increasing evidence that, in the context both of the Danish decision and of the British ambition for a wider European Community, we need further institutional reform–above all, reform that will enhance the role of intergovernmental co-operation to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement–and, correspondingly, a contraction of the centralising consequences of the Rome treaty and the European Single Act and of the overriding and pervasive political authority of the European Court? It is a challenge to the statesmanship of the British Government in their European character to see that those matters are addressed.

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, to curb centralism and to move towards intergovernmental co-operation were two of the objectives that we set for ourselves in the Maastricht negotiations. We achieved those aims and, subsequently, we achieved the support of the House for what we did in those negotiations. At Maastricht I believe that Britain did help to turn Europe away from the direction of centralism. There is no doubt that that is the direction in which we must continue to move as we take over the presidency of the Community later this month. If we are to exercise the presidency in a way that delivers what is best for Europe, it is vital that we act with care and deliberation. The treaty has created the basis for co-operation in Europe. It has opened the way to the enlargement of Europe which for economic, social and political reasons is, I am sure, the right way for it to progress. We shall continue to work throughout our presidency for the kind of Europe that we have set out in these debates.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): I greatly welcome– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Ashdown: I greatly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. This is a decisive moment for Europe.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): No wonder we call him Captain Mainwaring.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters. I hope that the House will come to order and hear what all hon. Members have to say.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has given a clear lead to his party and has committed Britain to giving a clear lead to Europe during the presidency to ensure that Europe does not go into retreat. In both those matters, he will have the full support of this Bench. Does the Prime Minister accept that the Danish “No” vote results from trying to create a Europe too much for politicians and bureaucrats and too little for its citizens? Does he accept that after the House confirms the Maastricht process, as I hope it will, the British people are entitled to have their say in a referendum and that the cause of Europe has nothing to fear from that process?

    The Prime Minister: We are entirely concerned to ensure that we create a Europe that respects the individuality of nation countries and individual citizens within the Community. It was precisely to meet those objectives that we fought so hard for the subsidiarity clauses and for those parts of the treaty that provide for greater control over the Commission by elected Members of the European Parliament. There was the British proposal to ensure that there is a European ombudsman to deal with those problems, which also meets the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We share those objectives and we think that they are achieved in the treaty that we have produced. That is why we shall continue to fight for the provisions of the treaty.

    Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for getting the balance right and for making the obvious decision about the Committee because of the need for second thoughts, further thoughts and reconsideration of all the aspects. Can my right hon. Friend offer us the prospect of some firm statements by the Lisbon European summit at the end of June, which heralds the British presidency, so that we can have clear guidelines for the rest of the year on how the Maastricht treaty will prevail?

    The Prime Minister: Upon the latter point, I prefer not to prejudge what might emerge at Lisbon. I hope that the way ahead for the Community after negotiation will be made clear by individual Governments in advance of the Lisbon summit, though no doubt these matters will be discussed there.

    I inadvertently neglected to reply to the question of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about a referendum. I am not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy, and I do not propose to put one before the British people.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Whatever else it was, the Danish referendum was a victory for democracy and a defeat for European bureaucracy and centralism. Will the Prime Minister look upon this event as a major opportunity, with Britain as President of the European Community, to attempt a substantial renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty with the objective of extending massively the area that falls under intergovernmental co-operation and reducing radically the area that comes under the supranational control of the European Community?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision for intergovernmental agreement is a new provision. It was obtained at British insistence and operates outside the treaty of Rome and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court. It was precisely because we wished to admit that fresh avenue of development within Europe that we fought for and obtained the provision in the agreement at Maastricht. There is always the possibility for developing that on future occasions. That is one of the fresh options for development of the Community that the Government find extremely attractive. However, I do not believe that a substantial renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is a practical proposition at this time. We must wait and see what action the Danish Government take, but I still hope that the full provision of the Maastricht treaty will be carried forth into law.

    Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing): Is not it paradoxical that some of those in the House who are opposed to the Maastricht treaty are in favour of a referendum, which is an alien idea and incompatible with our representative system of democracy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if some other countries had followed the example he set in negotiating so skillfully the opt-out clause, we might not now be facing the present problems? Perhaps the way ahead lies in that direction. Should not we be reassured by the fact that my right hon. Friend is about to assume the presidency in what undoubtedly will be an extremely difficult period? His presidency should be warmly welcomed.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We certainly will seek to use our presidency to try to bring Europe together and to try to solve the difficult problem that lies immediately ahead of us. As for the referendum, my right hon. Friend is characteristically generous in using the word “paradoxical”.

    Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Will the Prime Minister use his presidency to ensure that no pressure is applied to the Danish people to reverse their democratic decision? Does he realise that he has nothing whatever to fear from the widest consultation with the citizens of the four component parts of the United Kingdom on a common system of decentralisation of powers and in regard to relationships with any external institution?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that the decision in Denmark is for the Danes and I see no external pressure being put on them, but it is a matter for the Danes and for their Government to decide. As for decentralisation, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say a few moments ago. That represents all that I have to say on that matter today.

    Mr. William Cash (Stafford): In the light of my right hon. Friend’s insistence on decentralisation in Europe, with which we all agree in principle, how is it that there is in the common provisions in title I of the treaty an insistence that we comply as an obligation with the single institutional framework which implies centralisation together with those provisions that deal with the union, which imply that we will be citizens of a union with duties imposed on us, and as a result of which we shall be moving into a centralised Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, who, I believe, is wrong in almost every particular. I do not agree only in principle with the question of decentralisation; I agree in practice with decentralisation, and that is why among the institutional arrangements that we have produced is the intergovernmental agreement which is covered by the areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Is the Prime Minister aware that the real importance of the Danish referendum is, first, that the Danes recognise that people have rights in how they should be governed and, secondly, that they have exercised those rights against the transfer of power to people who are not elected–commissioners and bankers? Far from ruining European co-operation, when history comes to be written the Danes will be seen to have opened the way for a different sort of Europe, harmonising by consent in intergovernmental co-operation that could extend over the whole of Europe a commonwealth of Europe rather than a federation.

    Will the Prime Minister recognise that, if one lives in a democracy, the only common currency that matters is the common currency of popular consent for the laws under which we are governed? On that basis, the Government are right to defer the legislation because, in my opinion, the Danes have struck a blow for the people of every country in Europe, not just their own.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a distinguished Member of the House for many years, that common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House. As for the sort of Europe to which the right hon. Gentleman referred–a decentralised Europe– I believe that the point that is central to the agreement secured at Maastricht is that Maastricht traced the pattern for the development of that sort of Europe. That is what lies behind the provisions for intergovernmental agreement rather than agreement only under the treaty of Rome, and that is what also lies behind a number of the other provisions, including subsidiarity. We have begun to build that sort of Europe.

    Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the siren voices now suggesting that the timing of enlargement should be slowed because of our present reappraisal of the situation should be rejected? During his presidency, will he reassure the House that we shall move with all speed and not be delayed in any way in bringing the countries of central and eastern Europe into this alliance?

    The Prime Minister: That would certainly be my intention. I believe that the more speedily we can move to enlargement, the healthier we shall find democracy across Europe and the more secure democracy will become in those eastern states that first become association members and then full members. It is, of course, a matter that will need to be agreed with all our Community partners, but the British position is quite clear : we favour enlargement, and we favour it sooner rather than later.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Looking forward to Edinburgh in December, may I ask the Prime Minister on what basis the Danes will attend? As one who, rightly or wrongly, voted for the Maastricht treaty, may I ask what the price of all this is in terms of European co-ordination on the environment, the rain forest, and the ozone layer? In terms of the environment, what do we have to pay for the Danish decision on Maastricht?

    The Prime Minister: The Danes will, of course, continue as full members of the Community. They have been full members and valuable partners within the Community, and will continue to be so in the future, as they have been in the past and are at present. Co-operation on the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will also continue, precisely as at present. As for the future–the new areas covered by the Maastricht treaty–that will depend on how the matter eventually falls out, and what final decisions are taken by the Danish Government.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): As the Prime Minister will face a rather more difficult but also a more hopeful and more flexible opportunity as President of the Council, will he tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Government have agreed to extend Mr. Delors’ period in office by two and a half years–or is it totally untrue? If it is true, what would be the implications of such an extension?

    Mr. Skinner: He would get a bigger pension.

    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, on the presidency of the Community, nobody said that it would be easy at any stage, and I doubt whether it will be now. None the less, there is a great deal to be done, and we shall try to move in the direction in which we believe Europe should go over the next six months. No decision has yet been taken on the presidency of the European Commission, and any reports to the contrary are unfounded and premature.

    Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North): Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government’s objectives will be when they carry out the urgent consultations with our European partners?

    The Prime Minister: First, we need to examine all the details of the precise impact of the Danish electorate’s rejection of the Maastricht treaty. Some parts of the treaty do not need to be carried into domestic legislation–for example, the part on intergovernmental agreement. We first need to examine precisely what does and does not require to be taken into domestic legislation. We shall then wish to discuss with our partners in Europe precisely what mechanisms exist to carry the treaty fully into operation, and to discuss with the Danes how they now see the future. Clearly, that is the first matter, and a great deal of consultation will be necessary.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North): Would the Prime Minister care to put on the record today the fact that in doing as it did the Danish nation was exercising its democratic right, and that the Danes deserve to be accepted for what they did in a democracy? Does he also welcome the fact that the people of Denmark have surfaced in defence of what they believe, and that their vote was a vote against Maastricht and has to be accepted as such?

    The Prime Minister has confirmed at the Dispatch Box today that he is against centralism in Europe. Does he not believe that, as France is to have a referendum–far be it from me to advocate following France–the people of this country should have the same opportunity for a referendum? Having imposed on the people of Northern Ireland the so-called alien system of referendum, why will he not impose it on the rest of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to follow such a prominent francophile as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Danes were operating within their constitution, with its provision for a referendum. Provision for a referendum has long been in the French constitution, too. If I recall accurately, one of the provisions of the French constitution is that if a matter is put to the people in a referendum the result can override the will of the French Parliament. That is not a constitutional arrangement that we have ever accepted in this country, nor do I believe that it would be generally acceptable to the House of Commons, or in the interests of good government in this country.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): The Prime Minister was generous in responding to the Leader of the Opposition by offering a debate and, perhaps, a report. Will he now be as generous to the leaders of the national parties in Wales and in Scotland and invite them to talks as they supported the principle of the Maastricht treaty? We now have an opportunity to discuss the Prime Minister’s interpretation of subsidiarity and to consider the way in which membership of the Committee of the Regions should be organised.

    The Prime Minister: Matters such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned are best aired on the Floor of the House in the time made available by the House. I told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that I would make available to the House the way forward as we saw it and what we saw as the implications of what has happened in the past few days. I also said that it was for the usual channels to consider whether there should be a debate. Personally, I am sympathetic to the request.

    Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup): Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that he is absolutely right to affirm as he has done his determination to support the Maastricht treaty which he and the Foreign Secretary were responsible for negotiating? The House gave it a majority of 244–an overwhelming majority–and rejected the hostile views which have been put forward again this afternoon. That is a sufficient basis for my right hon. Friend to continue his work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion, as I understood it, by the Leader of the Opposition that we should go no further in Committee until we see where other countries are going is really not tenable? [Hon. Members :– “Why?”] Because if every country did that, nobody would see where anybody had got to. The basic point is for us to press ahead.

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is also right in saying that this is a matter primarily for the Danish Government and the Danish people? Will he also recall that, in the history of the Community, we have had difficulties at times? One example is when President de Gaulle left the chair empty for several months and withdrew French participation in the Community. The French now, of course, have come back again. Will my right hon. Friend also recall that, when President de Gaulle vetoed British entry into the Community, the five discussed having a Community of six with us and rejecting France? We have had such problems before and the Community has not only survived them but overwhelmed them, and has become increasingly successful. That will continue on this occasion.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said. I see our role in the presidency as helping Denmark and not as condemning it in dealing with the difficulties that lie ahead. In my experience in the Community, one generally finds that all things are possible in due course.

    My right hon. Friend mentioned the position of other countries. A number of other countries have made it clear that they intend to go ahead with ratification without, as far as can be seen from their preliminary statements, any delay. I agree with my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary and I believed that this was the right treaty when we negotiated it. The treaty itself has not changed, nor has my view of the treaty.

    Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): The Prime Minister is clearly proud of the intergovernmental and subsidiarity provisions of the Maastricht treaty. Will he use the opportunity of the presidency to extend those excellent provisions to the very heart of the treaty–economic and monetary union–so that we can reduce the power of the bank, of the Commission and of the court over economic and monetary matters?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a presidency matter as such, but a matter that would need to be dealt with in an intergovernmental conference. None is planned; such conferences tend to be planned some time in advance. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that, because of our concern that the House could take a decision on those matters at an appropriate time, and in the economic circumstances that were clear at that time, we secured a provision to opt into that arrangement at a later date, if the House of Commons felt it right to do so.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Would my right hon. Friend suggest to Monsieur Napoleon Delors–who today, rather than showing humility, seems to be showing his customary arrogance–that, henceforth, 2 June should be a public holiday throughout Europe, to be known as the day of the people, the day of democracy or, even better, the day of the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I would put it in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests to me–certainly not for this country. I cannot say what may happen in other countries, although I seem to believe that Hamlet said something like, “At least, I am sure it may be so in Denmark.”

    Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): The Prime Minister will be aware that his statement will have done nothing to clear up the confusion that probably exists among thousands and millions of people in this country. Will he clarify the matter for me? As all 12 countries must agree to the treaty, and as one country has now agreed not to sign up to the treaty, are we not now faced with a completely new situation? What happens if France has a referendum and other countries have referendums and vote against? When do we decide that enough is enough and that we must start all over again?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be too impatient. The decision in the Danish referendum was taken yesterday. We need to reflect and consult upon that and determine what decisions the Danish Government propose to make. It is in the light of that consultation and consideration that we can decide the way forward. The hon. Lady is perfectly correct, however, in saying that if, at the end of all those considerations, Denmark still cannot ratify the treaty, amendments to the treaty of Rome as such cannot be made. That is undoubtedly the case.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, owing to the agreement between all the political leaders in this country, there was no proper discussion either of the details or of the principles of Maastricht at the last general election? Does he agree that, if we are to avoid having a referendum, there must be full, adequate and proper discussion in the House of all the details of the Maastricht treaty, otherwise we shall be left with a people who do not know what has been signed up to and we shall have much the same misunderstanding as we have had about the Single European Act, which was so disgracefully guillotined?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, before my right hon. Friends and I went to Maastricht, there was a substantial debate in the House. There was a further debate on my return. It was a matter at issue at the general election and we have also had the Second Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend expresses his enthusiasm for detailed and proper discussion. I believe that we shall be able to accommodate him when we move to the Committee stage of the Bill.

    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): As the Prime Minister is obviously a great supporter of parliamentary government, I am sure that he will learn from the Danish example that the Danish people were fully informed about the pros and cons of the agreement. Will he therefore consider issuing to the people of Britain, as a matter of urgency, copies of what is proposed in the Maastricht treaty so that, during the re-examination process, they may make their views known to hon. Members, who can then inform him of what the British people want?

    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to comment on the motives of millions of Danes who cast their votes in the referendum yesterday. They may well have had a whole series of differing motives for casting their votes as they did. The hon. Lady suggests that we advance the details of what is in the treaty to people in this country. I believe that we have one of the most extensive parliamentary and media reporting systems of any nation in Europe. We have also spent far more time debating the matter– both before and after the agreement in Maastricht–than any other European nation.

    Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): Had my right hon. Friend noted that among those who voted no in Denmark yesterday were those urged to do so both by those who thought that the Maastricht treaty would over-centralise Europe and by those who thought that it did not go far enough? On that basis, will my right hon. Friend not draw too many conclusions but instead press ahead, as he has said he will, to ensure, before the November leaders’ meeting in Edinburgh, that the basis of the Maastricht treaty is the basis of agreement within the European Community? We can then ensure that we safeguard the principles that he negotiated last year–in particular, those that restrain the existing treaty of Rome, such as the Court of Auditors and increased powers of scrutiny of the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I had noticed the point that he drew to the attention of the House and it was largely for that reason that I indicated that it was not for me to comment on individual Danish motives. Clearly, many separate motives would have been at work in the decisions that individual Danes took.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): In these days of democratic, open government, with lots of information, will the Prime Minister explain why every household in Denmark received more objective and partisan detail about the advantages and disadvantages of the treaty than was received from Her Majesty’s Government by any Member of the House? On his comments about intergovernmental co-operation, does he agree that such co-operation need not depend on a single currency or, bearing in mind the history and development of our eastern neighbours in Europe, on a single market?

    The Prime Minister: A single market is attractive to increase the flow of free trade and it is in the interests of the consumer in minimising the price levels that would otherwise apply. That issue has been discussed in this Parliament and throughout the European Community, largely, it must be said, at British instigation over recent years.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s initial point, I believe that a great deal of documentation has already been made available. I believe that people are well aware of the substantive issues.

    Mr. George Walden (Buckingham): Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have never been a critic of the Government’s European policy, and I pay tribute to his achievements in modulating the Maastricht treaty? Nor do I share the extravagant fears of some of my colleagues about sovereignty. However, it must be said that the Maastricht treaty was never wanted by this Government, this House or this country. The Maastricht treaty makes the best of a bad job. There is no enthusiasm in the country, nor, I detect, even in the Government, for the treaty because the Government seem rightly more proud of their amendments than of the treaty. So well have the Government done that misgivings are developing in Germany over European monetary union and in France over the political implications of the treaty.

    Therefore, I would recommend to my right hon. Friend, if I may, that he uses the presidency to promote in future, as he has promoted in the past, a dilution of the unrealistically federalistic aspects of the agreement and that he should bear in mind the motto that the Maastricht treaty was what back-burners were invented for.

    The Prime Minister: If one went down the route that might inevitably follow what my hon. Friend has said and perhaps reopened an intergovernmental conference, I fear that we would go right back to the arguments about a centralist Europe that we spent so much time at Maastricht seeking to rebut. There is a great deal in the treaty that we have sought in this country for some years : the recognition of intergovernmental co-operation; subsidiarity; the reinforced rule of law; co-operation on justice and home affairs; improved foreign policy co- ordination without circumscribing this country’s freedom in foreign policy; and stronger budget disciplines. All those are matters upon which the House has previously expressed a view and urged the Government to seek greater clarity in European policy to achieve it. We have achieved it in the treaty.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Given that the Prime Minister and his colleagues will never again be able to say that a small nation of approximately 5 million people cannot possibly have a major influence on the development of the European Community, will the Prime Minister seriously take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), that the democratic nationalist parties elected to this House are willing to meet the Government to discuss the principles of subsidiarity and the extension of the European Community? Given that we supported the Prime Minister in the Maastricht accord, surely he should consider that because the usual channels ignore us.

    The Prime Minister: No one in the Government would ever suggest that the nation of which the hon. Lady is a representative has no influence in these isles or beyond. Indeed, it fills a large number of seats in my Cabinet at present, and will no doubt do so in future. The way for the hon. Lady and for the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) to make the points about which they are so concerned is in the series of debates and ample time that will be made available to debate those issues. Those representations can be made, and it is always open for other representations to be made direct to Ministers.

    Sir Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West): Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one vital British national interest–the proper completion of the single market by the end of this year? In all his negotiations in the weeks ahead, will he bear in mind that the enforcement provisions are badly needed if that policy is to succeed and we are to be able to achieve a proper and effective single market throughout Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right. Some difficult decisions still have to be taken to ensure a free and fair single market across Europe by the end of this year. That is the objective that the Community has set itself, and it is one that I hope that it will be able to achieve during the British presidency.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): Does the Prime Minister agree that the main lesson to be learnt from Denmark is that the sovereignty of the people is far superior to the phoney sovereignty claimed by any over-centralised institution, including this place? Does he also agree that the nations of Europe, including the people of Scotland, want the maximum self-determination consistent with maximum co-operation between all the nations of Europe, on as equal a basis as possible? Why not have a referendum on that?

    The Prime Minister: On the question of a referendum, I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before that we are a parliamentary democracy and I believe that it serves our interests to operate as one. The extension of co-operation is one of the great themes set out in the Maastricht treaty, and so I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support on those matters in the Division Lobby later.

    Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the derailment of Maastricht is not a problem; it is an opportunity? Does he further agree that British public opinion has never changed on Europe? Our people have always been in favour of a Europe-wide free trading area. They have never been in favour of the gradual and surreptitious building of a European state. Does he agree that, if we defer consideration of the Maastricht treaty for a considerable time, we shall strengthen his negotiating hand, and, with his presidency, perhaps build a Europe at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, the people of this country have consistently voted to make a success of our membership of the Community and in recent months we have repeatedly set out our vision of the development of the European Community. It is too early to determine precisely how events will continue. A great deal of consultation and consideration will need to take place in this country and with our partners abroad.

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Why can we not have a referendum in this country? Is the Prime Minister uncertain of his position when arguing in a referendum? It is wrong to say that referendums are alien to this country. They are unusual, but not alien : we had a referendum in 1975. If it is right for other parliamentary democracies such as Denmark, France and Ireland to have a referendum, why cannot the British people have one?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s 1975 illustration, as I recall, the Conservative party voted against a referendum in 1975. It was introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet of the day. No such divisions exist in my Cabinet.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that the no vote in Denmark is binding upon the Danish Government, and that if one country of the Community fails to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the end of this year the treaty collapses? If he is prepared to confirm those facts, will he give the House an assurance that we shall start all over again and renegotiate along the lines of the excellent suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is partly correct on the facts, but not wholly. He is certainly correct in saying that, if one country fails to ratify the treaty, the amendments to the treaty of Rome cannot be made; they can be made only by unanimity. He is not correct in saying that ratification has to be by the end of the year. That is not necessary.

    Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): From the various answers given by the right hon. Gentleman, may we take it that it is the Government’s intention, after a period of postponement and consultation, to return to the House with the same treaty and the same Bill and to try to implement it?

    The Prime Minister: We propose to negotiate with our partners and others. On the basis of that negotiation, we will bring back the treaty to the House at Committee stage, yes.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who greatly admire what he has done and support his stand nevertheless feel that the biggest single impediment to achieving what he wishes to achieve is the continued presence of the present President of the Commission?

    The Prime Minister: I note with interest what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is the Prime Minister aware that all of us who believe strongly that this country has already lost enough sovereignty are very grateful to the people of Denmark for their decision yesterday? The Prime Minister constantly reiterates that there was a substantial majority in favour on Second Reading, but is he aware that that was on a whipped vote? Bearing in mind the comments of some of his hon. Friends today, is he aware that there is no basic enthusiasm for the treaty among the British people or among a large number of hon. Members, possibly a majority? Therefore, in view of what the Prime Minister says about democracy and why we should not have a referendum, the next time that the treaty comes before us, would it not be right for arrangements to be made on both sides of the House for a free vote?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the debates that we had on that matter prior to the general election and of the debates that we have had subsequently to it. Before I went to Maastricht, no one was in any doubt about the negotiating stance that I would take in Maastricht. It was placed before this House, it was debated in this House, and it was approved by this House. Similarly, when I returned from Maastricht, I laid the agreement before people. It was discussed, it was debated, and it was approved. It was the policy of the Government in the general election, and the British people were not whipped in the decision that they took on that occasion.

  • PMQT – 2 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

    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.

    Ms. Primarolo : Does the Prime Minister recall that on 6 May he told the House that he wanted to sign the global convention on biodiversity at Rio? Does he agree that it would be indefensible for any major power to refuse to sign a treaty that halts the mass destruction of species by human intervention?

    The Prime Minister : We are working hard to make sure that we shall be in a position to sign the convention. As the hon. Lady knows, this country leads the world in scientific expertise on biodiversity, not least at Kew, and we play an important international role in attempts to achieve a convention that can be signed generally. A number of countries have financial concerns about the convention, and the particular concern, which I hope we shall be able to overcome, is that the financial articles imply an open-ended commitment to provide developing countries with additional finance, without the necessary corresponding commitments to conserving biodiversity. That is not of any interest to us or to them.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : Has the Prime Minister heard of the threat issued yesterday by Commissioner Scrivener to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would be taken to court and Britain would be in real trouble if we did not agree, next Tuesday, to the long-term charging of VAT on food, gas, electricity and children’s clothing? Will the Prime Minister give us a clear undertaking that there will be no surrender next Tuesday?

    The Prime Minister : There is no question of the United Kingdom being forced to give up zero rates, which are guaranteed in the sixth VAT directive. The question at issue is whether the Council should agree to a legally binding minimum rate of VAT. We do not believe that that is necessary for the completion of the single market. A number of related issues remain to be resolved, including excise duties, but we cannot accept an agreement that would force member states to impose large increases in duty on spirits, to the detriment of our industry. The sixth directive is the key point on the substance of my hon. Friend’s question.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree that widespread poverty in the third world is a major cause of damage to the world environment? If he does agree, what new action will he be proposing in Rio to combat that poverty more effectively?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most effective development aid programmes of any country in the world– [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members appear not to recognise that fact. I repeat, we have one of the most effective aid programmes anywhere in the world. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, with the Toronto terms and the Trinidad terms Britain led the way in encouraging countries across the world to write off large amounts of debt specifically to help the poorest countries.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister really cannot defend the Government’s record on development aid. The Government have cut by half the amount and the value of official development aid to the third world since they have been in power. When the poorest countries in the world are putting a net £50 billion in debt repayments back into the richest countries in the world, does not the Prime Minister think that those industrialised countries should make much bigger investment commitments to the conservation and protection of the world environment, not only to combat poverty in the third world but to conserve our global environment?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman touches on a matter on which there is agreement in substance across the House. There is no dispute about the need for help. Where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman is in his assertion that Britain has not led the way in the quantity and quality of assistance and aid that it has given for many years, not just in direct aid but in the substantial debt write-offs, to which I just referred but to which the right hon. Gentleman did not, and in the substantive amount of private sector investment that also goes into third-world countries. If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to take my word for that, I suggest that he talks to the leaders of the third-world countries and hears what they have to say about the quantity and quality of our assistance to them.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister will, no doubt, be speaking to some of the Heads of Government of third-world countries in the course of the next week or so and perhaps he will faithfully report to us the view of Britain’s cut by half–I repeat that, because it is true–in overseas development assistance during the past 10 or 12 years. The crisis of poverty and environmental degradation is continuing. Will the Prime Minister now tell us what he will specifically propose in the way of action in Rio and afterwards in order to arrest the increasing tide of poverty and the increase in degradation, both of which are linked?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman really ought to know that we address the question of direct financial resources to overseas aid at the time of the public expenditure round. We have done so consistently and we have dramatically increased in real terms the amount of aid, and directed the aid better to those areas where it most needs to go. I shall certainly discuss that with fellow Heads of Government from other parts of the world, as I have done repeatedly in recent years. I am in a better position than the right hon. Gentleman to know their view on our contribution.

    Mr. Jessel : When my right hon. Friend is in Rio, will he have the opportunity to mention to the Government of Brazil the concern in Britain about the murder of children on the streets of Rio?

    The Prime Minister : I shall have a number of opportunities in Brazil to discuss matters with other Heads of Government and I shall certainly take the opportunity where appropriate to raise the point made by my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that the answers that he has given today to the massive challenges that face us at Rio are frankly pathetic? Does he not have any understanding that this is probably the last best chance that we have to allow the planet to heal itself and that if he and his fellow leaders will not rise to that challenge they will be condemned?

    The Prime Minister The right hon. Gentleman is talking copper-plated nonsense. The reality is that Britain has led the way in the preparation of much of the work that comes to fruition in Rio. It is this country which has led the way. This is the start of a continuing process. This is not, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently rather inaccurately believes, the beginning and end of the process. As I told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) three weeks ago in the House, it will take a long time for all our ambitions on the environment to be reached. We are dealing with practical measures. The right hon. Gentleman may dream, but we have practical action to take.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will the Prime Minister take a few minutes off dithering as to how or whether he will vote at the Earth summit, to explain to the British people why, at a time when British unemployment is heading towards 3 million and the public sector borrowing requirement is on course to reach £40 billion, Britain’s balance of payments deficit in April was in excess of £1,300 million? Is this country headed for an economic miracle or for an economic nightmare?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, remarkably selective in what he says and looks at. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at what business men have said in the period since the election– [Interruption.] Well, business men know rather more about it than the hon. Gentleman will ever do. The hon. Gentleman might have seen the Confederation of British Industry report on small business men, who are more confident about growth now than at any time in the last few years. He might have noted also the EC Gallup survey, which shows a strong increase in confidence, and the sharp rise in confidence and activity in other CBI surveys. The hon. Gentleman might have seen a great deal more if he had removed the blinkers from his eyes.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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

    Mr. Arnold : During his visit to central Europe last week, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to meet the leaders of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, to discuss their potential applications to join the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that I had discussions with the leaders of each of those three countries on precisely that point. The freedom of those countries and their removal from the old Soviet bloc is one of the most welcome international developments since the second world war. They are now committed to democracy and to free market economics. During our presidency of the Community, we want to put solid flesh on the association agreements that we signed with them. We look forward to the day when they join the Community, even though that may not be until the turn of the century. Our judgment is that the best way to enhance democracy is to share it–and that is what we intend to do in the case of those countries.

     

    Q4. Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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

    Mr. McMaster : Does the Prime Minister recall that during Question Time two weeks ago, he promised to respect the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland? If it was right to give that commitment to one part of the Union a fortnight ago, is it not right to give the same commitment to the people of Scotland today? When the Prime Minister visited Scotland yesterday, why did he promise only to think long and hard about Scotland’s future–so long and hard that four hours later, he ruled out a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom? If the right hon. Gentleman is a democrat, will he give to the Scottish people the right to decide their own future in a multi-option referendum?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s latter question is no. As to his point about a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland, I ruled that out some time ago in the House and elsewhere for reasons that were sound then, are sound now and will remain sound in the future. The hon. Gentleman need not ask me about that matter–it is settled.

    Mr. Alexander : Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the effectiveness of the temporary abolition a few months ago of stamp duty on house purchase? Bearing in mind that the Exchequer forwent very little revenue, will my right hon. Friend recommend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the temporary abolition expires in August, it be made permanent?

    The Prime Minister : No. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to do that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine that matter in August. The original proposition was that stamp duty exemption would last until August and not longer.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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

    Mr. Pendry : Is the Prime Minister aware that the staggering increase in crime in London that was revealed yesterday is symptomatic of a worrying concern throughout the land? That includes my constituency, where crime has doubled in the past decade. With that reality in mind, will the Prime Minister do something positive, such as unlocking the handcuffs from the Home Secretary so that he can get to grips with the Government’s own crime prevention report–the Morgan report, which said something positive about crime in this country and which the Government shelved last August? Would not that be the way for the Prime Minister at least to appease the chairman of the Police Federation, who said only last month that the Government were blaming the police because they had no ideas of their own?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might care to examine the increased resources in both manpower and equipment, quite apart from the increased legal facilities that have been made available to the police. I also think that we should not be blind to the achievements of the Metropolitan police, such as the improvements in the clear-up rate that we have seen in recent years. They have made dramatic improvements in a number of areas.

    Another point, with which I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that tackling crime is not just a matter for the police. Increasingly, people in society at all levels can be seen playing their own role, and it is essential for that to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Poland Joining the European Union – 26 May 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Poland joining the European Union, made in Warsaw, Poland, on 26th May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will be a cumulative transition, the Association Agreement is effectively the ladder that will enable Poland to climb from where it is now to a proper and full membership of the community.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the European Community – 20 May 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 20th May 1992 on the European Community.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (John Major) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.

    When my right hon. Friends and I went to Maastricht we went with a clear mandate from this House. The agreement that we brought back honoured that mandate in every respect. It was approved by a large majority in the House in December, and by the electorate last month. I believe that the Maastricht agreement protects and promotes our national interest. The Bill before us carries that agreement into law.

    Clause 1 carries into United Kingdom law amendments to the treaty of Rome and other Community treaties. It reflects the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which provides that there can be no increase in the powers of the European Parliament without the express approval of this House.

    Clause 2 implements the agreement we secured at Maastricht to ensure that it is entirely a matter for this Parliament to decide whether, and if so when, to join a European single currency. We are under no obligation to do so.

    Clause 2 provides that a separate Act of Parliament would be required before the United Kingdom could notify its partners in the Community of its intention to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. That provision for primary legislation is not a legal requirement which flows from the treaty. It does, however, reflect the Government’s belief that it will be for Parliament to determine the issue, and to do so in the way in which Parliament most clearly demonstrates its sovereignty.

    I do not believe that it is right to predetermine a decision that should only properly be taken by Parliament, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing across Europe. This decision is too important to be an act of faith–it must also be an act of judgment, and that judgment cannot sensibly yet be made.

    Before I turn to the substance of what is in the Bill, let me stress for the convenience of the House what is not there. The Bill contains no provision for those aspects of the Maastricht treaty which cover foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs issues. If it did, we would have failed at Maastricht to meet the commitments that we gave this House last November. The virtue of those provisions in the Maastricht treaty is that they are outside the treaty of Rome, outside the competence of the Commission, and wholly for agreement between Governments, on a case by case basis. They need to be put to the House, but quite specifically have no direct effect in United Kingdom law.

    The content of the Maastricht treaty is well known to the House. The draft of the treaty was debated before Maastricht, and the treaty itself was debated afterwards–a total so far of some 30 hours of debate.

    What we kept out of the treaty at Maastricht is as important, in the event, as what went into it. There is no social chapter–[Hon. Members :– “Shame.”]–and I shall come to that later.

    Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Not at this stage.

    There is no social chapter, there is no diminution in the role of NATO, there is no power for the European Parliament to approve decisions rejected by the Council of Ministers, no weakening of our power of national decision -taking in foreign policy, no word “federal” and no commitment to a federal –by which I mean a centralising–Europe.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister : Not at this moment–later, perhaps. Many in this House and throughout the country have expressed anxiety that decision making in the Community is becoming too centralised. In fact, many of the issues which are most problematic for us–I shall talk about some of them later–arise from the application of the original treaty of Rome, not the Maastricht treaty. The Maastricht treaty marks the point at which, for the first time, we have begun to reverse that centralising trend. We have moved decision taking back towards the member states in areas where Community law need not and should not apply.

    Let me inform those who are unaware of that fact that we have done so in a number of ways. We have secured a legally binding text on subsidiarity. That text provides that any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. More specifically, it provides that, in areas that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community–such as environment, health, education, social policy–the Community shall take action only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved by the member states.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : Will the Prime Minister give way now?

    The Prime Minister : A little later, perhaps.

    We need to ensure that the Commission gives full effect to that requirement. I believe that it is obliged to give full effect to that requirement. Were it not to meet that requirement, we now have the power to take the issue to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. That is a right that we argued for at Maastricht and obtained.

    In the published work programme for 1992, the President of the Commission said :

    “If a success is to be made of Maastricht and the Single Market, the Commission will have to comply fully with the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed its future existence depends on this. The Commission will have to ensure that no attempt is made to regulate matters that are best dealt with at national level, and to avoid a surfeit of legislation.”

    Those are not my words, but those of the President of the Commission, but upon that matter I agree with him. Subsidiarity is vital. If that failed, we would not be the only member state that would insist on reviewing the policy to ensure its effective implementation.

    Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : As the Prime Minister is so keen to stress the importance of subsidiarity as between Europe and the United Kingdom, does he agree that the same principle should be applied by him and his Government within the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : We are a single United Kingdom, and we are going to remain a single United Kingdom, for it is in the interests of every part of it that we should do so.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : Will the Prime Minister accept that that is his definition of subsidiarity and not the definition of the Spanish or German Governments? Does he not understand that in Spain, for example, the countries of Catalonia and the Basque will be able to benefit from the principle of subsidiarity? Why not Wales and Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the traditions of this Parliament and the methods by which this whole United Kingdom is governed. I believe that they represent the right way for every single part of the United Kingdom, and the Government have no plans to change them.

    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunity in recent weeks to make his case, and, by and large, the electorate rejected it.

    Nor does subsidiarity mean that relatively minor issues are returned to the member states in exchange for a growth of power at the centre. I know that that is what many people fear, not least some hon. Members. They fear that the institutions of the Community will increase their powers step by step so that, in the end, we create what we understand by a federal Europe : a strong, central Government in Brussels with some powers devolved to the individual nation state.

    I understand those fears, but that is not the route foreshadowed by the Maastricht treaty; nor is it a route down which this country will go. The question is not whether the risk of centralism exists : the question is whether we have the confidence to exert our influence to build the Community we want to see. We have, we can, and we are building such a Community. We can win those arguments. We are doing so. I must say to those hon. Members who dissent that I frankly do not understand why so many people must always assume that we will lose policy arguments in Europe when we so often win them, as we did at Maastricht.

    Let me explain why I am confident of that. For the first time in a single treaty, agreements between Governments are given equal standing with action under Community law. In foreign and security policy, and in justice and interior matters, the member states will work together when it is in their common interest to do so. What exactly does that mean? It means that, where such co-operation is helpful to this country, we shall co-operate with our partners in Europe. It also means that we cannot be forced into policies we do not approve of. We keep our ability to act on our own where we need to do so. We shall co-operate within a framework of international law but outside the framework of Community law.

    For example, any dispute would go to the International Court of Justice, not the European Court of Justice. I believe that that marks a vital and important change in direction for the Community. It strengthens the unity of the member states but reinforces the case for tackling our common problems by the most effective means available to us. That may on occasion be the treaty of Rome. It may equally well be intergovernmental co-operation. The Maastricht treaty provides for both, and it allows for neither–where the member states can act better on their own. That opens fresh opportunities for the future development of the Community.

    Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : If we proceed in foreign security matters on the basis that we shall co-operate if it is convenient for us, that applies equally to all other countries in the Community. How can we achieve a coherent policy in that way?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should ask that question in the reverse way : would he prefer our foreign policy to be determined by the majority vote of other countries? That is not a proposition to which I am prepared to agree on behalf of this country. I am prepared to agree to the pooling of foreign policy where it is in the interests of this country and Europe, and where we agree that it will be to the communal benefit to do so. But thus far and no further.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Will the Prime Minister touch on one aspect of the treaty with which he has not dealt : the transfer of power from the legislature to the executive? The Prime Minister, using the Crown prerogative of treaty making through a Cabinet Committee, can agree to laws in Brussels at the Council of Ministers, which take precedence over laws passed by the House. For the first time since 1649, the prerogative controls the House, instead of the House controlling the prerogative.

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, he is referring not to the Maastricht treaty which we are debating, but to a principle that goes right back to the 1972 Act. In practice, greater control over the European executive was ceded at Maastricht as a result of the treaty–predominantly, in this case, to the European Parliament–but no authorities were taken from the Council of Ministers, and Ministers remain responsible to this House. The strength of what we have achieved is not just that the choices that I mentioned a moment ago are in the treaty but, equally important, that they reflect the growing wish of the member states. The old tendency among some of our partners to think that action by the Community was always the answer is diminishing. Many countries joined the Community to strengthen their own national democracy. Now that their own democracy is strong and more firmly rooted, it is becoming much more possible in the Community to have rational discussion about what should be done at Community level and what should be done at national level. That is a healthy development for the future of the whole European Community.

    Within the framework of the Community treaties, we have secured amendments to the treaty of Rome to reflect important United Kingdom objectives. We have strengthened the rule of law in the Community by stricter rules on the implementation of agreed provisions. In future, if directives are agreed across the Community, they must be implemented across the Community, or penalties will inevitably follow. That provision directly responds to the concern felt by many that, while our domestic law compels the United Kingdom to implement Community law speedily, others sometimes do not act with the same dispatch.

    Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make more progress.

    We have also secured better financial accountability. At Britain’s insistence, the Commission will now have to provide an assurance that sufficient resources are available for any proposed Community action. It can no longer commit itself to expenditure for which resources are not available, and we keep a complete lock on the overall resources available to the Community. There can be no increase in those resources unless we agree with our European partners that there should be. There can be no change in our abatement without our agreement, and I have no intention of agreeing to any adverse change in our abatement in the discussions that lie ahead.

    The Court of Auditors, which now becomes a Community institution, will present the Council and the European Parliament with a statement of assurance on the reliability of the accounts and the legality of the underlying transactions. The treaty contains new provisions to counter fraud.

    In the agreements reached, we have also extended democratic control over the Commission. The European Parliament will in future have authority to call the Commission to account for its expenditure and for the operation of financial control systems. Individuals will be able to petition the Parliament about abuses by any of the Community’s institutions. The Parliament will appoint an ombudsman to investigate maladministration by any of the Community’s institutions, including the Commission.

    The treaty also sets exactly the framework that we want for economic and monetary union. It provides a commitment to open and competitive markets, a commitment that this country has sought for years and that many felt might never be available from our Community partners. It sets tough economic tests that any member state wanting to move to stage 3 would have to pass. The framework contains a commitment to price stability. Above all, it contains an absolute right for the United Kingdom–its Parliament–to decide later, and at a time of its own choosing, whether or not it wishes to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. Those are arguments that we have won in Europe and that set policy in the direction in which we believe it should go.

    There are differences in the House and across the House about some of those issues. The Opposition, notably the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, have said that they would be prepared to throw away our carefully negotiated right to join the single currency or not. One may ask precisely what they mean by that. They mean that they commit themselves now to enter a single currency in unknown economic circumstances in the future, with the Community at an unknown size and with economic convergence at an unknown level. They would have had to commit this country to a procedure whereby, regardless of Parliament’s views, other member states could oblige us to move to stage 3, which would be a profound mistake for this country.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : No, I shall not, as I wish to make more progress.

    The Opposition have also latched on to the social chapter in what I consider to be a triumph of ideology over common sense. Signing the social chapter would have removed from employers and employees in this country their right to determine for themselves such matters as working conditions. The social chapter would have given the unions at European level new powers to negotiate employment conditions on behalf of employees, whether or not they were trade union members, and to have agreements imposed through Community legislation on British employees. That is corporatism at its worst. Worse than that, it is the negation of subsidiarity. Those Opposition Members who support subsidiarity cannot, in logic, support the social chapter. Characteristically, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment does both those things.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : How does the Prime Minister’s interpretation of article 3b encompass the stocktaking exercise that he claims to be conducting on the government of Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman does no good to his arguments about Scotland by bringing them into this instance. I have made it clear to the House that I will take stock of the Scottish position quite apart from the Maastricht treaty, and that I am doing. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. I will take stock in my own time and then bring out proposals.

    The Opposition have learnt only one thing. Over the past 20 years, they have held six different policies on Europe. The Leader of the Opposition has held two contradictory views at the same time. Now it seems that Labour accepts and supports Britain’s membership of the European Community. I welcome that unreservedly, not least because, if there is broad agreement about membership, it will lend more strength to Britain’s voice in Europe.

    Labour’s vision of Europe, however, is distorted. Labour Members can hardly wait to sign up to every centralising dream; to every high-spending regional policy; to every statist attempt to regiment working practices ; to every central effort to direct industrial policy. Where they have failed at home, they hoped that they would succeed in Europe.

    The future of Europe is now based on a different foundation. It is based on free trade and competition, on openness to our neighbours, on a proper definition of the limits of the power of the Commission, and on providing a framework for co-operation between member states outside the treaty of Rome. That is the Conservative vision of Europe ; it is where the future of Europe will lie; and it is a future based on Conservative principles.

    In this House and across the country, we debated the Maastricht issues before and immediately after the last European Council. In some of our partner countries, that debate is only now being held, but I have little doubt that all our partners will ratify the treaty by the end of our presidency in the second half of this year. As we debate the treaty, it is right to look at some of the issues that we shall have to tackle during our presidency and beyond.

    The concept first put forward, I think, by Ernest Bevin–of being able to buy a ticket at Victoria station and travel freely anywhere in Europe–is attractive. It appeals to the instincts. The freedom to move goods and services lies at the heart of the single market which we British pressed on the Community. But there is a practical problem, recognised in the text of the Single European Act and its accompanying declarations.

    All of us in this country live daily with the evils of terrorism and drug smuggling. No one doubts that we have to control immigration, in the best interests of everyone who lives in this country. The issue of the open frontier must be treated rationally, not ideologically. For most of our partners, the idea of an open frontier does not mean that there should be no limitations on what goods and people travel from one country to another. It reflects the fact that they cannot control these matters at the frontier and have therefore devised internal controls to do so.

    Our practice is different by virtue of our island status. Experience has shown us that control at the frontier gives us the best possible chance of containing smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration. We accept the right of Community citizens to move freely between member states, but we must, as we agreed under the Single European Act, keep the controls that we consider necessary to control immigration from third-world countries and to combat terrorism, crime and trafficking in drugs. That means that we must retain frontier controls, and we intend to do so.

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : Does the Prime Minister recall publishing on Thursday last week in the Official Report a reply to a question by me in which he admitted that neither he nor the Government had the foggiest idea of the number of constables in this country and in particular of their numbers at British ports? That makes nonsense of all the humbug in his remarks that we need to control what comes into and goes out of British ports.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood a word of what has been said in the past five minutes but that–if I may say so–is his problem, not mine.

    I believe–

    Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I thank the Prime Minister for giving way to me on that point. Will he recall that we are not only one island but that we have a land frontier in the same way that other member states have a land frontier, and that therefore the control–the necessary control–of immigration and other matters is not merely a matter of port controls?

    The Prime Minister : We are well aware of that, and the special relationships that exist between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have existed for a long time, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

    I believe that the development–

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : The Prime Minister expresses excellent sentiments, but it is widely reported that the European Commission is likely to challenge in every respect our attitude to frontiers, and to call for the free movement of people and vehicles, as stated in the Maastricht treaty. In such circumstances, which seem likely to arise after 1 January next year, will the Government make it clear what their attitude would be to a decision by the European Court insisting that all frontier controls must be removed?

    The Prime Minister : If indeed it challenges them, as my hon. Friend fears, I have just set out the view that the British Government will take. We believe that those frontier controls should be maintained, and we believe that the declaration that Mrs. Thatcher obtained in 1985 recognised that fact. We shall fight very fiercely for the fact that that is the position in law.

    I believe that developments in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe are more significant–

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, of course.

    Mr. Shore : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this extremely important point.

    It is absolutely right and rational that we should have control over goods and people coming into our own land–that is part of the meaning of being an independent state–but the question put to the Prime Minister a moment ago was not answered. The question is, if the disagreement or clash over the claim to have a Europe without frontiers and our claim to have the right to defend those frontiers in the way described goes to the European Court, will it not be for the court to decide under the treaty, not the British Government? What does the Prime Minister say about that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman sets out the legal position. I have set out the position that I believe is the case with the declaration that was attached to the Single European Act in the mid-1980s, a declaration that expressly made the point that our frontier controls would remain. That is a point–if the question is raised by the Commission–that we shall debate and argue at that stage.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that we had a full debate in the House on the Single European Act. The House was given the assurance that the Luxembourg compromise still existed–in other words, where our vital national interests are at stake, the Luxembourg compromise would apply. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the last resort we could still resort to the Luxembourg compromise?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, of course that is correct. The Luxembourg compromise is a delaying mechanism–it is not wholly the end of the matter, as my hon. Friend knows. It still exists and has recently been reaffirmed by other member states, so there is no doubt that, as my hon. Friend intimates, the Luxembourg compromise is still there. I believe that the developments in the former Soviet Union and across eastern Europe are more significant for the future of the Community than any other development since we joined 20 years ago. By 1995, I hope that Sweden, Austria and Finland will be members. During our presidency, we shall prepare the ground for those enlargement negotiations. By the end of the decade, I hope that Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia will have followed suit. Other countries will follow. The Community will have to develop its relationship with the Baltic states and with many of the countries of the former Soviet Union.

    The politics, economics and social fabric of the Community will change radically as the Community enlarges. We shall have to show imagination, flexibility and generosity. It would be fatal to take the attitude that we have our prosperous club and that nobody else can join unless they are prepared to pay a heavy price. We–the Community, this country–would all pay a heavy price if, by our attitude, we damaged the chance of re- establishing for the first time in 50 years a firm democracy throughout the whole of Europe. Some argue that enlargement points to more being done at the Community level. I believe that a Community of 20 member states will need the sort of flexibility that we have shown in the Maastricht treaty. A lot more will have to be done on the basis of intergovernmental co- operation. A lot more may be left to the national level. The changes that we have negotiated do not weaken what is valuable in the treaty of Rome. They do create the flexible framework we need as the Community reaches out to new members. The institutions of the Community must adapt to the needs of the members and not the other way round.

    What should not and need not be negotiable are the core beliefs and foundations of the Community : its commitment to democracy, its framework of law, the creation of a genuine single market and the fact that the Community exists to promote the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe.

    We in this generation have the opportunity and the responsibility for managing the biggest transition to democracy in our continent in its entire history. There will be many means at our disposal for achieving that, both national and international. I have no doubt that crucial among them is the European Community. If we had to point towards one endeavour that can consolidate European democracy, boost our collective European economic prosperity and enhance our collective international influence, it is the European Community. Sometimes the national interest and the Community’s interests are at variance. Where they are, we shall fight as we have done in the past for our national interest. But I have no doubt that, overall, through the European Community, our national interest can best be promoted. At Maastricht we obtained a good deal for this country. We improved the way in which the Community works. We set the basis for the growth and expansion of the Community in the years ahead. I believe that that was a good deal for this country and for Europe. I invite the House to have confidence in our future in Europe, and to approve the Bill.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Institute of Directors – 28 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Institute of Directors on 28th April 1992 at the Royal Albert Hall in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Your Royal Highness, Your Excellencies, My Lords, My Lord Mayor of Westminster, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to be with this Institute so soon after the General Election. It was an historic election. One that has rekindled confidence, and swept away the uncertainty that was holding back recovery.

    If we are to build a better future, then there is only one sure way it can be done. That way is by policies that promote the strength of industry and commerce and the principles of the free market. Experience has shown repeatedly that high tax, high inflation, trade union run, interventionist, and bureaucratic policies are not the way to achieve success. Our job in the years ahead is to persuade more and more people to listen to the truth. If we can remove that pendulum of uncertainty that all too often effects business prospects ahead of general elections, then we will have taken a mighty stride to continuing prosperity.

    Few voices have been more persuasive in pressing the case for free market ideas than this Institute. I am glad to be here today to thank you for the past you have played in winning the battle of ideas. Neither the red rose nor the prawn cocktail ever swayed your judgement.

    You stood firm for what you believed. So did we. I hope we will now go on working together in order to root the values of enterprise, choice, ownership, and opportunity even deeper into the bedrock of Britain. They are the values in which we all believe. We dare not take them for granted and we must never cease to fight for them.

    Throughout the election campaign I believed that recovery was waiting in the wings once confidence was restored. Some may have thought that this was the fanciful kind of thing that people say in the heat of an election campaign. Such things have been known. But I never doubted it. And the world clearly thought that recovery had started on Thursday night – the markets stayed open, and every one of them passed that judgement. In the light of the election result – and the response to it – I am more confident than ever that recovery is underway. We need a recovery that is steady and sustainable, not one that recreates the problems from which we are now emerging.

    Inflation has been going down – down below German levels for the first time since before man walked on the moon. And since April 9th, progress has continued. The pound going up. Tax cuts soon to come through again under a Conservative Chancellor. And let me say, I believe that Norman Lamont has done an outstanding job for Britain, not only in his latest Budget, but over the last difficult year and a half. Never taking the easy road – but always the right one. And rarely getting the credit for it.

    And those tax cuts will be deliberately targeted on those on more modest incomes. Not – dare I say it – on Directors but on people in modestly paid jobs: they might be young people starting out in life, part-time workers, many of them women, or disabled people who often command only modest incomes. But they will all benefit from having more money to spend as they think fit. And business will benefit too as their employees face less punitive taxation.

    Last month, the rise in unemployment was the smallest for nearly two years. Of course, we should not read too much into one month’s figures, but this is a hopeful sign and as recovery develops we can look forward to the figures steadying and then once again coming down.

    Certainly I now expect retail sales to move ahead. Business confidence is seen to be growing in survey after survey. Those are the sure signs of recovery. And as spring advances so will confidence.

    I do not pretend for a moment that the last years have been easy. Recession never is. I know the toll it has taken on businesses and on individuals. That is why I have been so keen to put in place economic management that minimises the risk of such a recession occurring again.

    But the problems should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in Britain over the last decade. Or to the reasons why we have held firm over the last few months and years. Britain has changed immeasurably for the better. And we took the action we did – because we want a strong Britain, one that continues to grow in what will be the most competitive decade we have ever seen.

    In every part of Britain there remains a new spirit of enterprise. The small business sector is alive and growing. Management and workforce in our larger firms working as one to take on the competition and win. More workers having a direct stake in their companies – and I want to see a great deal more of share ownership like that. It has played an important part in improving industrial relations and in spreading wealth far more widely among our workforce.

    I see quality, design, and service once more at the forefront. ‘Made in Britain’ is again a badge of pride. I see British companies pushing forward the frontiers of innovation – in pharmaceuticals, electronics, telecommunications, indeed right across manufacturing industry. I see how productivity in Britain has risen by leaps and bounds.

    Last year the number of days lost to strikes was the lowest ever. Why? Because we changed industrial relations and changed industrial attitudes. The British disease? We can forget all that now. We cured it. And now half the world is queuing up for a dose of British medicine. That’s good for Britain. Good for our name. Good for our exports. Good for investment. Good for jobs.

    The British people did not want to see trade union power restored. That was one more reason why they supported us. People now look to us, as I know British industry does, to complete the work of trade union reform – and I promise you we will.

    We intend to introduce legislation shortly, as we said we would in our Manifesto. We will make automatic deduction of union membership dues without written authorisation unlawful. We will take measures to give individuals greater freedom in choosing a union. We will require all pre-strike ballots to be postal and subject to independent scrutiny, and that at least seven days’ notice of a strike is given after a ballot. And, as we promised in the Citizen’s Charter White Paper, we will give every person who uses public services the right to restrain the disruption of those services by unlawful industrial action. Never again should the hard-pressed consumer be held to ransom by illegal strikes of this kind.

    People also look to us to hold at bay that damaging social chapter in Europe that our opponents were jostling to sign. That, too, I promise you we will do. I believe strongly in deregulation, in getting government off the back of business. I want it to be understood throughout the Community that unnecessary interference with working practices is bad for business. I trust that that message will not be lost when the European Social Affairs Council reaches its conclusions on the Working Time Directive. It does not help the standing of the community when certain matters relating to employment are brought forward on the questionable basis that they are something to do with health and safety. I am not prepared to wave through plans that would add some five billion to the costs of British industry. Our European partners are keen to change existing legislation and place limits on shift patterns, prohibit working for more than 48 hours a week and sharply restrict Sunday working. They have a different structure of employment in their countries. These measures in the proposed Working Time Directive would hurt British industry and destroy jobs. They are not for us. No-one should be in any doubt. A Conservative Government will strongly oppose such damaging regulation wherever it is found and we will not readily acquiesce in any attempts to impose these costs on our industry.

    In the last thirteen years Government policies have made Britain a magnet for overseas investment. By 1990 we had received 40 per cent of Japanese investment in the European Community, five times as much as in Germany or in France. Much of that investment has been in British manufacturing industry, using our manufacturing skills. It is high time people stopped writing down our skills and damaging British manufacturing industry.

    It is true that some older industries have contracted, though in the process some, like steel for instance, have turned from industrial albatrosses into world leaders. But other industries have forged ahead. The output of the chemicals industry rose by 40 per cent in a decade: and that of plastics processing has nearly doubled in real terms. The UK is now the world’s third largest exporter of pharmaceuticals, and the information technology industry is thriving. Nearly one in ten of all the world’s personal computers are now made in Scotland.

    It is scarcely surprising that our share in world trade in manufactures is growing. Manufacturing productivity between 1980 and 1990 grew faster than in any other large industrial country – our best performance in any decade since the war. We should talk this record up, not talk it down. We should tell people that our manufacturing exports are reaching new records. Exports are up by three quarters on levels of a decade ago. We are now even a net exporter of television sets. And the British motor industry is becoming feared abroad for its export challenge, not jeered at, as it once so humiliatingly was, for strikes, poor quality and late delivery.

    That is the measure of the British achievement. And the members of this Institute have played a huge part in bringing it about. I see enormous international opportunities for us in the 1990s. And I want us to take them. Not just as leaders in defence and foreign affairs, but as increasingly powerful competitors in the international market place. Britain is ready to move forward, just when some of our main rivals are running into difficulties, or sliding back. These are opportunities that we must take. I am determined that we will take them.

    I believe the 1990s should usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs in Britain. Things that they said could not be achieved together are now in prospect together. They will be our targets in the 1990s – stable prices, sustained industrial peace, free enterprise given the chance to compete and to win, lasting growth without the scourge of inflation.

    Our fourth Election victory has cemented the foundations for that success. It has opened up further opportunities. It has enabled business to invest with confidence and create the growing wealth our country needs.

    The completion of the single market in Europe is essential to that. That will be the number one on our list of priorities when we assume the Presidency of the Community in July.

    I make no secret of my view that we want a Europe that is a community of nation states. I do not want a United States of Europe. Such a concept could never be in the interests of the British people. Nor should responsibility be given to the Community when it can better be discharged at national or local level. That is a principle that I fought for at Maastricht. The principle of subsidiarity. You can take it from me that it is a principle to which this Government will hold fast. And to which it will hold Europe fast.

    And you can also be assured of this. The Single Market in Europe must be a genuine free market, right across the Community. Yes, where necessary, there must be common rules. That is essential. But rules, once agreed, must also be obeyed. Some of our partners have been keener on making new rules than keeping them. That is why at Maastricht we pressed successfully for new ways of making those who drag their feet come into line. For the first time, the European Court will have powers to impose finds on member states which do not comply with the rules. I am not prepared to see British business put at a disadvantage in countries that fail to meet their Community obligations. As a result of Maastricht, they will not be.

    Let me also add this. For it is fundamental to my belief about the future of the Community. The borders of Europe do not stop in the centre of our continent. We must not replace the iron curtain that has been torn down with a new regulatory net.

    In my view we have a truly historic decade before us. Who in this room really thought that they would love to see an end to communism? That they would watch on television the miracle of 400 million people being set free at last? Well, in 1992 we are seeing the birth of a new world. It is every bit as remarkable as that discovery of another New World five centuries ago in 1492. This new world will be based on our free market principles of enterprise, ownership, democracy and choice. We must go out there and work to make it secure. The world has made its choice between socialists and free markets. And it has chosen free markets.

    Already many of you are reaching out to these newly free nations of the East – to Hungary, to Poland, to Czechoslovakia, to Russia itself. As you do that, so must the Governments of the West. We must not, in our European Community, look in on ourselves. We must take the historic opportunity that has been offered to us. I want Britain to lead the way to a wider, more open and outward looking Europe. One which brings into the fold, as and when they are ready, not just the old neutral states of central and northern Europe, but the emerging democracies of the East. That is what we are going to be pushing for with the Presidency and beyond. What we must say to them is: when you’re ready to join the Community, we’re ready to accept you.

    And not just for economic reasons. The greatest prize we could leave to the next generation would be to spread to the nations of the east that gift of security and peace which has been the greatest benefit of the European Community. Never again must Europe be the cradle of world conflict. A wider Europe of nations working in partnership, reaching to and embracing Russia itself – that is our goal. That would be a better and a safer Europe. We may not see it in our political lifetime. But that is what I will be working for. And one day, I am certain, it will be achieved.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are great challenges ahead for the Government and for industry. And also great opportunities. We must be determined to meet those challenges and take those opportunities. I promise you that the Government will be strong in pursuit of all that is in your interest and in that of all our nation.

    To do that we must be sure in our values. Sure in our policies. Sure in our faith in the quality of Britain and in its people. Our policy will be to trust the people. To give them choice. To give them opportunity. And to give them ownership.

    I have no doubt that the people of this country want a low tax, low inflation Britain in which success is possible and ambition rewarded. They want a Britain which recognises indisputably at last that free enterprise – not state intervention and socialism – is the route to national health and personal prosperity.

    That was the golden discovery of the 1980s – proof, here in Britain, that more private wealth means more public wealth too. We cut income tax. But we still created the wealth to spend far more and to far better effect on our National Health Service and on pupils in our schools.

    Private wealth and public welfare growing together hand in hand – it was the secret for which generations had looked in vain. Now in the 1990s, I promise you, we will go on with the policies that have been so successful. “Time for a change”, some said. Yes, but not the changes they had in mind.

    Our objective is a country in which everyone – everyone – feels they belong. Where they can own homes, own savings, and own shares in their industries – and then pass them on to the next generation. Where every child leaves school well prepared for the changing world that lies ahead. Where more young people go into higher education and can choose the training they need. Where everyone feels they have a growing stake in the future of the United Kingdom.

    It is free enterprise that will create the ideas, the jobs, the wealth, the public services that will make all this possible. Free enterprise. Your enterprise.

    Recovery is now under way. Our job is to build it. To make it secure and to make it grow. And that, I promise you, we will seek to do.

  • Conservative Party Manifesto – 9 April 1992

    Below is the text of the 1992 Conservative Party Manifesto issued in March 1992.

    Conservative Party 1992 – The Best Future for Britain

    FOREWORD

    At the end of this Parliament a new Millennium will be in view. We must raise our sights high. This Manifesto is about making our country respected and secure, and helping you achieve a better; safer and more prosperous future. For I believe – strongly – that you, and not the Government, should be in charge of your life. That’s what Conservatism stands for. That principle underlies all the policies in this Manifesto.

    I believe in a responsible society Government’s duties are clear: to protect Britain in a dangerous world; to look after those who cannot look after themselves; to protect law-abiding people from crime and disorder; and to protect the value of our currency – without which all spending pledges are worthless and all savings at risk.

    But I believe also in a society in which government doesn’t try to take responsibility away from people. Politicians must never make the mistake of thinking the state always knows best, or that it is entitled to the lion’s share of people’s money I believe in low taxes not just because they ignite enterprise – the spark of economic growth – but because they put power and choice where it belongs: in your hands.

    So when you compare what the politicians are saying in this election, ask yourself these questions. Whom do you trust to take responsibility for Britain’s defence; to keep us safe and strengthen our influence for good? And who, at the same time, wants to give you the opportunity to do your best for yourself and your family?

    Who will give you the power to choose – to say for yourself what you want? And who will give you the personal prosperity that comes from low taxes – from your own savings, your own pension, your own home? Who will let you build up your own stake in Britain’s success – and pass it on to your children?

    Only Conservatives can truly claim to be the party of opportunity; choice; ownership and responsibility. Socialists like to keep people under the government’s thumb. Conservatives want to give them independence. But we also want to put government at your service, giving you what you’ve paid for – good public services, responsible to you.

    I do not believe the answer to every problem is simply for government to dig deeper in your pocket. I believe it often lies in changing the way government works; in making it respond to you. Government should look outwards. It should listen. It should put you in the know not keep you in the dark.

    We have made quite a start, under the seal of the Citizen’s Charter People in schools, hospitals, public offices of all kinds are rising to the challenge. I knew they would. They just needed encouragement, incentive and a system that is outward-looking too.

    It is all part of a revolution in quality in Britain. British goods are once more winning in the toughest markets abroad. There is new vigour in the businesses liberated from state ownership; better management and better industrial relations. These are the firm foundations of economic recovery

    We are raising the quality of our education and training. We are raising the standard of our housing, as more people own and improve their own homes. We are concerned for the quality of our environment. And in government, we are leading a drive for quality throughout our public services.

    That, I believe, is the way we all want to live – a decent life in a civilised community. That is the way we can live: celebrating our achievements, not nurturing old grudges; enjoying our successes, not talking Britain down. We can be free of old prejudices and class bafflers. We can encourage diversity, not division; achievement, not antagonism. We can all make our own contribution to the success of the United Kingdom; and we must keep that kingdom united.

    You know I believe in choice. And in this election, as always, there is another choice. You can vote for our opponents, and watch them take Britain back to the 1970s. Back to socialism. Back to strikes. Back to strife. Back to the world’s pity, or worse still, contempt. I don’t believe Britain wants that. I know the world doesn’t want that for Britain.

    I hope you will choose a different path – to go forward, not back; to go for the best, knowing that Britain can be the best and do it best. My belief is clear. Only the best is good enough for Britain.

    John Major

     

    CONTENTS:

    TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRITAIN

    The need for leadership

    Our influence for good

    The risks we face now

    Our armed forces

    The European Community

    WEALTH AND OWNERSHIP

    Britain’s opportunity

    Inflation and Europe

    The route to lower taxes

    The right to own

    Setting the economy free

    Privatisation

    Energy

    Science and innovation

    Regional policies and small businesses

    Consumer affairs

    CHOICE AND THE CHARTER

    The Citizen’s Charter

    The Post Office

    Whitehall & Westminster

    OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

    Schools, pupils & parents

    Teaching

    After 16

    Higher education

    The training revolution

    Workers and unions

    Women and opportunity

    FREEDOM UNDER LAW

    Police and the community

    Protectors and victims

    Penalties and prevention

    Reforming our prisons

    Our legal system

    Pornography, privacy, libel

    Community relations

    Immigration and refugees

    The danger of drugs

    The threat of terrorism

    RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS

    The NHS – present and future

    Care services

    Children

    Social security

    Disabled people

    The voluntary sector

    Animal welfare

    A BRIGHTER BRITAIN

    Homes and housing

    Transport

    Local government

    Cities

    London

    The countryside

    Farming, forestry and fishing

    The environment

    TOWARDS THE MILLENNIUM

    Millennium Fund

    Arts

    Sport

    Our heritage

    Broadcasting

    A UNITED KINGDOM

    The Union

    Scotland

    Wales

    Northern Ireland

    YOUR CHOICE AT THIS ELECTION

    TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRITAIN

     

    The world has been transformed in recent years. Communism has collapsed in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union has fallen apart. Everywhere Socialism is in retreat and democracy, human rights and market economics are advancing. The authority of the UN has been bolstered and Iraqi aggression seen off. Talks are under way in the Middle East and South Africa. It is a time of great opportunity, but also of new dangers.

    Britain needs firm leadership at this time. We must be represented by a team of quality and experience. A team which can help shape the world for the next century A Conservative team.

    Under the Conservatives, Britain has regained her rightful influence in the world. We have stood up for the values our country has always represented. We have defended Britain’s interests with vigour and with success.

    The respect with which Britain is regarded in the world has rarely been higher. We play a central part in world affairs as a member of the European Community, NATO, the Commonwealth and the Group of 7 leading industrial countries, and as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. No other country holds all these positions.

    We are taking a leading role in recasting all the main international institutions to which we belong: the United Nations, the European Community, NATO, and the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister convened the first ever meeting of the UN Security Council at Heads of Government level. Between now and the end of 1992 there will be seven Summits where issues of critical importance to our future will be determined: two EC Councils, at Lisbon and Edinburgh, the G7 Summit, the CSCE Summit, EC Summits with the US and Japan, and the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro. Britain will be at the centre of these negotiations.

    THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP

    The end of the Cold War has enabled the UN to act with new unity and authority Under the authority of the UN, British forces played a leading and courageous part in the Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait. At the Prime Minister’s instigation, the UN also backed the operation to protect the Kurds.

    Britain has led the world in helping the reforms in the former Soviet Union. The Prime Minister gave full and immediate support to President Yeltsin in the August coup attempt, and was the first Western leader to visit Moscow after the coup failed. Britain has led the way in building up relations with the republics of the new Commonwealth of Independent States. We have provided valuable economic and humanitarian aid to ease the transition to a market economy

    We will support an enhanced role for the UN in peace-keeping and combating state-sponsored terrorism.

    We are determined that Iraq should comply with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and in particular that it should co-operate with the UN in dismantling its weapons of mass destruction.

    We support early Russian membership of the IMF and World Bank, as well as a stabilisation fund for the rouble.

    We are co-operating with our partners to provide urgent help to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to upgrade the safety of their nuclear power stations.

    We strongly support the peace process in the Middle East. The outcome of the talks must safeguard the security of Israel and achieve self-determination for the people of the occupied territories.

    We will safeguard the prosperity of Hong Kong, nurture democratic institutions and work with the Chinese Government within the terms of the Joint Declaration.

    We seek a solution to the dispute which has divided Cyprus since 1974. A settlement must recognise that Cyprus is indivisible and that the rights of both communities must be assured. We will support the UN’s efforts to secure a fair and lasting solution.

    The problems of Kashmir cannot be resolved by violence. We urge both India and Pakistan to address and resolve the issue, and we stand ready to help.

    OUR INFLUENCE FOR GOOD

    All over the world countries are turning to democracy and free markets. Last October in Harare, the Commonwealth took on a new role as a promoter of democracy the rule of law, and respect for individual freedoms. Already the Commonwealth is monitoring elections to ensure that they are free and fair. Britain is taking the lead in encouraging these trends.

    We give substantial aid to the relief of poverty and to help the struggling economies of the developing world. Our aid programme next year (excluding aid to Eastern Europe and the CIS) will reach £1,800 million. Britain also makes more direct private investment in the developing world than any other EC country – some £2,400 million in 1989. We are urging the international community to take decisive action on debt relief, the liberalisation of world trade and support for good government.

    We continue to accept the long term UN target for aid of 0.7 per cent of GNP, although we cannot set a timetable for its achievement. The quality of Britain’s overseas aid programme is second to none. It is well targeted and highly effective. Eighty per cent of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries. New aid to the poorest is given as grants, not loans.

    We are supporting projects designed to build efficient institutions and accountable government. We are helping to improve public administration and the legal system in a number of countries.

    The English language is one of our nation’s greatest assets – culturally politically and commercially The BBC World Service has unrivalled standing around the globe. The British Council acts as a cultural ambassador for Britain and for the English language.

    We will use overseas aid to promote good government, sensible economic policies, the rooting out of corruption, and – crucially – respect for human rights and the rule of law.

    We will press creditor countries to accept the Prime Minister’s proposal – the ‘Trinidad Terms’ – for a two-thirds reduction in the official debt of the poorest countries.

    We will promote the development of multi-party systems through the new Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

    We will promote the English language by strengthening both the British Council and the BBC World Service. We will encourage both to become more entrepreneurial in order to finance their activities in developing markets.

    THE RISKS WE FACE NOW

    The collapse of the old Soviet Union has dramatically vindicated Conservative defence policy. We have always put the security of our country first. We have kept the peace by staying strong.

    Today the threat of a massive surprise attack from Eastern Europe has gone. But we still face grave risks to our security. We cannot drop our guard. Under the Conservatives, Britain will never do so.

    Within the former Soviet Union there remains a huge military force. Democracy and the rule of law are yet to be firmly established. Control over these armed forces and the massive nuclear capability is uncertain. The events in Yugoslavia show what can happen when Communism collapses in disorder.

    Increasingly threats come from outside Europe – as we saw so clearly in the Gulf. Many more countries are acquiring large stocks of modern arms. Some are trying to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Britain must be able to respond to any unexpected danger.

    The Conservatives are the only party who recognise both the opportunities and the threats of the new world.

    For over forty years, our security has been based firmly on NATO, the most successful defensive alliance ever. We will work with our allies to ensure that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence. Britain will command a new NATO Rapid Reaction Corps ready to deploy quickly to counter any sudden threat. As Europeans we must accept a greater role in safeguarding the peace in our continent.

    We will promote arms control and reduction initiatives. On Britain’s initiative, the UN is establishing a register of arms transfers in order to monitor any dangerous arsenals of weapons.

    Britain has always been strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation. We will back an enhanced role for the International Atomic Energy Agency in inspecting nuclear sites and for the UN Security Council in acting against those nations which break their non proliferation obligations.

    We will work to strengthen the Western European Union as the European pillar of NATO. We will press for a European reaction force.

    We will intensify the co-ordination of security policies within the Twelve.

    We will work through the CSCE to safeguard the security of Europe.

    We will support a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons, and further controls on the export of items which could be used in making biological weapons.

    We will help Russia in her efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons.

    OUR ARMED FORCES

    Only the Conservatives can be trusted to maintain the quality and capability of our Armed Forces. We are proud of the skill, courage and professionalism which they displayed in the Gulf and which they show daily in Northern Ireland.

    We are the only party unambiguously committed to the preservation and modernisation of our independent nuclear deterrent.

    Our defence would be unsafe in the hands of the opposition parties. Labour have opposed our defence policies at every turn. They have twisted and turned in their attitude to our nuclear deterrent. They would devastate our conventional forces by cuts of at least 27 per cent, which would lead to huge job losses in the defence industries.

    The Liberal Democrats would cause even more damage to Britain’s defences. Their aim is to cut our defence spending by half by the end of the decade.

    We insist that our forces have the modern, effective equipment that they need. The Gulf War showed that the Services must have the latest technology to give them maximum flexibility and mobility. That is why we have ordered the new Challenger II tank for the Army, the Merlin helicopter for the Navy, the ASRAAM air defence missile for the RAF and a wide range of other new equipment for our Forces.

    Our reappraisal of Britain’s defence needs will result in a major restructuring of our Armed Forces to take account of the changing world situation. In future our Forces will be smaller, but better equipped. Our Services deserve the excellent pay and conditions which we have secured for them and will maintain.

    We will complete the deployment of the next generation of Britain’s minimum nuclear deterrent. We will order and complete the fourth Trident submarine.

    We will ensure the Forces have the best and most modern equipment.

    We will improve the quality and management of service housing and help those in the Forces save towards buying a home of their own.

    The Reserves will play an even more important role and we will introduce legislation to allow their more flexible use.

    THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    The Conservatives have been the party of Britain in Europe for 30 years. We have argued when argument was necessary; but we have not wavered nor changed our views. We have ensured that Britain is at the heart of Europe; a strong and respected partner.

    We have played a decisive part in the development of the Community over the past decade. It was a British initiative which launched the Single Market programme and our insistence which reformed the Community’s finances. Britain has promoted co-operation on foreign policy and in combating terrorism. Britain has also persuaded our partners to welcome new countries who apply for Community membership.

    The Maastricht Treaty was a success both for Britain and for the rest of Europe. British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the Treaty including those strengthening the enforcement of Community law defence, subsidiarity and law and order. But Britain refused to accept the damaging Social Chapter proposed by other Europeans, and it was excluded from the Maastricht treaty

    All Member States must live up to their obligations under Community law. At Maastricht, we secured agreement that the European Court will be able to fine any Member State which fails to do so.

    We will work closely with our partners in foreign policy and in the war on international crime.

    We will continue to resist changes to the Treaty of Rome that would damage British business.

    We will resist Commission initiatives which run counter to the principle that issues should be dealt with on a national basis wherever possible.

    Britain is a great trading nation. We prosper through the maintenance of an open trading system. We will work for a successful outcome to the GATT negotiations.

    We will redouble our efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and will stoutly defend the interests of British farmers and consumers.

    We will insist on more effective control over Community spending and will resist pressure to extend Community competence to new areas.

    We will work to strengthen the external frontiers of the Community whilst maintaining the checks needed at our own borders against illegal immigration, drugs, terrorism and disease.

    THE BRITISH PRESIDENCY

    In the second half of 1992 Britain will take the Chair of the Council of Ministers. The British Presidency comes at a turning point in the Community’s history. It gives us the opportunity to shape the direction of the Community and to establish its priorities. We shall use it to promote our vision of an outward looking Community based on free enterprise.

    Our Presidency will reach its climax at the Edinburgh meeting of the European Council, which we will hold in the historic palace of Holyrood House. While the attention of Europe is focused on Edinburgh, the strength of our Union will be visible to all.

    Our priorities will be:

    To start negotiations with those EFTA countries who want to join the Community so that they can join by 1995.

    To build on the EC’s Association Agreements with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland so that we can welcome them to full membership by the year 2000.

    To conclude EC trade and co-operation agreements with the main republics of the former Soviet Union.

    To complete the single market and extend it to the seven countries of EFTA. Over half our trade is with the rest of the Community. The single market will create an open market of 350 million customers for British goods and services. To complete the single market we shall aim to:

    open up the market for life insurance to free competition;

    liberalise air travel to bring down air fares in Europe closer to those in America;

    free up the shipping and road transport markets so that British operators can carry freely within the EC;

    increase competition in the European energy sector.

    We will provide guidance and help to any British company encountering a trade barrier illegal under European law.

    We will press for progress on the environment, including the Fifth Environment Action Programme.

    We will chair the negotiations on the future spending priorities of the Community to ensure value for money. We will safeguard the abatement negotiated by Mrs Thatcher which has so far brought some £12,000 million in budget rebates to Britain.

    WEALTH AND OWNERSHIP

    The 1990s present a great economic opportunity for Britain. We have got the scourge of inflation under control. We have cut direct tax rates. And a stable currency gives industry a chance to realise the potential released by the reforms of the 1980s.

    We have extended ownership more widely – of homes, savings and shares – with millions more sharing directly in Britain’s success. We will promote enterprise through low taxes, sound money and a stable currency.

    When the Exchange Rate Mechanism was being created, during the final days of the last Labour Government, the then Prime Minister decided Britain could not take part.

    It was easy to see why the economy was too weak. Inflation was too high. In 1974-79, the inflation rate averaged over 15 per cent. It peaked at 27 per cent. Public borrowing rose to nearly 10 per cent of national income – equivalent to £55,000 million today. Penal taxes blunted enterprise. Britain was a byword for strikes.

    The Conservatives have changed all that. Since 1979, our inflation rate has averaged 7½ per cent. Now it is only just over 4 per cent – below the average for the European Community In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain had the slowest growth rate in the European Community. But in the 1980s, we grew faster than either France or Germany Industrial disputes became rare events. And in 1990, a Conservative Government joined the ERM.

    Penal taxes have been abolished. A man on average earnings, with a wife and two children, has an income today which after tax and inflation is 39 per cent higher than it was in Labour’s last year. That great advance in the standard of living is at risk in this election.

    Since the war, living standards have always risen faster under Conservative Governments than under Labour. Now we are pledged to cut tax rates again – and have made a start on the road to 20p Income Tax.

    Corporate tax rates have been cut, too. Our business investment has increased more rapidly than in any other major economy except Japan. Britain attracts by far the biggest share of Japanese and American investment in Europe. That, too, is at risk in this election.

    BRITAIN’S OPPORTUNITY

    We are now members of:

    The biggest free market in the world. British industry is again respected in Europe.

    A zone of low inflation, in which we can compete with the best.

    Britain must not throw this opportunity away by electing a Labour government. The world recession has been tough for all of us, at home and abroad. Unemployment has risen. But in Britain we have laid the foundations for recovery What is needed to trigger confidence and growth is a Conservative victory with a decisive majority. What would postpone recovery, and turn this promise of growth into the certainty of hard times, is the election of our opponents whose policies would mean higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, more bureaucratic regulation and more strikes.

    In the 1990s, the Government’s task will be to provide an economic environment which encourages enterprise – the mainspring of prosperity. Our aims must be:

    To achieve price stability.

    To keep firm control over public spending.

    To continue to reduce taxes as fast as we prudently can.

    To make sure that market mechanisms and incentives are allowed to do their job.

    Price stability does not mean a frozen economy in which no price ever moves. But we must drive inflation down so low that it no longer affects the decisions made by ordinary people, businesses and government.

    When inflation rises, so do bankruptcies. When inflation falls, industry can plan again for a profitable future. Inflation creates strife, as different groups in society struggle to restore their living standards. It destroys jobs. It erodes savings and social benefits and threatens our currency.

    INFLATION AND EUROPE

    Membership of the ERM is now central to our counter-inflation discipline. But the ERM is not a magic wand. It would not protect Labour; it would merely expose the folly of Labour policies. Some Labour politicians know that all too well – others simply don’t. They – and some of the unions – would put irresistible spending pressure on a Labour government.

    Some members of the European Community are anxious to hurry on from the ERM to Economic and Monetary Union. Others have doubts. Quite apart from the constitutional issues, they do not want to take risks with what is being achieved in the ERM.

    The Treaty negotiated at Maastricht laid down the process under which the Community can, if its members meet certain economic conditions, create a monetary union with a single currency for some or all of them. Together with Germany we fought for tough criteria. We believe a monetary union would collapse, with damaging consequences, if it were imposed on economies that were too diverse.

    A union will only come about by 1997 if a substantial majority of Community members agree it should. It would only include those members who were judged to have met specified conditions. And it would only come about if a majority of members were judged to have done so.

    But the Treaty goes on to say that monetary union will come about automatically in 1999, for all who meet the conditions. We did not want to exclude ourselves from membership; but we could not accept such an automatic commitment. By the end of this decade the EC’s membership will have changed; the economic performance of man of its members may have changed. We cannot tell who the members of such a union might be.

    We therefore secured the freedom to make a proper judgement on events. We are as free to join if we wish as any other member. We would have to meet the same conditions – no more, no less. We will play our full part in the discussions of the monetary institutions Europe may create in the 1990s. But we are not obliged to join in a single currency if we do not want to.

    In due course, we will move to the narrow bands of the ERM.

    We will play our full part in the design and discussion of monetary institutions for Europe.

    When or if other members of the EC move to a monetary union with a single currency, we will take our own unfettered decision on whether to join. That decision will be taken by the United Kingdom Parliament.

    THE ROUTE TO LOWER TAXES

    Economic growth is created by people’s hard work, ingenuity thrift and willingness to take risks. An enterprise economy rewards the industrious and thrifty We believe that government should not gobble up all the proceeds of growth, and that those who create prosperity should enjoy it, through lower taxes and more opportunity to build up personal wealth.

    Our policy is therefore to reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector. In the mid-1970s, public spending peaked at over 49 per cent of our gross national product. In the early 1980s, it peaked at over 47 per cent. In this recession, it is peaking at only 43 per cent. We aim to reduce this steadily as the recovery gets under way

    Keeping control of public spending will enable us to cut taxes while bringing the Government’s Budget back towards balance in the years ahead. Excessive government borrowing can lead to inflation. Government should always be on guard against that danger. However, when demand in the economy is weak, public borrowing will tend to rise.

    Because companies pay taxes according to how well they did the previous year, the deficit tends to be deepest just as we come out of recession. We must make sure that as the economy grows, borrowing slows.

    By bringing tax and spending decisions together in a unified Budget from next year, we will make the choices clearer. But lower taxes and a prudent approach to borrowing do not mean public spending must fall; quite the reverse. A lightly-taxed economy generates more economic growth, and more revenue. High taxes kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In the course of its last five years in office, Labour was forced to cut public spending, in real terms. By contrast, the Conservatives have been able to raise public spending by nearly a quarter in real terms.

    Higher tax rates do not always bring in more money In practice, they can bring in less. The Conservative Government has more than halved the top rate of tax. Yet top rate taxpayers today provide a bigger share of our tax revenues than they did before. Lower taxes have encouraged more people to work harder – not to spend their time working out how to avoid penal taxes.

    During the past 13 years we have cut, simplified or abolished a whole range of direct taxes.

    We have cut the basic rate of Income Tax from 33p to 25p, and the top rate from 83p to 40p.

    We have now announced a new starting Income Tax rate of 20p.

    We have raised the basic single person’s tax allowance by 27 per cent more than would be needed to keep pace with inflation.

    We have simplified and reduced the burden of taxation on capital.

    We have cut Corporation Tax from 52 per cent to 33 per cent (and from 42 per cent to 25 per cent for small companies).

    We have reduced the burden of National Insurance on low earners.

    We have introduced independent taxation of husbands and wives, giving married women full eligibility for tax allowances.

    We have introduced new tax incentives for savings.

    We have abolished several taxes completely including the surcharge on income from savings, the National Insurance Surcharge, Development Land Tax, and Capital Transfer Tax.

    We are the only party that understands the need for low taxation. Labour and the Liberals openly advocate increased taxation. Yet lower taxes clearly create a more productive economy They also achieve another prime objective of Conservative Governments, which is to transfer power from the state to the people.

    Labour would:

    Reverse our cut in the starting rate of Income Tax to 20p.

    Raise the top rate.

    Abolish the National Insurance ceiling.

    Introduce a new savings surcharge.

    We announced in the Budget an important first step towards a basic Income Tax rate of 20p. By applying a 20p rate to the first £2,000 of taxable income, we have cut taxes for all 25 million taxpayers, and taken the four million on lowest incomes out of 25p tax altogether.

    We will make further progress towards a basic Income Tax rate of 20p.

    We will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector. We will see the budget return towards balance as the economy recovers.

    THE RIGHT TO OWN

    Since 1979, wealth has been spread more widely through the community Home ownership, share ownership and the build-up of personal pensions have all contributed. Over two-thirds of people live in homes that they own, 10 million people own shares, 6 million of them in newly-privatised industries. About 2.5 million have benefited from tax incentives to encourage employee share schemes. And over 4½ million people are now building up their own personal pensions.

    But these freedoms are at risk.

    Labour would:

    Halt the privatisation programme and threaten the value of shares in privatised industries with renationalisation and new Government controls.

    Bring back credit rationing, leading to mortgage queues.

    Turn the pensions market on its head, making pension provision costly and difficult.

    These changes would drive savings overseas and make wealth again the prerogative of the few.

    By contrast, we want to do more to encourage the wider distribution of wealth throughout society. Sustaining not just a home-owning but a capital owning democracy is crucial to our vision for the 1990s. We intend to spread the ownership of shares, homes, pensions and savings. We will do so through future privatisations, help for would-be home owners in council tenancies and further encouragement for the spread of personal pensions. We intend to lighten the burden of capital taxes and reform the taxation of savings.

    We believe Inheritance Tax is particularly inequitable. It falls only on those who do not dispose of their assets seven years or more before their death. It is inevitably the case that these tend to be people who are not rich enough to engage in high-powered tax planning, or who, for lack of knowledge or advice, fail to take the necessary precautionary action. In the Budget, we announced that we would take most family businesses out of Inheritance Tax altogether. During the new Parliament, we will aim to lessen the burden on families to whom home ownership has brought the threat of this erratic tax.

    As detailed later in this Manifesto, we will aim to bring home ownership, share ownership and personal pensions within the reach of more families.

    We will continue to reform the taxation of savings, building on the success of PEPs and TESSAs.

    We will raise the tax threshold for Inheritance Tax so that the homes and savings of an increasing number of our citizens can pass unencumbered from one generation to another.

    Whenever possible, we will ensure that future privatisations offer opportunities to employees to secure a stake in the ownership of their business.

    We will encourage companies to make dealing in their own shares easier, especially for small shareholders, and encourage wider share ownership, through, for example, the establishment of ‘Share Shops’.

    We will abolish Stamp Duty on share transactions.

    SETTING THE ECONOMY FREE

    Starting with the abolition of exchange controls in 1979, the Government has created new incentives for every part of our economy.

    Manufacturing industry suffered particularly badly from the harm inflicted on the British economy by Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. To a far greater extent than service industries, it was the victim of militant trades unionism, restrictive practices, nationalisation, state intervention, tax distortion, planning controls and over-regulation.

    We believe strongly that a vigorous manufacturing sector is essential to a healthy British economy Over the past 13 years, we have steadily dismantled barriers to its growth.

    The competitiveness and performance of British manufacturing have been transformed. Its impressive recovery was recognised by the Confederation of British Industry, in its report aptly titled Competing with the World’s Best’. Manufacturing productivity has risen by more than half since 1979 – faster than in any other major industrial country. Over the past 10 years, British manufactured exports have grown faster than those of France, Germany the United States or even Japan.

    The British motor industry has achieved an astonishing revival. By 1996, Britain should again be exporting more cars than we import – for the first time since 1974. We have given the industry yet more encouragement in the Budget, by halving the special tax paid on new cars.

    The British Standard for Quality management has effectively become the international standard. But that is only the beginning. We have set up a team of senior business people to pursue the idea of a new British Quality Award.

    The City is Europe’s greatest financial centre. It contributes £11,000 million net to our balance of payments. Financial services employ 12 per cent of our workforce. London’s capital markets and financial services have grown vigorously because they are innovative and highly competitive. We will continue our efforts to break down the barriers that prevent them from competing freely throughout Europe and in the wider world.

    The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is now based in London. It puts us in the forefront of encouraging investment in the developing markets of Central and Eastern Europe.

    Service industries make a vital contribution to our economy and to our balance of payments. Tourism, for example, today employs 1.5 million people, 20% more than in 1980. It is an industry which boasts many famous companies – but it is also driven by the dynamism of many small firms. We will continue to help them by simplifying rules and regulations on business and through the DTI Enterprise Initiative and a range of other schemes.

    We will continue to reduce tax burdens on business, as we have done this year for the motor industry, whenever it is possible to do so.

    We will abolish unnecessary licences and reduce the need for specific approvals for product design.

    We will back British companies encountering any discrimination, trade barriers or state subsidies that should no longer exist within the Single Market.

    We will back the regulators of the financial services industry in their efforts to achieve high standards while keeping the rule books down to manageable size.

    PRIVATISATION

    Competition and private ownership are the most powerful engines of economic efficiency, innovation and choice. They lead to the creation of world-class companies.

    We have returned to private enterprise two-thirds of the companies once owned by the state: 46 businesses employing about 900,000 people. This programme has been the model for governments across the whole world.

    The work of liberalising markets which were once monopolised goes on. In 1984 we privatised British Telecom but only Mercury was given a licence to carry services over fixed links. In 1991 we decided to end this duopoly. The UK now has one of the most open and dynamic telecommunications markets in the world.

    But much greater economic efficiency is not the only gain. Employees have been able to take a direct stake in the newly privatised companies. Millions of people have been given the same chance to own a real share in the nation’s assets. Companies which looked inwards to Whitehall are now listening to their customers and shareholders.

    Some activities of government must always be provided in the public sector. But in central government, Next Steps Agencies and local government, management is increasingly buying-in services from the private sector. Our proposals for developing this policy have been set out in the White Papers on ‘Competing for Quality’ in central and local government.

    We will continue our privatisation programme. British Coal will be returned to the private sector. So will local authority bus companies. We will encourage local authorities to sell their airports. We will end British Rail’s monopoly. We will sell certain rail services and franchise others. These proposals are set out later in this Manifesto.

    The Ports Act 1991 has paved the way for the privatisation of the Trust Ports by competitive tender. Tees and Hartlepool, Tilbury, Medway, Forth and Clyde have already been privatised.

    We are privatising Northern Ireland Electricity and will privatise the Northern Ireland water and sewage services. We will look for ways of bringing private sector skills into the management of Northern Ireland Railways.

    We will bring private sector enterprise into the public services by encouraging contracting out and competitive tendering throughout government.

    We will require all government departments to report annually on their plans for market-testing, and progress in achieving it, in their own services and in those of their associated agencies.

    We will maintain our programme of compulsory competitive tendering of local authority services. We will ensure that unfair terms are excluded and will discourage investment to protect in-house services when better, more cost effective services are available through the private sector.

    We will ensure that competitive tendering is extended to white collar local authority services, such as those offered by lawyers, accountants, architects and surveyors.

    We will tackle all anti-competitive and restrictive practices with vigour. We will introduce new legislation giving stronger powers to deal with cartels.

    DEREGULATION

    We are concerned that at every level of government – in Europe, in Whitehall and in local authorities – some regulations may have been adopted in answer to legitimate concerns, but without proper regard to their overall impact on businesses and individuals. A proper balance needs to be struck between essential protection for the public, and over-zealous and intrusive controls aimed at the elimination of all conceivable risk. It is wrong that new regulations, designed to deal with isolated problems, should interfere with the private arrangements of citizens or with reasonable commercial practices that have earned broad public acceptance.

    The compliance costs of new UK and EC regulations must be assessed properly. Existing regulations which are outmoded and burdensome must be simplified or removed. We will give priority to the work of the DTI Deregulation Unit in these areas.

    We will examine ways in which the uniform scope of regulation could be eased to safeguard traditional local products or practices.

    We will examine whether certain regulations affecting individual citizens within their own homes could be made advisory, rather than mandatory.

    ENERGY

    Our energy policies have brought the consumer both lower prices and better service. We have privatised British Gas and the electricity industry in a way that has opened these markets to competition. These policies are now being seized upon in Europe as essential extensions of the Single Market.

    Domestic customers are now protected by a price formula, and high standards of service are enforced by the independent regulators. For instance, electricity disconnections for debt have fallen by 43 per cent since the launch of privatisation.

    We have ensured that the safety of employees comes first, and have given thousands the opportunity of acquiring a stake in their industry.

    The future of the coal industry depends crucially on the competitiveness of coal as a fuel for electricity generation. British Coal has made enormous progress in increasing productivity since the end of the 1985 strike – but there is still further to go. We will support the efforts of British Coal and its workforce to improve the industry’s performance. The long term future of the industry lies in the private sector.

    We have invested in clean coal technology to safeguard the environment. Renewable energy projects have received unprecedented support. North Sea oil and gas are enjoying a record expansion thanks to our policies of deregulation and low taxation.

    Safety will remain our highest priority throughout the energy sector.

    We will continue to encourage competition in energy markets. We will progressively reduce British Gas’ monopoly of the retail gas market, to give small users the same rights as big firms.

    We will privatise British Coal in a way that enables employees to enjoy a stake in the industry.

    We will increase our support for British Coal Enterprise which promotes economic regeneration in areas affected by the closure of mines, and has successfully assisted 76,000 people in finding new jobs.

    We will review the future of the nuclear industry in 1994. We are committed to safe and economical nuclear power. The existing strict arrangements for nuclear waste will be maintained.

    We will maintain a guaranteed market for renewable energy projects and fluid research in this area.

    We will consult on new building regulations to improve energy use. Together with British Gas and some of the Regional Electricity Companies, we will establish an independent Energy Savings Trust to promote energy efficiency. Our grants scheme for low income households will receive record funding next year.

    SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

    British science has an unrivalled reputation for ground-breaking research. We believe in investing in scientific research because it enriches the quality of our lives and provides the feedstock of industrial innovation. The science budget has grown by 24 per cent in real terms since 1978-9. Increasingly funding will reflect the quality of the research output so that the best centres can truly be world leaders.

    The Government spends nearly £3,000 million a year on civil research and development – at least as high a proportion of national income as the Japanese or Americans. And since 1978, British industry’s spending on R&D has increased by 37 per cent in real terms.

    We will continue to support our science base to maintain the excellence of our science and to ensure that we produce the skilled technical people we need.

    We will encourage the transfer of people and technology from universities to businesses and upgrade the LINK scheme, which funds joint research.

    We will encourage the establishment of centres of technological excellence linking industrial research organisations with universities and polytechnics.

    We will continue to develop new innovation schemes for small and medium-sized businesses, including the highly-regarded SPUR programme to provide help with the development of new products and processes.

    REGIONAL POLICIES

    In recent years, the United Kingdom has attracted five times as much Japanese investment as Germany or France, which powerfully demonstrates that we have created the most attractive environment in Europe for investors. Our positive policy towards inward investment will be maintained, in contrast to that of the TUC and the Labour Party.

    The Government will continue to invest in a strong infrastructure, and boost technology expertise in the regions.

    We will ensure that regional policy is well targeted.

    We will continue to support all parts of the United Kingdom in their campaigns to attract inward investment.

    We will give additional emphasis to upgrading skills and technology when allocating funds.

    SMALL BUSINESSES

    Small businesses are the seedcorn of the economy. Their numbers have grown by more than a third since 1979, while the number of self-employed people has grown to over 12 per cent of the workforce. We will continue to recognise the special needs of small and medium-sized companies, and to ensure that Government delivers useful services to them.

    Our tax regime for small businesses is one of the most favourable in Europe. We have raised the VAT threshold every year since 1979 and reduced the small companies rate of Corporation Tax from 42 per cent to 25 per cent.

    Training and Enterprise Councils (and Local Enterprise Companies in Scotland) have developed a wide range of services for business and enterprise which assist over 150,000 small companies each year. We have developed the popular Enterprise Initiative, under which 40,000 companies have been helped to buy in outside expertise offering key management skills. We now propose to develop this initiative further.

    We also propose to help businesses by easing the transfer of commercial tenancies.

    We announced in the Budget new measures to help small businesses, including full relief against Inheritance Tax on most business assets, reductions in business rates and proposals to speed up the payment of outstanding bills.

    During the new Parliament, we will develop a new Enterprise Service to give small and medium-sized companies help in diagnosing their most important strategic needs. A new Consultancy Brokerage Service will supply information to small companies. We will also develop a Technology Audit which will provide small firms with a plan for change. And we will continue to support Total Quality Management consultancies.

    TECs and LECs will be closely involved in developing and implementing this new initiative.

    The independent Law Commission has recommended that a commercial tenant should in general be freed from any future liability under a lease when he assigns away his interest under it. We will consider how this principle could be put into effect for new commercial leases.

    CONSUMER AFFAIRS

    Consumers want choice, quality and value for money Competition only works effectively if consumers have the information they need to make sensible decisions.

    Our food safety policy promotes consumer choice and consumer safety We introduced the 1990 Food Safety Act to ensure the highest standards of food hygiene.

    We will introduce legislation designed to give consumers confidence that what they purchase is properly described – and that adequate compensation is offered where these requirements are not met.

    We will enable the courts to override unfair terms in contracts and improve our powers to deal with rogue traders.

    We will ensure that guarantees mean what they say, and that manufacturers or importers share responsibility with the people who sell their goods.

    We will tighten up the rules on holiday brochures and contracts, and introduce a ‘cooling-off’ period into timeshare contracts.

    We will introduce legislation to simplify trade mark registration and extend the rights they confer.

    We will enforce science-based controls on the use of chemicals in food production, and will maintain our policy of open access to information on pesticide safety.

    We will improve standards of food labelling in close consultation with consumer representatives.

    CHOICE AND THE CHARTER

    The Citizen’s Charter is the most far-reaching programme ever devised to improve quality in public services. It addresses the needs of those who use public services, extends people’s rights, requires services to set clear standards – and to tell the public how far those standards are met.

    The Citizen’s Charter:

    widens popular choice;

    helps people to exercise that choice in a properly informed way;

    expects all public services to put the customer first;

    promotes the challenge of competition within the public sector;

    requires clear performance standards to be set and for services to be measured against them;

    insists on a proper response to complaints and on action to set right the problems behind them.

    The Charter will be at the centre of government’s decision-making throughout the 1990s. No one doubts the professionalism of the vast majority of public servants. But too often the system’s outdated working methods and attitudes prevent them from giving their best. The Charter’s commitment to modern, open services will help them to win the respect that good service deserves.

    In less than a year since the White Paper, 18 detailed Charters have been published. Each sets out tough new standards and gives new information and rights to the public. Each will be revised regularly to check on progress, and raise standards higher. But, already results are clear.

    In hospitals, from April, every out-patient will have a fixed appointment time and our guarantee of maximum waiting times for operations will be steadily improved.

    On council estates every tenant will have the right to call in a private contractor if the council fails to do a minor repair.

    In schools, all parents will have the right to a report on their child’s performance and details on that of the school.

    Rights such as these should not have been denied to the public. The Citizen’s Charter, steadily but surely, is changing all that.

    KNOWLEDGE, STANDARDS, CHOICE

    The next Conservative Government will carry the Charter still further. There will be more information about standards and performance; clear standards set within public services which are still shrouded in mystery; more choice built into public services and proper complaints procedures introduced. Many of these are outlined later in the Manifesto under Education, Health, Local Government and Transport. Here are a few examples from the programme for the next two years:

    The Audit Commission will be able to publish league tables of performance including each local council and health authority so that people can compare the quality of service.

    We will ensure that inspection reports are published and widely available. All councils will have to respond in public to criticism from auditors.

    We will introduce a new ‘Charterline’ that people with questions or problems with a public service will be able to ring.

    We will require British Rail to tighten its targets for reliability and punctuality on all lines, and report monthly to passengers on how it is doing. London Underground will publish its own Charter.

    We will expect Post Offices and Job Centres to set out standards of service and levels of achievement.

    A new Charter Mark award will give recognition to those parts of the public service that best meet Charter standards.

    British Rail and London Underground are introducing compensation systems for travellers.

    We will review the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to ensure that findings of maladministration are properly dealt with by all local authorities. We will consult on a new Lay Adjudicators scheme to help the public resolve difficulties and disputes.

    We will extend competition and accountability in public services. Those who provide public services will have to prove they can give the right quality at the right cost.

    We will extend compulsory competitive tendering to local authority housing management, and examine how to apply it to white-collar services. We will act to ensure that private firms bidding to improve local authority public services are not obstructed by unscrupulous practices in councils or by unfair contracts. We will pursue more competitive tendering for central government services.

    We will encourage the wider use of performance pay inside the Civil Service and in other parts of the public service. A link between a person’s effort and his or her pay is a powerful means of improving performance.

    Civil servants dealing with the public will normally identify themselves by name.

    We will toughen inspection of key public services where choice and competition must inevitably be limited. We will introduce, for the first time, regular independent inspection of all schools.

    We will act to ensure that the inspectorates of police, fire, probation, and social services, together with any new inspectorates that are established, will be truly independent of the service which they inspect.

    We will ensure that the reports from these systematic regular inspections are published. More lay inspectors, drawn from other professions and from the general public, will bring fresh insights into service improvement.

    We will publish later this year new proposals for the inspection of social work in England, setting up arrangements for systematic independent inspection of all care services and every local authority social services department.

    Inspections of local authority homes will be carried out by teams that contain lay inspectors and are independent of the influence of the management of the homes.

    All of the privatised utilities have a specialist regulator who is responsible for promoting competition, reviewing prices and protecting the public interest. We have introduced legislation to increase the powers of these regulators to the level of the strongest.

    We are ensuring that the regulators have the powers they need to promote competition and safeguard the interests of the customer by controlling price increases. We will increase competition in the gas and water markets.

    We are giving the regulators powers to set standards of service, covering such matters as fixed appointment times for service calls.

    THE POST OFFICE

    The Post Office is among the best in Europe for speed and reliability of its letter services. Traffic has grown by 50 per cent in a decade in which it has operated without a subsidy Last year the first-class letter service achieved record improvements in reliability The local post office is a vital and valued feature of the rural community.

    In 1981 we introduced private competition for deliveries costing over £1. This led to the rapid growth of the private courier industry with substantial benefits to business users. We believe that further benefits to consumers would flow from additional competition.

    We are committed to maintaining a nation wide letter service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom, within a uniform structure of prices, and with a nation-wide network of post offices.

    We will legislate to set up a new independent regulator to advise on issues affecting Post Office customers, and on the progressive introduction of competition.

    We will set performance targets for the Post Office and ensure they are published in all offices, together with results achieved.

    We will ensure there is effective redress for customers where services fail.

    We will lower the limit on the Post Office monopoly much closer to the level of the first class stamp.

    We will provide improved scope for contractors to carry mail to final delivery offices.

    We will consider requests to license limited specialist services to compete within the Post Office monopoly.

    WHITEHALL & WESTMINSTER

    Whitehall must move with the times. It is over a decade since the last major restructuring of the departments of government. Since then:

    Two-thirds of the state industrial sector has been privatised, transferring about 900,000 jobs to the private sector.

    Government has reduced the burden of regulation and the need for central bureaucracy

    Civil Service manpower has been reduced by almost a quarter.

    Many of the functions of government have been devolved from Whitehall.

    The Citizen’s Charter programme is bringing new quality to public services.

    We will continue to reorganise central government in tune with its modern role, while devolving and contracting-out executive functions. We want to ensure that the drive to save money to reduce bureaucracy and raise quality is powerfully led from the centre of government.

    We will give a Cabinet Minister responsibility for the Citizen’s Charter programme and reforming the Civil Service, taking charge of the Citizen’s Charter Unit, Efficiency Unit, the programme for creating Agencies and the Public Competition and Purchasing Unit. This will make it easier to raise quality and efficiency in government and see that contracting-out and market-testing are energetically pursued.

    We intend to create a new department, under a Cabinet Minister, with responsibility for broadcasting, arts, sport, tourism, the national heritage and the film industry. This department will aim to encourage private sector enterprise in all these fields. The National Lottery and the Millennium Fund (detailed later in this Manifesto) will also bring new responsibilities to government in these areas.

    We will transfer the core responsibilities of the Department of Energy to the Department of Trade and Industry and responsibilities for energy efficiency to the Department of the Environment, ending the need for a separate department

    Small businesses are the seedcorn of our future prosperity We believe the Department of Trade and Industry should take over responsibility for them. We also want to strengthen the links between the DTI and the highly successful Training and Enterprise Councils.

    Responsibility for overseeing all financial services will be brought together in the Treasury, in line with the practice adopted in most other advanced countries.

    New programmes for regenerating our inner cities are outlined in this Manifesto. Responsibilities will be brought together in the Department of the Environment.

    We are determined to ensure that women in the work-force realise their full potential. We will transfer from the Home Office to the Department of Employment the lead responsibility for co-ordinating government policy on issues of particular concern to women.

    OPEN GOVERNMENT

    Government has traditionally been far too reluctant to provide information. This secrecy extends from the processes of Cabinet Government to schools which refuse to release exam results. Under the Citizen’s Charter, a great deal more information is now being made available on the services provided by government.

    We have also:

    replaced the catch-all provisions of the 1911 Official Secrets Act with narrower offences depending on specific tests of the harm likely to be caused by disclosure, while giving special protection to vital information relating to our national security;

    introduced rights to check certain personal records held on computer, and supported new rights of access to a range of government records;

    committed ourselves to a public right of access to information about the environment, including water supply, air quality dumping at sea and radioactive substances;

    made available more reports on matters of public concern such as food safety and industrial risks.

    We intend to carry forward this move towards greater openness.

    We will review the 80 or so statutory restrictions which exist on the disclosure of information – retaining only those needed to protect privacy and essential confidentiality.

    We will seek to provide greater access to personal records held by government.

    We will be less secretive about the workings of government. For example, when the Committees of the Cabinet are reconstituted after the election we will, for the first time, set out their names and membership. We will update and – for the first time – publish the guidance for Ministers on procedure.

    THE WORKINGS OF PARLIAMENT

    It is not just Whitehall that must change. Parliament, too, has to keep its working methods under review to make sure it attracts the best people to the service of their country and uses their talents to best effect.

    We will propose appropriate Parliamentary reforms to ensure that the House of Commons conducts its business more efficiently and effectively, taking into account the benefits of modern technology, the increasing constituency demands upon Members of Parliament and the need to attract more women to stand for election.

    OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

    Conservatives believe that high standards in education and training are the key to personal opportunity and national success. We believe in partnership with parents, choice in schools and a good grounding in the basic skills all children need to make a success of their lives. We are committed to widening opportunities without compromising academic standards. We will continue to expand higher education and training. We will reinforce the rights of the individual in the world of work, and break down artificial barriers to advancement. By extending opportunity and arming people with the power to choose, we will give valuable freedoms and a powerful spur to achievement.

    SCHOOLS, PUPILS & PARENTS

    We are now seeing real improvements in our education system. One in four young people goes on to higher education; at the beginning of the 1980s, it was only one in eight. Sixty per cent of 16 year-olds stay on in full-time education, up from only 40 per cent in 1979. And we have embarked on the most important and wide-ranging reforms since the 1940s.

    For the first time in our history, we will soon have a National Curriculum which will require all the main school subjects to be covered thoroughly The testing of 7 year-olds is well under way and tests for older children are now being developed. Starting this September, GCSE courses will be steadily integrated with the National Curriculum.

    Under the Parent’s Charter, all schools will have to provide at least one written report on the progress of each child each year. Information on the performance of all local schools will be given to parents, enabling them to exercise choice more effectively

    We believe all parents have the right to choice in education – not only those who can afford school fees. Young people differ in their interests and aptitudes, and we need a range of schools to offer them the best opportunities. We have always fought to maintain diversity in education, protecting the right of local people to preserve their grammar schools, and defending independent schools against mindless Labour attacks. And we have always valued the important contribution made by the churches to our children’s education.

    We have further increased diversity by:

    Giving schools control over their own budgets and encouraging new types of school.

    Allowing schools to become independent of local councils, by applying for Grant-Maintained status if the parents involved so wish. By mid-1992, over 200 GM schools will be up and running.

    Creating a number of highly popular City Technology Colleges.

    Launching the highly successful initiative under which schools are able to bid directly for the resources to become Technology Schools.

    We intend to take all these initiatives further and offer parents more choice in the new Parliament. Popular schools will be allowed to expand, and more schools will be able to apply for technology funding. We will make it easier for small schools to enjoy the benefits of GM status by grouping together.

    We will complete the introduction of the National Curriculum offering 10 subjects at a nationally-defined standard – English, Mathematics, Science, History, Geography, Technology, Art, Music, PE and, in secondary schools, a foreign language.

    Regular and straightforward tests will be in place for all 7, 11 and 14 year-olds by 1994.

    GCSE at age 16 will be integrated into the National Curriculum, with a new A+ grade to test the most able. The majority of marks will come from a written exam.

    We will continue to encourage the creation of nursery places. For the first time, over 50 per cent of three and four year olds have places either in nursery or primary schools.

    Full information will be published annually about the performance of all local schools in each area.

    Independent inspection of schools will provide parents with straightforward reports on their child’s school, together with an action plan from governors to remedy any weaknesses.

    Popular schools which are over subscribed will be given the resources to expand.

    GM schools will be able to change their character if that is what parents clearly want and the change fits in with the wider needs of the local area.

    The Technology Schools Initiative will be expanded across the country.

    Existing schools which opt for GM status will be able to emulate City Technology Colleges and attract private technology sponsorship.

    We will maintain the Assisted Places scheme, which gives access to independent education to many families who could not otherwise afford it.

    We will ensure that the partnership between the state and the churches in education is maintained and strengthened.

    We will enable small schools to apply for GM status in groups.

    We will pay particular attention to raising educational standards in areas of deprivation in our cities.

    TEACHING

    We are determined to reinforce the professionalism of teachers and the esteem in which they are held. We have created an independent Teachers’ Pay Review Body. We accepted in full its first recommendations; nearly half of all teachers are now earning over £20,000 a year. We will press ahead with regular appraisal of teachers to encourage high standards and develop professional skills.

    As a first step in the reform of teacher training, postgraduate students will spend much more time in school classrooms, learning their skills under the practised eye of senior teachers.

    It is vital that the education system should attract back women who have taken a career break to raise a family. Through grants to local authorities, we are financing schemes to introduce more flexible working practices – such as job-sharing.

    We will undertake reform of the teacher training system to make it more effective in developing classroom skills.

    We will develop measures to encourage women with family responsibilities to enter or return to teaching.

    AFTER 16

    We believe that young people should be free to choose between college, work-based training and sixth form studies. We are giving further education colleges and sixth form colleges in England and Wales autonomy, free from council control. We also value our school sixth forms, and will ensure they retain their place in the new system. And we will allow them to attract older students as well. FE colleges will continue to receive support for adult education, while local authorities will retain the resources to respond to local demand for leisure courses.

    We will defend the well-respected A-level examinations, which Labour would destroy We will continue to encourage participation in AS examinations. We will also continue to develop new high-quality National Vocational Qualifications, and introduce a new post-16 diploma which recognises achievement in both vocational and academic courses.

    We will develop an Advanced Diploma which can be earned by students pursuing either academic or vocational courses, and a new General National Vocational Qualification.

    We intend to allow school sixth forms to open their doors if they wish to older students, and to accept training credits or fees from them.

    From April next year, further education and sixth form colleges will be independent of local government control.

    Mature students will enjoy a wider choice of courses.

    HIGHER EDUCATION

    Britain maintains the best university system in Europe. We have also developed a thriving network of polytechnics, whose student numbers have increased nearly sixfold since the end of the 1960s.

    By the year 2000, one in three young people will follow full-time higher education courses. Meanwhile, the number of mature entrants to higher education has risen by 65 per cent since 1979. And our universities are attracting increasing numbers of foreign students.

    Despite this huge expansion, our students enjoy one of the most generous support systems in the world. The introduction of student loans has given students 30 per cent more money for their living costs than the former system of grants alone. The new system will steadily reduce the proportion of students’ living costs that their parents are expected to meet.

    We will continue to expand the number of students in higher education. We are abolishing the artificial ‘binary line’ between universities and polytechnics.

    We are putting in place new mechanisms to ensure that academic standards are maintained in higher education.

    We will continue to provide generous support for students and to expand our student loans commitment.

    THE TRAINING REVOLUTION

    A training revolution is under way in Britain. The Government’s job is to create a framework within which men and women of all ages can develop skills, gain qualifications and shape their own futures.

    We have already brought the world of work and the world of school into closer harmony Government and industry are working together. Employers already spend over £20,000 million a year on training. Government spending on training has increased 2½ times in real terms since 1979, to £2,800 million. The Government’s effort is being channelled through the 82 new Training and Enterprise Councils (and the Local Enterprise Companies in Scotland) – the most significant peace time partnership between government and industry this century.

    ‘Compacts’ have resulted in many young people working to goals for attainment and attendance in school. In return, they are guaranteed a job with training – or training leading to a job.

    This year, two million students will participate in the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.

    Investors in People is the new national standard for companies making a commitment to training. TECs play an important role in helping companies attain it.

    Employer-led TECs and LECs are delivering Government-funded training programmes which reflect industry’s understanding of local needs.

    Industry is working closely with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

    The CBI’s training targets for Britain’s workforce demonstrate a new partnership between business and education.

    75 per cent of 16 year-olds stay on in full-time education or Youth Training schemes, up from 46 per cent in 1979. Since 1983, over 3 million young people have taken up Youth Training places. And 82 per cent go into jobs or further education when they complete YT.

    Now we are offering young people aged 16 and 17 vouchers they can use to buy approved courses of education or training, and which will put the power of choice in their hands.

    In 1988, we launched Employment Training, the largest programme of its kind in Europe, which has since helped 1.2 million people. While local programmes are the responsibility of the TECs, the Government guarantees the offer of help to particular groups of unemployed.

    Last year, we launched the new Employment Action programme, which will help more than 61,000 people in a full year. This is a new addition to a range of measures which include Jobclubs, the Job Interview Guarantee Scheme and other tested methods of helping unemployed people back to work.

    We are also supporting individual training effort. Since 1988, when we launched Career Development Loans (interest-free for up to 15 months), over 25,000 people have benefited. Last year’s Budget gave tax relief on training fees – a boost to the 250,000 people a year who finance their own training. Now, with the TECs, we intend to introduce new financial help for career and training guidance.

    By the end of the new Parliament, the new system of National Vocational Qualifications should cover virtually every occupation in the economy. The CBI’s training targets envisage 80 per cent of young people reaching NVQ level 2 by the end of the Parliament.

    We intend to make training credits available to all 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds within the lifetime of the new Parliament. The TECs will continue to be responsible for the YT programme for this age group.

    We will continue to finance training programmes for the long-term un-employed and those who face particular difficulties. We will launch with the TECs a new initiative, giving people a voucher with which they can buy a ‘skill check’, providing assessment and guidance on how to make the most of their working lives.

    WORKERS AND UNIONS

    Over the past 13 years, we have legislated to lift regulatory burdens from the shoulders of those who create jobs in Britain. To industry’s relief, we shunned the job-destroying European Social Charter. And we reject Labour’s job-destroying notion of a national minimum wage.

    We have also legislated five times to transform industrial relations, returning power from militants to ordinary union members. As a result, the number of days lost each year through strikes has fallen from an average 12.9 million in the 1970s to less than a million last year – the lowest figure since records began a century ago.

    Labour would disrupt industrial peace by weakening the power of management and the courts. They propose to take away the courts’ most important sanction – the power to take over a union’s assets.

    Sympathy strikes would be legalised by Labour, and employers would be prevented from dismissing strikers who broke their contracts.

    The workers’ rights we believe in are those which enhance individuals’ status and opportunities. We believe people should be informed and consulted by employers about issues which affect their work. No one should be allowed to deduct trade union fees automatically from an employee’s pay without written authorisation. Individuals must be given greater rights to belong to the union of their choice.

    We also believe strongly that employers, employees and customers should not have their lives and businesses disrupted by wildcat strikes. In the new Parliament, we will legislate to enforce and enhance these rights.

    We will require employers to give everyone who works for them for more than eight hours a week a clear ‘written statement of their terms and conditions of employment.

    We will make automatic deduction of union membership dues without ‘written authorisation unlawful.

    We will take measures to give individuals greater freedom in choosing a union.

    We will legislate to require that all pre- strike ballots are postal and subject to independent scrutiny, and that at least seven days’ notice of a strike is given after a ballot.

    People who use public services will have the right to restrain the disruption of those services by unlawful industrial action.

    A SHARE IN THE FUTURE

    We also believe that people at work should be helped to build security for themselves and their families. Employees should be given every opportunity to acquire a stake in the business for which they work. We have ruled that executive share option schemes may grant options at a discount only if the employer also runs an all-employee scheme.

    Saving for a pension reduces reliance on the state. We welcome the provision of occupational schemes covering over 11 million workers. There are already important safeguards, which we have improved, for the rights of members in such schemes. But we believe that a full review of the arrangements is now needed. We also believe that new freedoms for scheme members will strengthen accountability and benefit investors.

    We will establish a review of the framework of law and regulation within which occupational schemes operate.

    We will give every member of an occupational scheme the right to an annual statement of the value of their savings.

    In addition we will examine ways of giving those who retire with lump sum payments more choice as to how their savings are invested.

    WOMEN AND OPPORTUNITY

    A higher proportion of women go out to work in Britain than in any other EC country except Denmark. Many women choose to work part-time, and our policies have encouraged the development of part-time work within a framework which safeguards employees from exploitation.

    Throughout Europe, the UK is recognised to have the most comprehensive legislation to combat sex discrimination. We are also committed to breaking down artificial barriers to women’s advancement based on prejudice or lack of imagination. As an employer, government must continue to set an example.

    The tax relief we have introduced on training fees is constructed to ensure that non-tax payers – who include many married women – will be able to benefit, too. Many Training and Enterprise Councils already have specific plans to help women trainees. We will involve them further in helping employers to help with childcare.

    We believe mothers should be treated equally by government, whether they work outside the home or not. We are fully committed to maintaining the real value of child benefit. And we will act where a push by government is needed to stimulate the provision of childcare.

    All employers who meet childcare costs can set these off against their liability for corporation tax. In addition, we have relieved employees from paying income tax on the benefit of workplace nurseries.

    After-school childcare is an area of particular importance to many working mothers. We will introduce a new initiative to encourage the provision of after-school facilities by schools, employers and voluntary groups across the country.

    The Government will amend the law relating to the employment rights of pregnant women to give effect to the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers. This addition to our already extensive legal provision will give a right to at least 14 weeks’ maternity leave and protection against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy.

    We will take forward our public appointments initiative. Departments will publish plans for between a quarter and a half of public appointments to be held by women by 1996.

    We will ensure that all parts of government adopt a strategic approach to the employment and development of women staff. We will encourage them to participate in the Opportunity 2000 initiative.

    We will continue to oppose EC measures which would discourage part-time employment, valued by so many women.

    We will encourage all TECs to adopt plans to help women trainees have equal access to training opportunities.

    We will introduce a new grant, paid through TECs, to help employers, voluntary groups or schools to set up after-school care and holiday arrangements. We will ensure that schools are free to participate.

    FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW

    The Conservative Party has always stood for the protection of the citizen and the defence of the rule of law. Society is entitled to a sense of security; individuals to peace of mind; the guardians of that peace to our whole-hearted support. Our policies on law and order, and the rights of individuals, are designed to protect the people of this country and their way of life.

    Britain experiences less violent crime than many comparable countries. But crime has continued to rise in Britain. And the challenge for the 1990s is to step up the fight against lawlessness and violence, so that our citizens can live free from fear.

    We must continue to ensure that the sentence fits the crime – with long sentences for dangerous criminals, and fines and a tougher regime for punishment outside prison available as an alternative for less serious crime. And we must maintain confidence in our legal system.

    We must tackle crime at its roots. Two-thirds of the offences dealt with by our courts are committed by only seven per cent of those convicted. Most of these constant offenders started down the path of crime while still of school age.

    We have launched a reform of our prisons, improving the prospect that those who serve custodial sentences will not return to crime.

    But above all we must remember that it is our policemen and women who are in the front line of the battle. To combat crime effectively the police need the full support of the Government and the public.

    POLICE AND THE COMMUNITY

    We Conservatives can be proud of our record in supporting the police. Since 1979 we have increased spending on the police by 74 per cent in real terms. Uniformed manpower has increased by 16,000 and civilian manpower by 12,000. We have launched a campaign to recruit 10,000 Special Constables.

    Over the next few years we want to see a major reform which will help provide what the public wants and needs: a visible, local police presence.

    We will be encouraging police forces to develop local Community Policing, to link the police more closely with the communities they protect. The Metropolitan Police will be reorganised on this basis by the spring of 1993. Two-thirds of English and Welsh forces are already preparing similar plans. Pilot schemes suggest they can add greatly to the citizen’s sense of security and build support for the police.

    Community Policing will involve local residents, listen to their views and engage their help in the fight against crime. It will mean:

    smaller police units with officers serving the same area for longer. That way, people can really get to know their local police officers;

    each police force devolving its management and operational control to local units, and streamlining its chain of command;

    getting police back on the beat, and in close contact with the neighbourhoods under their care.

    It will be supported by an extension of Neighbourhood Watch schemes, which are vital in deterring theft and burglaries.

    Public confidence in the police is enhanced when people know what they can expect from their local police force, and when outsiders are let into the process of inspecting how they work. At least five police forces are already leading the way with charters setting out their targets.

    We are continuing to increase police numbers. There will be 1,000 extra police officers this year.

    We will continue to give the police the support and resources they need to carry out their duties effectively and efficiently.

    We will be seeking the nation-wide introduction of Community Policing.

    We will encourage civilianisation as a means of freeing police officers for operational duties.

    We will encourage the extension of Neighbourhood Watch to more residential areas.

    We will continue to increase the Special Constabulary, which has seen a rise in recruitment this year of 10 per cent.

    We want each police force to produce a charter telling local people, for example, how quickly the police will aim to respond to emergency calls.

    We will introduce lay inspectors with management experience into the police inspectorate.

    PROTECTORS AND VICTIMS

    We look to the police to protect us. They risk their lives to do so. Police officers are entitled to the protection of the community they serve. Those who indulge in the shameful practice of ‘ambushing’, or seeking to frustrate the work of the emergency services, deserve to face severe penalties. We welcome the findings of a study by the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service which shows that assaults on policemen attract consistently heavier penalties. But we will examine ways of introducing further protection for the police.

    We must also pay special attention to the needs of the victims of crime, in the courts and in rebuilding their lives. We have increased funding for Victim Support.

    The number of people directly affected by violent and sexual crime remains relatively small. But fear of crime can have a devastating effect on people’s lives, and particularly on women’s lives. We are determined to reduce this fear.

    We will set up a working party to examine what more can be done to protect the police and members of other emergency services from assault.

    We will encourage victims to report sexual offences by giving them statutory anonymity

    Under our Safer Cities programme, there are 124 schemes to improve street lighting, which has been shown to reduce the fear of crime significantly.

    Women-only taxi services are being encouraged under the same Safer Cities programme.

    PENALTIES AND PREVENTION

    Our armoury of criminal law and penalties requires constant review. We have just introduced a new law specifically aimed at the so-called ‘joy-rider’. This places the responsibility for dangerous driving, damage, injury or death following from the taking of a vehicle squarely on the shoulders of those in it.

    Even where ‘joy-riding’ is not involved, causing death through dangerous or drink driving is a very serious offence. We believe that the maximum sentence for such a crime should reflect its gravity.

    Squatting is nothing less than the seizure of another’s property without consent. Having consulted widely on the subject, we have decided to extend the criminal law dealing with squatting.

    Illegal camping by gypsies or other travellers can affect the lives of whole communities. We believe that this problem must be tackled.

    We are concerned about the small but persistent minority, particularly of young people, who re-offend while already on bail. We have announced new measures to deter them from repeated crime.

    Young people who find themselves on probation for shop-lifting, vandalism or petty thuggery should be shown where the path of crime may lead. They should be given a brief personal experience of the nature of prison life.

    ‘Joy-riders’ will now face prison sentences of up to 5 years, unlimited fines and unlimited driving bans.

    We will extend the maximum sentence for causing death through dangerous or drink driving.

    We will create a new criminal offence of squatting, to give greater protection to the owners and occupants of shops, commercial premises, houses and flats.

    The 1968 Caravan Sites Act will be reviewed with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments.

    As part of a community sentence, young offenders will be taken to see what life is really like inside one of our prisons – a sobering experience for them.

    We will introduce a new police power to make an arrest for breach of police bail.

    We will give the courts the statutory power to increase sentences for those who offend while on bail.

    We will increase the number of bail hostel places, to enable closer supervision of those on bail.

    We will mount a drive against school truancy, and set up a Task Force to find the best ways of co-ordinating the work of local agencies helping young people at risk of becoming offenders.

    REFORMING OUR PRISONS

    Prisons should be places which are austere but decent, providing a busy and positive regime which prepares prisoners for their ultimate release.

    We have been reversing the Labour Party’s neglect of the prison service in the 1970s. Since 1985, 14 new prisons have been opened 7 more will open over the next two years. The end of overcrowding is now in sight.

    We have already taken steps to implement the key recommendations of the Woolf report on the future of our prisons. We will bring private sector skills in to enhance efficiency and increase value for money

    We have put out to tender the contract for prison escort services, an approach which has worked well in other countries. The first contract for a privately managed remand centre has been awarded.

    We will sustain our massive prison reform and building programme.

    A reconstruction programme will end the degrading need for ‘slopping out’ by the end of 1994.

    We will reorganise prisoners’ education, training and work opportunities.

    We will establish the Prison Service as a separate agency, whose director will have the clear responsibility for day-to day operations. The Home Secretary will remain ministerially accountable to Parliament for prison policy.

    We will increase the use of private sector management skills.

    OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

    As a free society we must have a justice system that is fair, accessible and responsive to the citizen.

    We have introduced new powers for the Court of Appeal to increase sentences for crime. And in response to public concern about a small but significant number of miscarriages of justice, we have appointed a Royal Commission to review aspects of the criminal justice system, including the conduct of investigations, the handling of forensic evidence, and the powers of the Court of Appeal.

    We have already reduced the opportunity for abuse by our introduction of tape-recorded interviews of suspects by the police. At the same time, we are concerned that police investigations should not be made more difficult by the misuse of certain rights.

    We have already introduced a wide range of reforms following our Civil Justice Review. Extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts has helped speed up justice. The success of the small claims system in these courts has shown that simplified procedures can enable people to conduct their own cases or rely on a lay adviser. We have also introduced a reform which will give people more choice as to who represents them legally in court.

    We are committed to enabling people with limited means to have access to legal services. We are determined to ensure that these services are delivered efficiently, in a way which provides the best value for money.

    The principles of the Citizen’s Charter are being applied to our legal system. We will shortly be publishing a Courts Charter.

    We are overhauling the way in which family matters are handled in our courts. The new family code will be applied by magistrates and judges especially trained in family law.

    Our Sunday Trading laws have come into question as a result of a possible conflict with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. This matter is now before the European Court of Justice, and we are awaiting a judgement. The Government brought forward proposals in 1986 to reform the shopping laws, but Parliament was not able to agree a conclusion. Parliament will be given the opportunity to consider this issue again.

    We will introduce a major Criminal Justice Bill in the lifetime of the new Parliament.

    We will extend the types of cases which can be handled by the County Courts in a simplified way.

    We will consult on a Lay Adjudicators scheme to make it easier for citizens to settle disputes with service providers.

    We will provide a code of family law that will continue to underpin the institution of marriage, give priority to the welfare of the child, and emphasise the primary responsibility of parents for the welfare of children and the family.

    We will bring forward proposals for reform of the Sunday Trading laws once the legal position has been made clear by the European Court of Justice.

    PORNOGRAPHY, PRIVACY, LIBEL

    We have the toughest anti-pornography laws in Western Europe, and we will keep them that way.

    Every year, about 300,000 people – mostly women – request advice and assistance in dealing with obscene or malicious phone calls. We intend to do more to deter this harassment, in conjunction with the telecommunications industry.

    The Press Complaints Commission is now in operation, and we will monitor its work carefully to see if self-regulation succeeds.

    The public’s dislike of unprincipled press behaviour has sometimes been expressed in the award of erratically large libel damages. While this is understandable, it has led to an inordinate number of successful appeals. We therefore propose to simplify the law relating to libel in the light of the recommendations of the Neill Committee.

    British domestic controls on pornography will remain in place even after the completion of the Single European Market.

    We will increase the maximum penalties for making obscene or malicious phone calls.

    We propose to allow judges to settle the level of damages in libel cases where the defendant offers to pay to make amends.

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    Racial harmony demands restraint on all sides, and a tolerant understanding of the legitimate views of others.

    Everybody, regardless of ethnic background, religious or personal belief, has the right to go about his or her life free from the threat of intimidation and assault. We are determined that everyone lawfully settled in this country should enjoy the full range of opportunities in our society That requires openness on the part of the majority and, on the part of the ethnic minorities themselves, a determination to participate fully in the life of the wider community.

    The Home Office invests £129 million in grants designed to encourage those running public services to ensure that people from ethnic minorities can enjoy the full range of public services – such as health, housing and social services. We believe that these grants would be more effective if responsibility was transferred to those Departments which can make best use of the money.

    Racial and sexual discrimination have no place in our society. We have given the police stronger powers to deal with racial hatred. We will continue to ensure that the full force of the law is used to deal with racial attacks.

    We will transfer the education share of the Home Office’s ‘Section 11’ money to the Department of Education, to focus help on those from ethnic minority backgrounds who need additional English language teaching.

    IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEES

    Good community relations in this country depend upon a clear structure of immigration controls which are fair, understandable and properly enforced. We are determined to maintain our present system of immigration controls unless we have evidence that other arrangements would be equally satisfactory and cost-effective.

    But an increasing number of would-be immigrants from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world seek to abuse our openness to genuine refugees. The number of people seeking refugee status has risen from 5,000 a year to 45,000 over the past four years.

    We will continue to honour our commitment to the 1951 UN Convention, and give refuge to those who reach our shores with a well-founded fear of persecution.

    In the new Parliament we must therefore reintroduce the Asylum Bill, opposed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, to create a faster and more effective system of determining who are genuine political refugees, and who are not.

    We will provide a fair and expeditious system for examining claims for refugee status. This will include a workable appeal system for applicants under which those with manifestly unfounded claims will be returned quickly to their own country or to the country they came from.

    Finger-printing will be introduced for asylum applicants, to prevent multiple applications and fraudulent benefit claims.

    THE DANGER OF DRUGS

    Illegal drug abuse poses a major threat to the fabric of our society. It can destroy the health and lives of young people in particular. We will tackle this problem with vigour.

    We have already taken action on a wide front:

    we have set up co-ordinators in every local education authority to train teachers about the harm drugs can do, and to bring the fight against drug abuse into the classroom;

    we have set up 16 local drug prevention teams in inner cities to tackle particular problem areas;

    we have created the National Drugs Intelligence Unit at New Scotland Yard;

    we have taken the lead in Europe in pressing for the establishment of a Europe-wide Drugs Unit, as a first step towards a creation of a

    we have set up a network of 31 drug liaison officers, in 19 different countries, tracking the international drugs traffickers who threaten Britain with their trade.

    We now have the toughest sanctions in Western Europe against drug traffickers.

    A number of public services and voluntary bodies are engaged in fighting drug misuse at local level. Such efforts need co-ordination to ensure that local effort and dedication is directed to best effect.

    We will not legalise any banned drugs.

    We will bring forward proposals to ensure that the control of drug misuse is co-ordinated effectively.

    We intend to strengthen our confiscatory powers still further. And we will ensure that our controls against drug-trafficking are not weakened by any changes in Europe.

    We will make it an offence to supply anabolic steroids to minors.

    THE THREAT OF TERRORISM

    Tragic and dangerous events remind us only too frequently of the need for the special measures provided by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. While Labour proposes to weaken or dismantle them, we know that for the safety of our citizens they must be continued, and the police effort against terrorism must be reinforced.

    We have set up in New Scotland Yard arrangements to co-ordinate the activities of all our police forces in the fight against terrorism.

    We will provide the necessary measures and resources to combat terrorism, whether it comes from the IRA or other evil groups who seek to undermine our democracy.

    RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS

    Conservatives believe we have responsibility one for another. We will continue to care for those in need and work to establish a society that is generous, as well as prosperous. Our health, care and social security systems are fundamental to government responsibilities; and we believe strongly in fostering voluntary services too.

    THE NHS – PRESENT AND FUTURE

    The Conservative Party is totally committed to the National Health Service. The Government has set out in the Patient’s Charter the principles on which the NHS is based. The most fundamental of these is that need, and not ability to pay, is and will remain the basis on which care is offered to all by the NHS. Since 1979, there have been great improvements in the health of the nation.

    Life expectancy has increased by two years.

    Deaths amongst babies and very young children have gone down by 40 per cent.

    Hospitals are treating well over a million more people a year as in-patients.

    Hospitals are treating over two million more people a year as out-patients.

    Kidney transplants have more than doubled.

    Hip replacements have increased by over 50 per cent.

    Coronary artery by-passes have nearly tripled.

    Since 1979 the Government has vastly increased the resources available to the NHS.

    We have increased overall funding for the NHS by 55 per cent after allowing for inflation. The cash increases in each of the three years up to 1992-93 have been the biggest ever.

    The number of doctors and dentists has been increased by 17,000, and the real resources committed to GP services have doubled since 1979.

    The number of nurses and midwives has gone up by 69,000.

    We have established the independent Pay Review Body which nurses had sought for so long, and increased their pay by 43 per cent. It is hard now to remember that Labour actually cut nurses’ pay.

    We have restored the hospital building programme so savagely cut by Labour at the end of their last term of office.

    But the Conservative Government has not simply spent more money on the NHS.

    We have reformed the organisation of the NHS to encourage those working in the service to respond to what patients want and need, and to get the most out of the increased money which the taxpayer provides.

    At local level, health authorities now have the task of buying health care with their local share of the National Health budget. Hospitals can now be run by their own local team of doctors, nurses and managers. By April there will be 156 NHS Trusts whose local boards will have extra freedoms to develop local NHS services. Another 156 hospitals have applied to become trusts from April 1993.

    We have acted to reduce the long hours worked by junior doctors in hospitals. For the first time limits are being set on the number of hours which may be worked continuously.

    Good nursing is the essential complement to good medicine. We have introduced Project 2000 – a new approach to the professional training of nurses.

    The GP has a crucial role to play in the development of health services. Under the Government’s fund- holding initiative, doctors have control over their own spending on behalf of patients for the first time. Over 3,000 GPs will be fundholders by April, caring for 14 per cent of NHS patients. A further 2,500 are preparing to become fundholders in April 1993. As a result, new services are being offered at local surgeries and health centres. Many general practitioners have said that they would like to become involved in fund-holding. We have already extended the scope of the fund-holding scheme to allow general practitioners to provide services such as community nursing.

    We will, year by year, increase the level of real resources committed to the NHS. Savings made through greater efficiency will be ploughed back into the Service.

    We will develop a comprehensive research and development strategy for the NHS.

    We will continue to develop the NHS Trust movement which places responsibility for managing hospitals and other services with local teams who are closest to patients.

    We will continue to encourage the involvement of doctors and other medical staff in the management of services.

    We will introduce powers for nurses to prescribe where appropriate.

    We will complete the implementation of Project 2000 training for nurses.

    We will set goals for the employment of women in professional and managerial posts in the NHS.

    We will ensure that, following maternity leave or a career break, all women working in the NHS, including those returning to nursing on a part-time or job-sharing basis, are able to return to work of a similar status or level to that which they left.

    We will ensure that the benefits of fund- holding arrangements are available to any GP who wishes to apply, and we will be ready to extend the scope of the scheme further as it develops.

    THE PATIENT’S CHARTER

    No one questions the dedication of those who work in the NHS But before the Government’s reforms, the system did not always allow that dedication to produce the service which people should be able to expect.

    The Patient’s Charter sets out clearly what is now expected from the NHS. We have already pledged that in future no one will wait more than two years for treatment on the NHS. In many parts of the country for most treatments, the waiting time is much shorter than this; and we will seek further progress in reducing waiting times.

    Binding guarantees will be set locally for in-patient waiting times, starting with the operations where waiting causes most distress. To ensure that progress on waiting times continues, we intend that from 31 March 1993, no one should have to wait more than 18 months for a hip or knee replacement, or a cataract operation. We are sure that, as now, many hospitals will be able to do better than this.

    We will move to a system under which a named nurse or midwife will be responsible for your care while you are in hospital.

    We will set specific targets for out patient waiting times.

    We will make it easier for patients to find out what services are available from the NHS via a new national NHS information service.

    We will ensure that comparative information about the health standards achieved by health authorities is available to the public.

    Simple systems will be set up to allow complaints to be registered and responses given if things go wrong.

    STRATEGY FOR HEALTH

    This Government has embarked on the first ever strategy for health. Good health requires more than good NHS care when people are sick. A variety of factors – including preventive medicine, diet, exercise, sensible drinking and not smoking – can contribute substantially to improving health across the whole population.

    We will set health objectives to be achieved by the end of the century, including reductions in illness and death from heart disease and cancers.

    We will add new health objectives as the strategy develops.

    CARE SERVICES

    Care services for children, the elderly and the handicapped are provided by local government, health authorities, the private sector and voluntary groups, not directly by central government. But government is indirectly involved as the provider of taxpayers money and through its duty to set standards for publicly and privately provided care.

    As the number of elderly people in the population grows, there will be more frail and vulnerable citizens who need support. Many of them will want to be cared for at home. Others will need residential or nursing home care. It is vital that people should have choice in the type of care available. In all cases people must be able to rely on the quality of care. As we move towards implementation of ‘Caring for People’ in April 1993:

    We will take steps to ensure that individuals who need residential or nursing care continue to have a choice of homes, including independent homes. Money transferred from the Social Security budget to local social services departments will be used for this purpose.

    We will ensure that all local authorities publish information about the social services that are available, including information on standards and complaints procedures.

    We will provide choice in domiciliary and day care.

    We will provide further funding for voluntary organisations to play their vital part in the development of community care services.

    We will support the organisations which help those who care for friends and relatives at home.

    CHILDREN

    This Government introduced the Children Act, a landmark in legislation to protect children. The Act requires childcare facilities to be registered to ensure that standards are maintained throughout the country

    We believe that the diversity of childcare provision in the UK is one of its strengths. It offers parents real choice. Over 90 per cent of 3-4 year-olds are engaged in some form of group activity. We shall continue to encourage the development of childcare arrangements in the voluntary and independent sectors.

    Each local authority will be asked to produce a Local Childcare Plan setting out the provision available in their area.

    We will ensure that the standards implemented through the Children Act are applied sensibly, and do not discourage private or voluntary arrangements which are often best suited to the needs of children and parents.

    We will carry forward a family support initiative, encouraging the voluntary sector to work in partnership with families and local authorities.

    SOCIAL SECURITY

    Our aim is to improve further and modernise Britain’s social security system. We are providing more support than ever before £14 for every £10 spent in 1979, after allowing for inflation. More importantly, this extra help is more clearly focused on those groups with the greatest needs – less well-off pensioners, disabled people and low income families.

    We have also sought to provide those on social security with better incentives to earn, and gain independence. All too often the old system created barriers to work and penalised the thrifty.

    The benefit structure is now more flexible and easier to understand. The new Benefits Agency is simplifying forms and widening choice in methods of payment. We will complete the massive investment in new technology – Europe’s biggest computerisation project – that has made it possible to raise the quality of service to the public. And we will extend ‘Helplines’ and other means of assistance with individual difficulties.

    We will continue to simplify social security forms wherever possible.

    We will set up a new Family Credit telephone advice service to support working families.

    We will establish a new agency to carry out all social security war pensions work with the aim of providing a better, more efficient service to war pensioners and war widows.

    SECURITY IN RETIREMENT

    Britain’s pensioners recognise the security that Conservative government brings – low inflation, savings that grow, firmness in the face of crime, public services that put the customer first. Those who have dedicated their lives to the service of the community deserve that stability

    We will continue to give the fight against inflation our first priority. The basic state retirement pension will remain the foundation for retirement. We will continue to protect its value against price rises, as we have for the last 13 years.

    We also recognise that some pensioners, who have no savings or pensions from their jobs, need extra help. So we will increase the additional support, already up by over £300 million a year since 1989, available to less well-off pensioners.

    The number of those over pensionable age will be far higher in the next century than it is today If we do not make provision now; the burden we will place on our children will be too great. That is why we must encourage people to build up savings, investments, and occupational and personal pensions.

    But Labour policy is hostile to such personal effort; Labour wants pensioners to depend on the State. Failure to control inflation meant that pensioners’ incomes from savings were cut under the last Labour Government.

    About eight in ten pensioners have some sort of second income to top up their state pension. By abolishing the hated earnings rule we have enabled pensioners to keep their retirement pension, even if they take a job in retirement. And we have increased the level of savings that is disregarded in working out entitlement to benefits for pensioners. Personal pensions have brought real choice into retirement provision. Over 4½ million people have set up their own pensions since 1988. We want to see both occupational and personal provision expand much further in the course of the 1990s. (See ‘Opportunity for all – A share in the future’ for our proposals on occupational pensions.)

    As evidence of our continuing commitment to poorer pensioners, we have announced in the Budget an increase of £2 a week for single people, £3 a week for couples, in income support for pensioners. Combined with the increases this April, this measure will provide less well-off pensioners with between £5.73 and £10.70 a week extra.

    We will continue to pay, from April 1993, a rebate at the level recommended by the Government Actuary for all those who contract out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme.

    We will legislate to provide a new 1 per cent incentive for holders of personal pensions aged 30 and over from April 1993, when the existing incentive ends.

    We will consider proposals for a new system of rebates to come into effect from April 1996 with the aim of ensuring that personal pensions remain attractive across the age range.

    We are firmly committed to equal treatment for men and women in pensions. Following assessment of the responses to our discussion paper, we will bring forward legislation to achieve this.

    SUPPORTING FAMILIES

    Our reforms have cut away the barriers that meant many breadwinners lost money if they went to work. Family Credit has transformed the prospects of 350,000 low-income families. As a result of improvements since 1988, we have made available an extra £600 million a year in real terms to low- income families with children.

    But we also recognise that all families face extra costs in bringing up children. So we have raised Child Benefit. For a two-child family the increases we are making will, by April 1992, have raised the total value of Child Benefit by almost £3 in a single year, to £17.45 a week.

    Our new Child Support Agency will make sure that absent parents make a proper contribution – and that far more lone parents and their children get the maintenance that is theirs by right. And benefit changes make it easier for more families – including single parents – to combine work and family responsibilities.

    Child Benefit will remain the cornerstone of our policy for all families with children. Its value will increase each year in line with prices.

    Child Benefit will continue to be paid to all families, normally to the mother, and in respect of all children.

    HELP FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

    Under the Conservatives, more disabled people than ever before are getting the help they need and deserve. Since 1979, the number receiving Attendance Allowance has more than trebled; the number receiving Mobility Allowance has risen six fold; the number receiving Invalid Care Allowance has risen 25-fold. Today we spend some £12,000 million a year on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. Even after allowing for inflation, that is 2½ times as much as Labour spent in the 1970s.

    Disability Living Allowance will bring together the existing Attendance and Mobility Allowance, providing new help to many disabled people who at present get no such help. Disability Working Allowance will make it easier for disabled people to take up a job.

    We are introducing new disability benefits which will, in the next Parliament, bring extra help to at least 300,000 people. By 1993-94 these and other improvements will mean that we will be directing an extra £300 million a year to long-term sick and disabled people.

    The Independent Living Fund has proved a great success in giving severely disabled people an opportunity to live in the community. We are committed to maintaining a fluid which supports the most severely disabled people.

    THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR

    Charities and voluntary groups play a vital role in our national life. Britain is rich in its citizens’ willingness to give time, effort and money to helping others. We have a great tradition of voluntary work at home and overseas. There are now about 350,000 voluntary groups in Britain – and personal donations to charities now amount to some £5,000 million a year.

    We have done much to boost charitable giving.

    Under the Payroll Giving Scheme, employees can now contribute up to £50 a month tax-free.

    Gifts and bequests have been exempted from Inheritance Tax.

    The Gift Aid scheme allows charities to claim tax relief on one-off gifts of more than £400 – a change just announced in the Budget.

    The maximum limit on single charitable gifts qualifying for Income and Corporation Tax relief has been abolished.

    The new Charities legislation will ensure that charities are better managed and properly regulated. We believe this will enhance public confidence in charities and further boost charitable giving.

    The Government gives some £2,500 million a year to support the activities of the voluntary sector (including housing associations). Industry has been generous with its sponsorship and with technical support. But money is not the only contribution that government and business can make. Businesses have become much more practically involved in work in the community And government could do more to encourage new forms of volunteering, to encourage the most effective use of the money it gives, and to bring together voluntary effort at the local and national level.

    We will continue to support the work of the voluntary sector and promote volunteering.

    We will work with voluntary agencies to develop, over the life of the next Parliament, a national bank of information on opportunities for volunteering.

    We will encourage efforts to improve the co-ordination and promote the growth of local volunteer support, building on the success of Neighbourhood Watch to develop a network of voluntary help in local communities.

    ANIMAL WELFARE

    We are leading the European Community in our achievements in improving animal welfare. We have also taken action at home and abroad to improve conservation, and will continue to do so.

    English Nature, which advises the Government on wildlife issues, has embarked on an ambitious programme to restore endangered species. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides special protection for 304 species of birds and animals, as well as protecting our heritage of wild plants.

    We are firmly opposed to international trade in rare and protected species such as rhinoceroses, cheetahs, leopards, and bears. We have pushed successfully for an EC ban on large-scale drift nets that threatened dolphins, and we support the UN resolution calling for a moratorium on their use. We support the extension of the moratorium on commercial whaling and have co-sponsored resolutions against ‘scientific’ hunting of whales. We have successfully pressed for an EC ban on the importation of baby seal products and of furs from those countries which permit leghold traps.

    We have set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council and have brought in welfare codes covering livestock on farms and in transit. We are establishing an ethical committee to look at the effects of advanced techniques in animal breeding. We have banned the use of veal crates, and taken action to ensure humane slaughter. We insisted that we should retain our power to stop the export of live horses. At Maastricht we secured a landmark in animal welfare: our partners’ agreement to a declaration that the welfare of animals should be taken into account in the framing of EC legislation.

    We now have the toughest set of controls on animal experimentation in Europe, and the number of animals used in experiments has fallen steadily We have supported stronger laws to protect badgers and stop cruel tethering, and have increased the penalties for organising animal fights and for cruelty.

    We will introduce a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme and expand the Species Recovery Scheme, both to be run by English Nature.

    We have tightened controls on the import of wild birds and will press the EC to do the same.

    We oppose resumption of the trade in ivory or elephant products, and will provide additional support for elephant conservation projects in Africa.

    We will urge our EC partners to bring animal welfare standards up to UK levels, for example by banning veal crates and stalls and tethers for pigs. We will press them to put into practice the principles of the Maastricht declaration.

    We will use our EC Presidency to toughen up EC regulations and improve EC compliance with rules governing animal experiments.

    We will press for higher EC standards for the keeping of battery hens and for the care of animals in transit.

    We will not accept any weakening of our rabies prevention safeguards.

    A BRIGHTER BRITAIN

    Making Britain a brighter and better place in which to live requires a high quality physical environment – including housing, transport and reinvigorated urban areas. The Conservative commitment is both to the re-creation of our civic pride and also to the preservation and integrity of our rural heritage, founded on the core industry of agriculture. Our aim is to enhance the quality of life for the British people.

    HOME OWNERSHIP

    The opportunity to own a home and pass it on is one of the most important rights an individual has in a free society Conservatives have extended that right. It lies at the heart of our philosophy We want to see wealth and security being passed down from generation to generation. Some 4 million more householders own their own homes compared with 1979. The number of former council tenants who have bought their homes has risen to 1.4 million.

    We now need to make it easier for those council tenants living in high-cost areas or on low incomes to move gradually into home ownership, without taking on too heavy a financial burden at any one time. This will bring the benefits of home ownership within the reach of more people and introduce more diversity in local authority estates. We also want to help more leaseholders to own and control the management of their property.

    But we recognise that not everyone can, or will want to, buy his or her home. So we are determined to encourage a strong private rented sector while continuing to safeguard the rights of existing regulated tenants. Bringing empty private sector dwellings back into use will extend choice, make it easier for people to move jobs, and help tackle homelessness.

    We will maintain mortgage tax relief.

    We will continue ‘Right to Buy’ discounts, and ensure that local authorities respond reasonably and rapidly to applications.

    We will introduce a new nation-wide ‘Rents to Mortgages’ scheme, enabling council tenants to take a part-share in their home, gradually stepping up to full ownership.

    We will put more of the Housing Corporation’s £2,000 million budget into Do-It-Yourself shared ownership. This will enable first time buyers to choose a home and buy a share of it – usually 50 per cent – with a housing association paying rent on the rest until they wish to increase their stake in the property.

    We will introduce ‘Commonhold’ legislation, giving residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market rate. Leaseholders of higher rated houses will also be given the right to buy the freehold of their property. Leaseholders who live in a block which does not qualify will have a new right to buy an extended lease.

    We will introduce statutory time limits for answers by local authorities to standard inquiries by house-buyers, and explore the idea of a new computerised Property Data Bank bringing together information held by the Land Registry and other public bodies.

    We will extend nation-wide the scheme we have piloted to increase private renting, whereby housing associations manage properties, building trust between tenant and private sector landlord.

    As soon as possible in the new Parliament, we will introduce a new ‘Rent a Room’ scheme wider which home-owners will be able to let rooms to lodgers without haying to pay tax on the rent they receive.

    MEETING HOUSING NEED

    We are also committed to securing a better deal for council tenants and increasing the supply of affordable housing for those in housing need. We will introduce more choice, improve management of estates and create new rights as part of the Tenant’s Charter. Our aim will be to give tenants a choice of landlord wherever possible, and make management of both council and housing association stock more responsive to the needs of tenants.

    We will improve the way in which council housing is managed by bringing in new private sector providers operating on contract to the local authority We will introduce more competition and choice, thereby improving services to the tenant and increasing accountability. And we intend to give council tenants new opportunities themselves to improve the flat or house in which they live.

    We have already begun a process of Large-Scale Voluntary Transfer which allows local authority tenants to opt to transfer to a housing association. We wish to see this result in diversity, not local monopoly, and will therefore act to limit the size of blocks that can be transferred.

    Nearly all new social housing is now being built by housing associations. Over the next three years, we are committed to spend nearly £6,000 million through the Housing Corporation to provide 153,000 homes.

    We will do more to bring into use properties owned by central and local government which are standing empty for no good reason. This will enable us to house more people on the waiting list and, in some cases, to provide more opportunities for homesteading.

    Through Estate Action and Housing Action Trusts we have invested £1,000 million in recent years in a concentrated attack on the country’s worst housing estates. Some 360,000 dwellings have been improved as a result. As part of those programmes, on which we are committed to spend a further £1,400 million over the next three years, we are demolishing or redesigning tower blocks and deck access estates, rebuilding on a more human scale. Wherever we can, whenever tenants want it, and where resources allow; we will pull down the eyesores which have blotted our cityscapes and too often provided breeding grounds for crime and delinquency.

    The Government is spending about £100 million tackling the problem of rough sleeping in our cities. As a result we have seen a sharp fall in the numbers who sleep rough on our streets. Working closely with the voluntary sector we will continue to provide help for those sleeping rough, particularly in the capital.

    We will revolutionise the management of council houses and flats. Compulsory competitive tendering will oblige local authorities to bring in managers who demonstrate their ability to deliver the best services to tenants.

    We will continue our programme of Large Scale Voluntary Transfer of council properties to housing associations. But in order to bring management closer to tenants, we intend to reduce the limit on the number of properties transferred in a single batch.

    We will give tenants a new Right to Improve, so they can receive compensation for certain home improvements which they undertake. And we will improve the existing Right to Repair. We will continue our Estate Action and Housing Action Trust programmes which concentrate resources on the worst council estates.

    We will enable tenants to apply for Housing Action Trusts to take over and improve the worst estates.

    We will work with the Housing Corporation to establish a new Ombudsman for housing association tenants. We will also encourage the Corporation to extend opportunities for tenant involvement in the management of housing association properties.

    We will set up a Task Force – headed by an independent chairman – to help bring empty government residential properties back into use. These will either be sold or let on short term leases to those in housing need.

    As part of Estate Action we will introduce a new pilot scheme to promote homesteading. Local authorities will be encouraged to offer those in housing need the opportunity to restore and improve council properties. In exchange, homesteaders will pay a lower rent or be able to buy at a reduced price.

    TRANSPORT

    Under the Conservatives, transport in Britain is being transformed. More competition on the roads and in the air has led to better services and more choice. Our successful policies of deregulation and privatisation have gone hand in hand with a sustained and growing programme of investment. Over 1,000 miles of new trunk roads and motorway have been built, more than 100 bypasses constructed, and some 750 miles of railway electrified. Airlines now operate 50 per cent more flights. More people travel further and more easily than ever before.

    Over the next three years we are committed to the biggest investment in Britain’s transport infrastructure in our history

    We will also seek further opportunities for the private sector to contribute, as it has for example with the Channel Tunnel, the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge at Dartford, the second Severn Bridge and the Birmingham Northern Ring Road. We intend the proposed new rail link from the Channel Tunnel to King’s Cross to be taken forward by the private sector.

    THE RAILWAYS

    We believe that the railways can play a bigger part in responding to Britain’s growing transport needs, and are investing accordingly Next year alone, British Rail’s external finance will top £2,000 million. The new Passenger’s Charter will help to raise the quality of service. For the first time ever performance targets will be set, widely published and rigorously monitored; fare levels will reflect the standards set; and discounts will be paid to regular travellers where performance targets are not met.

    We believe that the best way to produce profound and lasting improvements on the railways is to end BR’s state monopoly. We want to restore the pride and local commitment that died with nationalisation. We want to give the private sector the opportunity to operate existing rail services and introduce new ones, for both passengers and freight.

    A significant number of companies have already said that they want to introduce new railway services as soon as the monopoly is ended. We will give them that chance.

    Our plans for the railways are designed to bring better services for all passengers as rapidly as possible. We believe that franchising provides the best way of achieving that. Long term, as performance improves and services become more commercially attractive as a result of bringing in private sector disciplines, it will make sense to consider whether some services can be sold outright.

    In the next Parliament:

    By franchising, we will give the private sector the fullest opportunity to operate existing passenger railway services.

    Required standards of punctuality, reliability and quality of service will be specified by franchises; subsidy will continue to be provided where necessary; arrangements to sustain the current national network of services will be maintained; and through-ticketing will be required.

    A new Rail Regulator – who will ensure that all companies have fair access to the track – will award the franchises and make sure that the franchisees honour the terms of the contract.

    BR’s accounting systems and internal structures will be reorganised. One part of BR will continue to be responsible for all track and infrastructure. The operating side of BR will continue to provide passenger services until they are franchised out to the private sector.

    The franchise areas will be decided only after technical discussions with BR. But our aim will be to franchise out services in such a way as to reflect regional and local identity and make operating sense. We want to recover a sense of pride in our railways and to recapture the spirit of the old regional companies.

    We will sell BR’s freight operations outright. We will also sell its parcels business.

    We will be prepared to sell stations – which we want to be centres of activity – either to franchisees or independent companies.

    The Railway Inspectorate will be given full powers to ensure the highest standards of safety.

    ROADS

    Nine out of every ten journeys, whether passenger or freight, are made by road. We must therefore continue to provide an efficient road network. In the years ahead we will concentrate particularly on the bypass programme.

    As part of the Citizen’s Charter, we will bring forward reforms which will enable the private sector to start filling the gaps in the motorway service area network and to introduce more variety Rather than large, intrusive stations at long intervals we should see smaller, more frequent service areas providing a much wider range of facilities.

    We will investigate ways of speeding up, within the Department of Transport, the procedures for building new roads. We will continue our campaign to keep ‘coning off’ on motorways to a minimum by extending lane rental schemes, under which contractors who fall behind schedule incur financial penalties. Next year two-thirds of all motorway maintenance work will be carried out in this way.

    Britain has the best road safety record in the European Community In spite of the vastly increased volume of traffic, fewer people are now killed on our roads than at any time since 1948. Our aim is to improve on that record still further.

    In spite of the benefits they bring, cars carry an environmental cost. In Britain catalytic converters will be compulsory on all new cars from the end of 1992. This will eliminate virtually all harmful exhaust gases, except for the emission of CO2. The only certain way of cutting CO2 emissions is to encourage fuel efficiency. Action is needed at international level and we will play our full part.

    Buses have an increasingly important part to play The deregulation of long-distance coach services has led to a major expansion in reliable and cheap services. Bus deregulation outside London has increased mileage by 16 per cent. We now propose to take deregulation and privatisation further.

    We will improve road transport by:

    Investing £6,300 million in our trunk road and motorway network over the next three years, concentrating particularly on bypasses. Some 40 new ones will be opened by 1993 on trunk roads alone.

    Increasing penalties for those convicted of drink driving.

    Installing cameras at dangerous road junctions to film those who drive through red traffic lights.

    Encouraging local councils, assisted by a special budget we have set aside, to introduce pedestrian priority areas and cycle lanes.

    Privatising the remaining 39 local authority bus companies.

    Deregulating buses in London and privatising the London Buses subsidiaries. A new London Bus Executive will be responsible for bus- stops, stands and stations and for contracting out socially necessary services. The concessionary fares scheme in London will continue.

    Changing the system under which motorway service areas are provided.

    Encouraging action internationally, and within our own motor industry, to promote more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    AVIATION AND SHIPPING

    More competition in aviation means more choice, better services and lower fares. That is why we have been pressing within the EC for full liberalisation of services. We also want to see more transatlantic flights, particularly to regional airports. People in the regions should not have to travel to London in order to fly to the United States. Direct flights would boost local economies and apply downward pressure on fares. The key regional airports are still in local authority ownership. They should be well placed to benefit from an increase in the number of direct point-to-point flights. But if they are really to grow and prosper, they need access to private capital, freed from the constraints of public ownership.

    Air safety cannot be compromised. Over the next five years the Civil Aviation Authority will. invest £750 million in modernising its systems.

    More can be done to cut some of the regulatory burdens our shipping industry faces. We will ensure that the recommendations of the Government Industry Joint Working Party are put into effect as rapidly as possible.

    We will further liberalise transatlantic air services and encourage more international flights to and from regional airports.

    We will encourage local authorities to sell their airports.

    We will reduce airport congestion by increasing the capacity of our air traffic control

    We will continue to campaign within the EC for further liberalisation, particularly of cabotage, so that there are more commercial opportunities for British companies.

    LONDON’S TRANSPORT

    A major programme of renewal and modernisation is transforming public transport in London – including the biggest expansion of London’s rail network since the 1930s.

    The £750 million upgrading of the Central Line is already under way, to be followed by a similar programme on the Northern Line; the Jubilee Line extension and Crossrail will follow.

    London Underground is planning to invest £3,500 million over the next three years. It has introduced an ambitious Company Plan which will lead to better service, cleaner trains and more staff at stations and on platforms. Their new Charter will be published shortly

    Responsibility for the Docklands Light Railway has been transferred to the London Docklands Development Corporation. As its performance continues to improve, we expect to see growing private sector interest in purchasing it outright.

    We will seek to privatise the Docklands Light Railway during the lifetime of the next Parliament.

    The new Jubilee Line is being extended to Docklands and South East London and will be followed by the East-West Crossrail, linking Paddington to Liverpool Street. The Docklands Light Railway is being extended at an eventual cost of £800 million.

    London Underground’s Charter will set out tougher new standards and what it will do to compensate passengers should it fail to meet those standards.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Local councillors – some 25,000 men and women throughout Britain – are responsible for some of our most important public services. Since 1979 we have sought to create an accountable local government system capable of delivering high quality local services at a price that local people are prepared to pay.

    Conservatives councils in shires, districts and cities have been at the forefront of these reforms. In a responsive and efficient manner, they have demonstrated how to deliver good services at an affordable price.

    Over the past 13 years, we have:

    held down unjustified rises in the cost of local government;

    abolished the power of local councils to shift the burden of taxation on to local business, for the first time limiting the overall rise in business rates to no more than the rate of inflation;

    abolished an expensive and bureaucratic layer of government in London and other big cities;

    developed the local authority role from direct provider to effective enabler, encouraging many tenants to buy their own homes, allowing schools the freedom to manage their own affairs and improving the quality of local services by allowing private business to compete for contracts.

    Labour threaten all these reforms. They would ‘uncap’ local spending, leading to higher local and national taxes. They would ‘uncap’ business rates, threatening a return to the 1980s when the English rate poundage rose 37 per cent more than inflation. They would abolish the requirement on local authorities to seek value for money through competitive tendering. They would remove the freedom of local communities to preserve their grammar schools. They would introduce a new; expensive layer of government bureaucracy at regional level. They would return local government finance to the bad old days of domestic rates, with unrestrained power for local councils to charge householders as much as they like. And they would abolish the Audit Commission, which not only maintains the probity of local government accounting, but also pioneered the drive for better quality of service and value for money in local government.

    We now propose further reforms in the structure, finance and accountability of local government. In the meantime, we have transferred a further share of the burden of financing local services to central government. Today, local community chargepayers bear only a small proportion of the cost of local councils.

    We will set up a commission to examine, area by area, the appropriate local government arrangements in England. Local communities will be fully consulted and their loyalties and interests will be central to the commission s task in deciding whether in any area a single tier of local government could provide better accountability and greater efficiency.

    We are looking at ways in which the internal management of local authorities might become more effective.

    We are applying the principles of the Citizen’s Charter to local government, requiring the publication of more information which will enable local people to judge the efficiency of their councils in providing services.

    We will continue to ‘cap’ local spending where necessary.

    As we announced in the Budget, no one’s Uniform Business Rate will go up this year by more than the rate of inflation 4.1 per cent. And we have speeded up the benefits of revaluation for those businesses who gain from it.

    In future years, we will maintain our pledge to prevent UBR poundage rising by more than inflation.

    We will replace the Community Charge with a new Council Tax in April 1993. The Council Tax will be simple and straightforward to administer. It will be fair and will rightly reflect both the value of the property and the number of adults who live in it.

    Single householders, who suffered under the rates, will receive a 25 per cent discount. By grouping properties into a limited number of bands, the Council Tax also avoids the punitive bills which would be imposed by an unfettered rating system of the kind proposed by Labour. Students and people on low incomes will not have to pay.

    CITIES

    We take pride in our cities. Right across Britain they have been given a new lease of life. From London to Glasgow; from Cardiff to Newcastle, historic buildings have been restored and areas which had been run down have been transformed. The £4,000 million Action for Cities programme underlines the Conservative commitment to our inner cities and the people who live there. It highlights our determination to spread opportunity as widely as possible. We want all our people to share in growing prosperity and to have a stake in the country’s future. Much has been achieved in recent years. The Urban Development Corporations and the wide range of central government grants have helped to regenerate many of our inner city areas. But more remains to be done.

    The best way to restore the spirit of enterprise which first made our cities great is for local people, the private sector, the voluntary sector and local and central government, to work together in partnership. That is the principle which lies behind City Challenge. Its new approach of competitive bidding has already galvanized towns and cities into bringing forward imaginative proposals for regeneration. It has improved co-ordination, secured better value for money and encouraged programmes which tackle problems on a number of fronts.

    We will continue to extend City Challenge and allocate a greater proportion of resources by competitive bidding.

    We will support Urban Development Corporations in their critical task of urban regeneration.

    We will bring together resources targeted inner city programmes into a single budget. This will mean that funding will go where it is most needed locally rather than according to a set of priorities determined in Whitehall.

    We will strengthen the machinery for co-ordination in the regions. New, integrated regional offices of the appropriate Whitehall departments will be established so that business and local government will have only one port of call.

    We will establish a new Urban Regeneration Agency to pull together our efforts to clear up and develop derelict land, helping to bring it back into commercial use and provide new opportunities for local people.

    Working in the urban areas, the URA will administer much of the Urban programme of the Department of the Environment. It will have a dual function. First, outside the existing UDC areas, it will reclaim derelict land, assembling suitable sites for redevelopment using vesting or compulsory purchase powers where necessary Second, it will itself be able to develop land in partnership with the private sector. This represents a major step forward in unlocking the commercial potential of our inner cities and of breathing new life into areas which may have been derelict for many years.

    But our focus is not just on physical regeneration. We want to see more opportunities for training, more encouragement to enterprise, better education and more measures to tackle drugs and crime.

    Encouraging enterprise, improving the environment and providing new opportunities for the unemployed are central to our inner city policies. Remotivating individuals and providing the right conditions for business are the only ways to make lasting change.

    We will offer the Loan Guarantee Scheme for small firms on more generous terms in inner city areas. The scheme will be extended from Task Force areas to include successful City Challenge bidders.

    We will make more people eligible for our successful Job Interview Guarantee Scheme, which links unemployed people with local lobs.

    We will carry out pilot projects for the ‘foyer’ concept, whereby young people are given a place in a hostel if in exchange they give a commitment to train and look for work.

    We will pilot a number of ‘back to work’ bonus schemes in inner city areas for the long-term unemployed.

    We will extend customised training under the Job Link programme to include City Challenge areas.

    We will make inner city Task Force and City Challenge areas eligible for regional innovation grants.

    We are also determined to raise standards in our inner city schools, to crack down on truancy, and to help prepare young people for the world of work.

    The City Technology Colleges show what can be done. They are overwhelmingly popular with parents and pupils and are doing much to raise standards for children of all abilities in the inner cities.

    Under the Citizen’s Charter, we shall soon be able to identify much more precisely than ever before those schools which are delivering unacceptably low standards. So will parents. We will publish test results, exam results and truancy rates and ensure that there is regular independent inspection. This will enable us to put the spotlight on those inner city LEAs and schools which are failing their pupils.

    We will continue to seek opportunities to open new CTCs in deprived inner city areas.

    We will ensure that more schools, especially in the inner cities, have the opportunity to develop their technological expertise.

    Tackling crime and the fear of crime forms a vital part of the strategy to make our inner cities better places to live and work. The Safer Cities initiative, launched in 1988, has successfully brought together local groups and agencies to tackle crime in some of our worst affected urban areas. Twenty schemes are already in operation.

    We will double the number of Safer Cities Schemes to cover 40 urban areas.

    LONDON

    London is a magnet to visitors and business from across the world. Since 1979 we have invested heavily to secure that status. Billions of pounds have gone into improving air, rail and underground links. We will continue that programme of modernisation. We are determined to sustain into the next century London’s special position as one of the world’s leading capital cities. We reject Labour’s plan to recreate a bureaucratic and wasteful GLC. Instead, as part of our Millennium programme, we will launch a London 2000 initiative. The Secretary of State for the Environment will convene a new private sector forum to promote London internationally as a business, tourist and cultural centre. The Secretary of State will also chair a new Cabinet sub-committee to bring together Ministers from all key departments and co-ordinate policy for the further improvement of London. A single Minister will be given responsibility for co-ordinating London’s transport services. London’s place as a world centre for financial and insurance services is pre-eminent; we intend to keep it that way And we will support the vigorous cultural life of the capital, which has seen new galleries, theatres and museums opening over the last decade.

    We will launch a London 2000 initiative.

    We will convene a new private sector forum to promote London’s position internationally.

    We will establish a new Cabinet sub committee to co-ordinate policy on London.

    We will give a single Transport Minister responsibility for services in London. He will chair a new Transport Working Group which will bring together public transport operators from both public and private sectors – to discuss transport issues in London.

    THE COUNTRYSIDE

    We have always cared for the countryside. We support its major industries and way of life, while recognising the place it holds in the hearts of those who live in towns.

    We want to protect our most beautiful landscapes, conserve the abundance and variety of our wildlife and habitats, promote access and public enjoyment of the countryside, and encourage public participation in caring for the countryside.

    But the countryside is more than just a pretty picture. It is a place where people live and work, as they have done in the past and will do in the future. In providing our public services, we will continue to recognise the particular needs of people who live in the countryside.

    We will continue to promote a diverse rural economy, balancing the need for jobs, housing and services in rural areas with protection of the rural environment.

    AGRICULTURE

    Centuries of farming have shaped our countryside. Now farming is at a crossroads, both here and in the rest of the European Community World-wide pressure to reduce protectionist measures, and the need to contain the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, mean that farmers will face reduced support and increased competition.

    We believe that farming in the UK can meet these challenges. But many farmers will need help to adapt to the new conditions, and we will continue to provide assistance.

    It will become increasingly important for farmers to obtain a greater proportion of their income from the market. We will encourage farmers, retailers and manufacturers to work together to increase our share of the European food market.

    We are committed to reducing the burden of regulation on business in general, and farming in particular. We will not accept UK farmers being put at a disadvantage by EC laws being applied differently in other countries.

    Responsible farmers have always combined efficient farming with care for the countryside. We will continue to encourage this approach through schemes to protect landscape and habitats of special importance. We will also maintain direct support for farming in the Less Favoured Areas in ways which encourage good environmental practice

    We will seek a reform of the CAP which brings agriculture closer to the market; reduces the costs to taxpayers and consumers; is implemented at a pace which the industry can bear; affects all Community farmers equitably, regardless of size or location; and recognises the importance of environmental protection.

    We will build on the producer marketing initiatives which we have already launched, including the Group Marketing Grant.

    We will assist the Milk Marketing Board’s move to a new structure which will be better able to protect the interests of producers and consumers in the Single Market.

    We will publish target response times for grant and licence applications made to the Ministry of Agriculture.

    We will take forward proposals for radical liberalisation of the agricultural tenancy laws in order to make more land available for rent, especially for new entrants.

    We will enforce effective pollution control regulations while helping farmers to meet the high standards required.

    We will press for an agreement in the EC’s Agricultural Council which will allow us to provide financial encouragement for organic agriculture.

    FORESTRY

    Forestry is a traditional rural industry, which also affects the landscape, and gives pleasure to millions of people. The needs of a successful industry, landscape conservation, and public access must all be accommodated; and we will reorganise the Forestry Commission to reflect these objectives more effectively.

    We will plant a new national forest in the Midlands and community forests elsewhere.

    We will review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment.

    We will produce guidance on the preparation of local Indicative Forestry Strategies designed to encourage new woodlands, while steering planting away from sensitive areas.

    FISHING

    Fishing is a vital industry in many parts of our islands. Many fishermen have done well in recent years but they now face great pressure on the fish stocks. This means that fishing quotas are likely to fall in coming years in order to preserve the long-term future of the fisheries. We will continue to work for the profitable and sustainable future of our fishing fleet.

    We are determined to see that the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy protects the interests of UK fishermen and retains our share of the Community’s fishing opportunities.

    We will introduce a balanced package of measures, including decommissioning and controls on fishing activity, to conserve fish and safeguard the future of the industry.

    RURAL JOBS AND SERVICES

    Changes in agriculture and other traditional industries will affect employment opportunities in the countryside. We will continue to target help through the Rural Development Commission, and ask the RDC to review the Rural Development Areas to ensure that its efforts are targeted on the areas of most need. We are committed to developing tourism in ways which provide all-year-round jobs and bring benefit to less well-known parts of our countryside, without damaging the environment. We have recently published new planning policy guidance which makes it clear how the countryside can benefit from new businesses and jobs, if the location and design of development are handled with sensitivity

    In local government, many of our shire counties and districts have led the way in raising the quality of public service. Local post offices, local transport and local schools all have an important role to play in sustaining rural life.

    We will consult on our recently published draft planning policy guidance designed to provide a clear framework for decisions on developments to aid tourism.

    We will widen the availability of the Rural Development Commission’s successful Redundant Buildings Grant Scheme, and strengthen other RDC programmes.

    We will maintain our special programmes to promote affordable homes in rural areas.

    We are fully committed to maintaining a national network of post offices.

    We will continue to assist local authorities who want to subsidise rural transport.

    We will enable village schools that wish to apply for Grant-Maintained status to do so in small groups, thus enabling them to share management tasks while still enjoying the benefits of independence.

    The expansion of GP fund-holding will bring particular benefits to rural areas because of the convenience of different services – such as physiotherapy and consultant appointments – being offered in the GP’s surgery.

    CARING FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE

    Some of our finest landscapes are designated as National Parks. All National Park authorities will become independent Boards, which will make it easier for them to carry out their tasks effectively The New Forest will be given a statutory status which will give it as great a level of protection as any National Park.

    Last summer the Government launched an experiment in Countryside Stewardship’. This aims to conserve, enhance and re-create fine landscapes so that they may be enjoyed and appreciated by the public. The response from farmers, landowners and environmental bodies has been very positive. We therefore propose to expand the scheme and to introduce a new scheme to preserve hedgerows – a much valued feature of the English landscape, and a haven for wildlife.

    The Government endorsed and supported the Countryside Commission’s target designed to bring 120,000 miles of rights of way into good order by the end of the century.

    At parish level, individuals can work together either to safeguard the character of their local village, or to improve its appearance. Local action can also preserve local wildlife and habitats. Under the Rural Environmental Action Scheme, grants of up to £2,000 per project will be available to support local environmental action.

    The Government is keen to promote the fullest possible use of inland waterways for leisure, recreation and amenity, in the regeneration of inner cities and for freight transport where appropriate. But we recognise that the various uses of canals and rivers must be properly managed to protect the character and environment of the waterways.

    We will expand the Countryside Stewardship Scheme to cover the conservation of historic landscapes, meadows, pasture and hedgerows. Public access to qualifying schemes will be encouraged.

    We will introduce a Hedgerow Incentive Scheme to help preserve hedgerows of particular historic, landscape or wildlife importance.

    We will contribute to the Countryside Commission’s new Parish Path Partnership designed to stimulate local maintenance and improvement schemes.

    We will continue to support the development and redevelopment of our canals, as well as enhancing the environmental standards of our waterways.

    THE ENVIRONMENT

    The Conservative Party’s commitment to the environment is beyond doubt. Other parties promise the earth. We have taken action – both nationally and internationally – to preserve it.

    Environmental protection can impose financial costs on producers, consumers and taxpayers, so we must make sure the threat of damage is a real one. But we also accept the precautionary principle – the need to act, where there is significant risk of damage, before the scientific evidence is conclusive. And we recognise that higher environmental standards can offer new opportunities for business.

    We published the first comprehensive White Paper on the Environment in 1990. It covered everything from the stratosphere to the street corner. We will continue to publish annual progress reports.

    This Conservative Government has taken a lead in working to protect the ozone layer. We will strive to accelerate the eradication of ozone depleting substances.

    One of the most important issues facing all countries is the threat of global warming. Effective action to combat global warming must be international action. Again we have taken a lead. The Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce his intention to attend the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro this June. We have said that we will consider stabilising our CO2 emissions earlier than our existing conditional target of 2005. We have promised to provide new and additional resources to help the developing countries to tackle their environmental problems.

    Within Britain, and ahead of other European countries, we have introduced the concept of integrated pollution control.

    We have set up, for the first time, powerful co-ordinating machinery within Whitehall to ensure that environmental considerations are given due weight in all decision-making.

    We are committed to openness on environmental matters. We support the establishment of a European Environment Agency to provide a Europe-wide environmental database. We believe that the public should have access to information held by the pollution control authorities. Public registers are now provided by bodies such as the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution.

    We will establish a new Environment Agency which will bring together the functions of the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution and the waste regulation functions of local authorities.

    The new EA will have a statutory duty to publish an annual State of the Environment report.

    Within the European Community we will press for the introduction of integrated pollution control on the UK model.

    TOWARDS THE MILLENNIUM

    A more prosperous Britain can afford to be ambitious. We can aspire to excellence in the arts, broadcasting and sport. We can use our increased leisure time, energy and money, to improve life for ourselves and our families. The National Lottery we propose to introduce can be used to restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride.

    National Lotteries have been found useful at several times in our history. The British Museum was founded out of the proceeds of such a lottery. Fourteen years ago, a Royal Commission recommended the creation of a National Lottery in Britain to provide extra money for deserving causes. The case has become even stronger as British people gain more opportunities to participate in foreign lotteries – thus increasing the risk that funds which we could put to good use in Britain will be diverted abroad.

    We believe a well-run, carefully controlled form of national lottery would be popular, while raising money for many good causes.

    We will canvass views on how such a lottery should be run and controlled, and how it would fit within the pattern of charitable fund-raising in Britain.

    We believe that the funds generated by a National Lottery should be used to enhance the life of our nation. People who enjoy the arts, sport, Britain’s heritage and fine countryside could all benefit from the proceeds from a National Lottery. Charities, right across the country and covering such areas as medical research, will also be potential beneficiaries.

    THE MILLENNIUM FUND

    We will be consulting widely on the best way to distribute the proceeds of a lottery. But we have decided that part of the proceeds should be put aside, year by year, into a Millennium Fund specifically dedicated to projects which will commemorate the start of the twenty-first century and will be enjoyed by future generations.

    We therefore propose to introduce a National Lottery from 1994, which would help provide funds for a number of good causes in the artistic, sporting, heritage and charitable fields – and from which some funds would be put aside for a Millennium Fund.

    The Millennium Fund could be used, for example:

    To restore the fabric of our nation: our great inheritance of buildings which symbolise and enrich our national life.

    To help endow our cities and regions with facilities to enhance the celebration of United Kingdom 2000, such as the sporting facilities Manchester would need to host the 2000 Olympics.

    To help another major city – chosen by competition – to hold an international trade fair designed to be a showcase of British innovation for the twenty-first century.

    To enable voluntary groups and local communities to bid for funding for their own Millennium projects for local restoration schemes, or for improving the amenities of canals and rivers, as a source of enjoyment for local people and a habitat for wildlife.

    To provide Millennium bursaries for young people (and newly retired people) offering their time, energy and commitment to schemes designed to change the face of the United Kingdom by the year 2000.

    THE ARTS

    Britain has a great artistic heritage and a lively contemporary arts scene. The arts have flourished in recent years, with growing attendance at theatre, opera, dance and arts festivals.

    We have supported this by increasing the public funding of the arts, by 60 per cent in real terms since 1979, and introducing new incentives to personal giving. The arts have also forged new partnerships with local authorities, businesses and private patrons. Business sponsorship in particular has expanded hugely.

    We have set up new Regional Arts Boards and supported the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils in order to diversify and enrich cultural life throughout the country.

    We have financed the European Arts Festival to be held throughout Britain during our Presidency of the Community in the second half of this year, as well as the first National Music Day in June.

    In this year’s Budget, we announced further tax relief on film-making in this country. Our aim is to make the performing arts, museums and our heritage accessible to all. We will encourage the young to become involved and will facilitate access for the disabled.

    The National Lottery will provide a new source of finance for the arts.

    We will maintain support for the arts and continue to develop schemes for greater sponsorship in co-operation with business and private individuals.

    We will re-examine the role of the Arts Council, as many of its functions are now carried out regionally.

    We will continue our support of libraries as educational, cultural and community centres, and urge local authorities to keep up standards. We will complete the new British Library building for which we have provided £450 million.

    SPORT

    Success in sport is a source of national pride. Enjoyment of sport can enrich every life. We have given strong support to the Sports Council and its efforts to raise participation in sport. We actively support Manchester’s bid to bring the Olympic Games to Britain.

    We want to restore the good image of football. Tough action has cut down football hooliganism. We have helped to establish the Football Trust, which now devotes £20 million a year to improving the safety of grounds.

    Under the National Curriculum all primary and secondary age pupils will follow a course of PE. All pupils will be taught to swim by the age of 11.

    We will continue to encourage private sector sponsorship of sport. We will encourage more effective use of local sport and leisure facilities through compulsory competitive tendering. We want to see more dual use of school playing fields and halls and will give schools more freedom in their management.

    We are asking Local Education Authorities not to make sales of school playing fields in future unless there is no evidence of long-term need.

    Sport, too, will benefit from the resources generated by the National Lottery

    We will actively support Britain’s bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games in Manchester. We will provide £55 million towards the preparation of the site and key facilities in the first stage of the bid, and we will ensure that the project, whether successful or not, contributes to the effective regeneration of East Manchester.

    We will set up a new Business Sponsorship for Sport scheme. This is expected to raise £6 million in its first year to support local and youth sport.

    OUR HERITAGE

    Public interest and involvement in Britain’s heritage has never been greater. We have created in the past decade English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund to give greater focus and drive to the Government’s policies. The National Trust and private owners take a leading part in preserving our almost unrivalled heritage. Government will work in partnership to secure our heritage for the benefit of future generations.

    Our cathedrals are among our national glories. We therefore launched the Cathedral Repair Grant Scheme in April 1991, providing £11.5 million over three years.

    We have increased, to £12 million, the grant to the NHMF for the purchase of historic properties, objects and collections. The Government also provides help to private owners through English Heritage repair grants, and tax relief in return for commitments on upkeep and public access.

    We want to preserve the special character of our old town and city centres. We will encourage councils to ensure that new developments are in character with the past; to maintain buildings of importance to the character of towns and cities; to limit unnecessary street furniture and signs; and to plant trees and preserve historic patterns and open spaces.

    The National Lottery will also provide funds for the preservation of our heritage.

    We will continue to provide substantial financial assistance for the protection and preservation of the heritage.

    Together with the heritage agencies, we will work to make heritage sites accessible to the public.

    BROADCASTING

    We are proud of our record of extending choice, encouraging new producers and maintaining high standards in broadcasting. We opened the way to the setting-up of Channel 4, independent radio, satellite television and multi-channel cable TV networks. The 1990 Broadcasting Act means that three new independent radio services and a fifth television channel will be set up during the next Parliament.

    Over two million homes already receive satellite TV We have now licensed well over a hundred cable TV networks and this new industry expects to invest £3,000 million over the next five years. In coming years, British viewers will have an increasing choice of channels and programmes. The new and sophisticated cable networks will open the way not only to new telecommunication services, but also to the spread of emerging technologies such as high definition television.

    We attach great importance to the work of the Broadcasting Standards Council, which we set up under the 1990 Act. All television and radio companies accept the need to maintain standards of taste and decency in their treatment of sex and violence and their use of bad language.

    The European Community regulates standards in satellite broadcasts originating from each Member State. We were one of the first countries to ratify a new Council of Europe convention applying similar rules to all its Member States. We also, in the Broadcasting Act, brought in sanctions against the transmission of offensive satellite broadcasts from abroad, and made it an offence for advertisers and equipment suppliers to support such programmes.

    Independent television producers are benefiting from the requirement put on the BBC and ITV to commission a quarter of all their programmes, excluding the news, from outsiders. There are now great opportunities for independent producers to sell their programmes to new television channels and international markets, and there is much greater choice for viewers as a result.

    In 1996, the BBC’s Charter comes up for renewal. This will be considered against the background of the much more varied and competitive broadcasting environment which our policies have created. It is important that there should be a wide public debate about the future direction the BBC should take.

    We will back the work of the Broadcasting Standards Council and remain vigilant about ensuring high standards in satellite broadcasts from abroad.

    We will publish a discussion paper on the future of the BBC recognising its special responsibilities for providing public service broadcasting.

    A UNITED KINGDOM

    The United Kingdom is far greater than the sum of its parts. Over many centuries its nations have worked, and frequently fought, side by side. Together, we have made a unique mark on history. Together, we hold a special place in international affairs. To break up the Union now would diminish our influence for good in the world, just at the time when it is most needed.

    Nationalist plans for independence are a recipe for weakness and isolation. Higher taxes and political uncertainty would deter investment and destroy jobs. The costly Labour and Liberal devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales have the same drawbacks. They do not intend to bring about separation, but run that risk. They could feed, but not resolve, grievances that arise in different parts of Britain. They would deprive Scotland and Wales of their rightful seats in the United Kingdom Cabinet, seats the Conservatives are determined to preserve. We believe strongly that we should go on working together in full partnership in a Union that has served every part of the United Kingdom well.

    The plans for devolution put forward by the other parties would have a grave impact not just on Scotland and Wales, but also on England. They propose new and costly regional assemblies in England, for which there is no demand. We will oppose all such unnecessary layers of government.

    The Union has brought us strength both economically and politically Yet it has preserved the historic and cultural diversity of our islands. Our constitution is flexible, fair and tolerant. It has made this country one of the best places in which to live, work and bring up our children. These benefits cannot be tossed away lightly. We will fight to preserve the Union, a promise which only the Conservatives can give at this election.

    SCOTLAND

    Scotland has achieved an economic and cultural regeneration over the past 13 years. The Scottish economy has responded vigorously to the policies we have introduced to liberate enterprise, and many more people are now saving, investing and owning their homes. The public services are better funded and more efficient. There has been a flowering of Scottish culture.

    Scotland enjoys a rich and distinct tradition and her own institutions, which we have preserved and strengthened. Scotland has its own framework for the encouragement of enterprise, investment and training; its own education system which continues to excel, with more pupils leaving school better qualified and more going on to further and higher education; its own health budgets which deliver high standards of care; and its own glorious inheritance of buildings and countryside.

    A separate Manifesto for Scotland sets out our record in detail and our proposals for building on these achievements. In this document, therefore, we list only a selection.

    Business in Scotland has received a boost from our creation of Scottish Enterprise and the Local Enterprise Companies. We have formed Scottish Trade International to help our exporters, as Locate in Scotland does for inward investors. To assist business further, we will complete the harmonisation of business rates in Scotland with those in the rest of the country.

    The massive bureaucracies and layers of local government have few supporters in Scotland. We will continue to press local authorities to provide the value for money and the quality of services that people expect. We will press ahead with the reform of the current burdensome system of local government by introducing single tier councils throughout Scotland.

    We will continue to strengthen Scotland’s education system for the benefit of parents, pupils and teachers. We will respond to the proposals of the Howie Committee to ensure that upper secondary education matches the best in Europe. We will continue to increase the number of places in higher and further education and will complete our reforms of the system.

    We will extend our reforms to improve NHS patient care in Scotland. Scotland has led the way in setting limits to waiting-times for operations and will now be reducing these further.

    We are creating a new body, Scottish Natural Heritage, with overall responsibility for conserving the natural environment. We will go further, and will create a Scottish Environmental Protection Agency to bring together powers to ensure the quality of our air, rivers and bathing waters.

    WALES

    Since 1979, the economy of Wales has changed spectacularly With only 5 per cent of the United Kingdom’s population, Wales has consistently enjoyed 20 per cent of its inward investment. New industries have sprung up. Self-employment has risen by two-thirds. Welsh manufacturing now has the highest productivity of any part in the United Kingdom.

    Land made derelict by old industries has been reclaimed on a massive scale. The Cardiff Bay development and the Ebbw Vale Garden Festival are outstanding examples, together with the Programme for the Valleys.

    Since 1979, we have spent more than £3,000 million on roads in Wales. Spending on health has increased by 60 per cent in real terms since 1979. We have spent more than £5 million on our radical Waiting Times Initiative, leading to the treatment of 35,000 extra patients. In school we are spending nearly half as much again, in real terms per pupil, as in 1979. And there has been an enormous expansion in the training budget.

    More Welsh homes – 72 per cent – are owned by those who live in them than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Since the ‘Right to Buy’ was introduced in 1980, we have enabled almost 90,000 council and housing association tenants to buy their own homes.

    A separate Manifesto, in both English and Welsh, sets out our full programme for building on these achievements for Wales.

    We will set up a Welsh Economic Council to bring together the various bodies with interests in inward investment, tourism and small business to advise the Secretary of State.

    We aim to remove all significant dereliction from Wales by the end of the new Parliament.

    We will promote the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, in order to protect the countryside and those who earn their livelihood there.

    We will give further resources to our Rural Initiative. And we will continue to support hill farmers through the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances.

    We will continue to invest heavily in road improvements, including the second Severn Bridge, completing the M4 in South Wales and the M5 in North Wales.

    We will continue with our record hospital building programme.

    We will continue to offer generous funding for Housing for Wales and concentrate our efforts on the special needs of rural Wales. All major publicly funded housing developments will make adequate provision for the less well off.

    We will introduce a new Welsh Language Act.

    We will publish a White Paper on local government reform this autumn with a view to establishing unitary authorities, based on the historic counties and county boroughs. We will ensure a full role for Community Councils under these arrangements.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    We have upheld our pledge that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of the people who live there. It is a pledge that only the Conservative and Unionist Party can give. Conservative candidates are standing in our name and in that cause.

    Our overriding objective in Northern Ireland is to eliminate the evil of terrorism. This requires progress in four areas: security, economic, social and political. The security forces in Northern Ireland perform their duties with courage and professionalism. They are entitled to expect all the necessary encouragement, and legal and material support from the Government. Under the Conservatives, the strength of the RUC has been increased, while the Emergency Provisions Act 1991 contains new powers to combat terrorist funding.

    Northern Ireland is sharing in the economic transformation of the United Kingdom as a result of Conservative policies. Belfast is attracting significant new private investment. Harland and Wolff and Shorts have been successfully privatised. Major work is also under way to regenerate Londonderry and many of Ulster’s smaller towns. We will continue to pursue policies to encourage enterprise and bring new jobs – by contrast with Labour, whose plan for a national minimum wage would hit the Province particularly hard.

    In the new Parliament we will continue to seek to re-establish stable institutions of Government in Northern Ireland, so that powers currently exercised by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office can be returned to locally-elected politicians.

    We will always give the security forces our full backing within the rule of the law, and – against Labour opposition – ensure that they have the special powers they need to protect the whole community from violence.

    We will complete the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity, transfer the water and sewage services to the private sector, and examine ways of bringing private sector skills into the management of Northern Ireland Railways.

    We will continue to pursue policies designed to alleviate social needs, to promote equity of treatment and to widen the sense of common purpose which is growing in the Province.

    We will build on the close security co-operation that has been established with the Republic of Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

    We will continue to work strenuously for a political agreement which is acceptable to all the parties involved in the talks which the Secretary of State has had during the past year with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. They have provided a firm basis for political progress in Ulster, and for building new relationships both between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and in these islands as a whole.

    YOUR CHOICE AT THIS ELECTION

    This Election is about the future. Your future. Britain’s future. Our future role in the world. This is a time to go forward with conviction and confidence, not to go back to the failure and bitter controversies of the past.

    It is difficult to remember the Britain we were elected to transform in 1979. The country we did transform.

    It was a depressed and divided country, accustomed to failure and suspicious of change.

    During the succeeding Parliaments, we have curbed inflation, reformed trade union law; encouraged enterprise, cut taxes, modernised our education and training, improved the management of our health service, given more help to the needy, extended ownership, helped through our vigilance to end the Cold War, widened our influence in Europe, and earned the respect of the world.

    A decade of success ended with the problems of recession – a world recession. We know how tough it has been for many but we are poised to move forward again, lacking only the spark of confidence with which a Conservative victory would ignite recovery.

    THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

    The challenges of the 1990s demand a responsible and sure-footed government which understands the nature of the achievements of the 1980s and is ready to build successfully on them. A government committed to the principles of choice, ownership, responsibility and opportunity; committed to low inflation and low taxes; committed to better quality and value in our public services; committed to strong defences. Labour cannot provide that leadership. They lack experience, principle and vision.

    With Socialism everywhere in rout or retreat, it is unclear what the Labour Party stands for. For public consumption, Labour leaders purport to have jettisoned the principles of a life-time. But how much can they be trusted? How genuine is the conversion and what do they actually believe?

    It is clear only that Labour would threaten our achievements, undo our reforms and hamstring Britain. They would turn the clock back to policies that impoverished and divided our country. Socialism here and abroad is the regret of yesterday not the hope of tomorrow.

    ONLY THE BEST FOR BRITAIN

    We believe that only the best is good enough for Britain, and that the best will only be accomplished if we give the British people the freedom and the opportunity they need to succeed.

    We have a new leader, proven in office, and a new agenda – yet a tried set of principles. Those principles reflect our conviction that Britain has done best when the people of Britain have been given the personal incentive to succeed. National success has not been primarily the result of accidents of geography, landscape and natural resources. Nor has it been the result of government action and state control. Success has been won when we have given our people their head: when their natural skills, talents, energy; thrift and inventiveness have been released, not suppressed. That was true when this century began; it is still true as this century draws to its close.

    Britain should approach the Millennium with head and spirits high, with a strong economy, with a high standard of living, with generously endowed and well managed public services, and with secure defences. We want Britain to be an example to the world of how a free people can make the very best of their destiny. That prospect is within the grasp of us all. We must now make it happen.

    The prize is great, the hope invigorating, the dream attainable. We want, with you, to make the dream a reality. A Conservative Government will help you to achieve the very best. The very best future for Britain.

     

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Conservative Party Rally – 7 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at a Conservative Party Rally held in London, on Tuesday 7th April 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On Thursday Britain is going to return a Conservative government.

    It’s going to vote with us for the right to own. The power to choose. The will to win. And the future of Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, all around the world, countries are copying our ideas. It’s a Conservative world out there. We helped to create it. And I tell you this. We’re going to be a leader in it throughout the 90s.

    There’s no road back with Socialism. There must no be road back for Socialism. Not here. Not anywhere. Not the Lib road. Not the Lab road. Not the Lib-Lab road. Let Socialism back anywhere and, before you know it, that country will be on the road to nowhere. Socialism is not a road. It’s a dead end.

    Once before this century Britain stood alone. We stood then against tyranny and oppression. We are not going to stand alone in the 90s. Ignominiously defending Socialism and state control – when the rest of the world is rejecting it. That’s not the way for Britain. Not now. Not ever. Never.

    Ladies and gentlemen, when I became Prime Minister those 16 months ago there were three great tasks facing this country – to build the basis for recovery from the world recession; to see Britain through the negotiations at Maastricht; and to accomplish the liberation of Kuwait.

    Well, we achieved them all. And let me tell you how.

    Economic recovery

    Here in Britain we got inflation low – and falling. We reduced interest rates eight times. We reduced tax – and we’ll keep it low. We secured stable exchange rates in the ERM – and we’ll keep our position there. We gave managers the freedom and workers the incentive to strive and succeed. Those are the fundamentals you need for a strong recovery. The fruit of Conservative policies. And only Conservative policies will keep them safe.

    Don’t let anyone tell you that recovery isn’t there for the taking. Britain is ready now to move forward when others are sliding backwards. All around us the signs are there. There in housebuilding. There in exports. There in retail sales. Ninety-three per cent of businessmen say that Conservative policies are right for recovery. All that Britain is waiting for to achieve recovery is the confidence a Conservative victory will bring. So vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a small town in Holland, called Maastricht. Douglas Hurd and I know it well. That’s where we negotiated the future of Europe. Britain belongs in Europe. This Party took Britain into it. And that’s where our interests lie. But we have a voice in the moulding of Europe. We can, and must, use that voice. And use it for Britain. We don’t have to toady up to the European Commission, cap in hand. They work for us. Not us for them.

    This is a critical, crucial issue. While the commentators harp on about hung parliaments, the very future of our Parliament is at stake. It’s something on which I have spoken – and spoken from the heart – wherever I have been. And wherever I speak I hear the echoing voice of the British people coming back at me, loud and clear.

    I want to see a wider Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, a Community that will guarantee peace for our children in Eastern Europe as it does in the West. I want to see a Europe of nation states – built on the free market principles that have served us so well. I know where I want to lead this country – and lead our continent, too.

    And I know where we should not go. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t believe in a federal Europe. I don’t believe in a United States of Europe. And I don’t think the British people believe in it either.

    But that is where a Lib-Lab vote would take us. On the slow road or the fast road to a federal destiny.

    I profoundly believe that our Parliament at Westminster – our own sovereign Parliament for which our ancestors fought – should not be diminished by the growth of centralised power.

    The Lib-Lab Left would be the viceroys for Brussels in Britain. Yes-men who would sign up to a single currency, whether it is good for Britain or not. Yes-men who would sign up for that Social Chapter that we worked in Maastricht to hold at bay. More trade union power, more business costs, more lost jobs. It would be hugely damaging for Britain. But the wrong vote on Thursday could result in just that.

    A centralised Europe is not in the interests of the British people. It should never be accepted by the British people. But it’s there in the Liberal manifesto. And every Labour policy is designed to bring it about.

    So remember. Only a Conservative government will be wholeheartedly committed to prevent a federal Europe. That is the promise I give you – and a promise I will always keep.

    Europe is about the biggest test of leadership that we will face. It will be a time for cool heads. A time for steady hands. A time for experience. And that means it’s no time for Labour.

    The Gulf

    Let me turn to the third challenge – the Gulf. We didn’t succeed in the Gulf. They succeeded – our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen. They did it. They beat a ruthless dictator backed by one of the largest armies in the world. A man ready to use all the weapons of terror he had in his arsenal.

    I’ll tell you what defeated Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t that his forces were weak. It was that our forces were the best in the world. It was a miracle of planning. A masterpiece of execution. A model of professionalism. A matchless display of individual courage and dedication to duty. It was a privilege to go out there, as Prime Minister, and be among them. I salute them still.

    That’s the spirit of our forces wherever you find them. And wherever you find them -in the bleak South Atlantic, in the streets and the green fields of Ulster, or in the huge desert wastes of Kuwait – that spirit will never fail.

    Ten Tory truths

    There are 10 great reasons why we should be proud of our record and why the British people will return a Conservative government on Thursday.

    These 10 Tory truths are what the people have voted for – three times in succession. They are the policies they’ll get more of when we have a Conservative government back once more in power.

    Defence

    The first great Tory truth is strong defence. If there is one thing the next Conservative government will do, it is to see those young men and women in our armed forces are fully supported and properly equipped. You won’t find a Conservative government cutting spending on defence by a quarter, like Labour plan; still less by a half, like those unguided missiles, the Liberals.

    Don’t forget there have been many, including the present Leader of the Labour Party, who campaigned passionately against our stand on defence. What on earth is one to make of his defence policy? Now you CND, now you don’t. For him the United States posed – as he put it – a threat equal to that of the Soviet Union. What astonishing naivety from the man who claims to be capable of speaking for Britain abroad.

    There’s just one thing that he and his Labour friends have been consistent on in defence and foreign affairs. Being wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Always wrong in their judgments on the critical issues of our time.

    Which reminds me. Has anyone seen Gerald Kaufman lately? I haven’t checked with Scotland Yard whether he’s been reported as a missing person yet. I am getting a little concerned. Never mind we must try not to worry. And there is one bit of reassuring news. I have it on excellent authority – the brothers aren’t looking for him.

    Just as well. Since he’s the man the Labour Leader wants to appoint our principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he ever got the chance. Well, I’ve heard of some funny ideas in my time. But that’s quite ridiculous.

    On 1 July it is Britain’s turn to take over the Presidency of the European Community. Whatever would a Labour government say to the leaders of the world?

    Would the G7 listen to them about beating inflation, when Labour’s aim is to raise it here? No.

    Would Europe listen to them about building the Single Market, when they are planning to bring back regulation and control to Britain? No.

    Would Boris Yeltsin come to them for advice on dismantling socialism when their big idea is to turn back the clock and rebuild it here? No.

    Would our NATO allies listen attentively to the Labour Leader on nuclear policy, when he refuses to say whether he would build the fourth Trident or not? No.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Britain under Labour would become an international also-ran, pulling on the tatty red vest while everyone else is running in blue. Russia wouldn’t be turning to us for help; it would be turning away in horror. We would be peddling yesterday’s failed socialist nostrums, while all around us the nations were building a new world. I tell you this. Labour’s old ideas would sideline Britain in a new age. It would be a disaster. We will not let it happen.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we called this new world into being. It was a Conservative government that stood firm when it was needed. Faced with the communist threat, we stationed Cruise missiles here on British soil, while Labour fought tooth and nail to stop us. As a result the West won the Cold War, exported freedom and democracy to the slave states of the East, and lifted the curse of communism off the backs of 400 million people.

    This was a victory for the free world, free enterprise, for our ideals. There has never been such a breaking of the chains of slavery in the history of man.

    And where were our opponents when the battle for freedom was on? In the vanguard with us? No, not even skulking in the rear. Ladies and gentlemen, go out on Thursday and make sure that glorious part of our Conservative record is first and foremost in the minds of the people. And you might remind them that while all this was happening – Labour couldn’t be seen for dust.

    The free market

    The second great Tory truth – and it is no less crucial than the first – is that only on free market principles can you build growth in the good times and recovery in the bad. Don’t let us be mealy-mouthed about it. Look the people in the eye and tell them. About a rise in living standards for the average family man 20 times faster than Labour’s pathetic, miserable years. That’s £3,500 a year more, after inflation, for the average family to spend. That’s where the new cars, the holidays, the videos, the washing machines have come from. From the growing economy, the strong vibrant economy of these extraordinary Conservative years.

    We cut tax on business and individuals. We curbed trade union power. We brought inflation down. As a result the UK grew faster than France or Germany in the 1980s. Productivity grew faster than all the other main industrial countries. They won’t have been told that by the Lib-Lab gloom merchants. So you just go out and tell them out there.

    Unemployment? Yes, we hate it. I hate it. And beating it is what our economic policies are certain to do. But remember – Britain now has a higher proportion of our workforce in jobs than any other EC country except Denmark.

    Industry? Yes, it’s fighting the effects of recession, just like German industry, just like American industry. But it’s fit, competitive and when recovery comes it’s ready to go. The business leaders of Britain are praying for a Conservative victory. Ask anyone. They know where the new jobs will come.

    In a Conservative Britain our share of world trade in manufacturing is rising after a generation of decline. Our manufacturing exports in February reached an all-time record. You don’t hear those facts from the Labour Party and their hangers-on. But that is the real Britain. So get out and tell the people.

    These have been 13 of the finest years in the history of Britain. Let’s be proud, proud, proud, of what the British people have done. And let’s get on out there and tell them.

    Cutting tax

    And remind them of the third great Tory truth. Low tax creates wealth. So we cut income tax. We cut it, and cut it, and cut it, and cut it. We cut it, and cut it, and cut it again. Go out and remind them about it – and tell them how the Liberals and the Labour voted against us time after time. That’s the Lib-Lab record on tax cuts. No. No. No and no. And what’s the Lib-Lab promise on future tax cuts? Never, they say. Never. Never again. So tell the people the answer to give to those Lib-Lab canvassers. Never Lib. Never Lab. Never again.

    We started a movement in the 1980s that has swept the world. Now we are starting on the next stage of our mission – towards a 20 pence basic rate for all.

    Let’s not beat about the bush. Cutting taxes has been shown to be the greatest stimulus to economic growth and personal freedom there has ever been. Every pound we cut in tax is a pound more for people’s choice, a pound more to create work for others, a pound more to buy things for their families. Apologise for that? Never. It’s the greatest thing any government could do for the people. Build their freedom. And when we win on Thursday there will be more of it.

    Do you know what our opponents want people to feel when their taxes are cut? Guilty. They call it a bribe. Bribe? It’s people’s own money they are talking about. Bribe? It’s like the mafia talking of protection.

    Cutting taxes means leaving the working men and women of Britain with more of their money, more of the wealth they have created, more of the choices they have earned – by the sweat of their brow, and the ingenuity of their minds. They’ve earned it. They should keep it. And we’ll let them do so.

    That was the golden discovery of the 80s – more private wealth means more public wealth too. We cut income tax and spent more than ever before on the Health Service and on pupils in our schools.

    We Conservatives discovered that rich new seam of gold. We took the axe to the cold rockface of socialism. And we hewed out the secret for which generations had searched in vain – private wealth and public welfare, growing together. Wealth and welfare hand in hand – they are the twin pillars of the Tory temple. Don’t let the Lib-Lab left tear that temple down.

    In the next Parliament we’ll go on tax-cutting. We will make that our aim year by year. I want to extend the 20 pence tax band further and further up the income scale. More tax cuts for all. That’s how you provide more benefits for all. That is our basic Conservative belief.

    Controlling inflation

    The fourth great truth of the Tory years has been control of inflation. Inflation? It’s a technical word. There may be some in this country who don’t know what it means. But they can feel what it means. Under Labour in the 70s they had to live what it means.

    Retired people who had bought annuities seeing their life savings eaten away. Pensioners going into the supermarket and finding that week after week the prices were up. Businessmen, so worried about what the future might bring, that they hadn’t the hope to create new jobs, or the nerve to invest. And for the low-paid that corroding evil, when the money in the pay packet at the end of the week had been overtaken by the ever rising tide of prices. I remember it. You remember it. The people remember it. Never must we go back to those socialist years.

    We were elected to tackle inflation – and we did. Our rate is now below that of Germany for the first time since before man walked on the moon. We are now one of Europe’s low inflation countries. That’s a prize of which we could never have dreamed. So hammer it home on the doorsteps. You need Tory policies and Tory priorities to keep the menace of inflation in check.

    And tell them this as well. Our target for the next five years is stable prices – a world in which your money, your savings keep their value year on year every year. Isn’t that a prize worth winning? So tell the pensioners of Britain all about it.

    Trade Union reform

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll tell you a fifth Conservative truth. A successful economy depends on good industrial relations. Trade union reform was one of the most significant steps of the 80s. And never forget this. We did what they said was impossible – we ended the tyranny of trade union power. I don’t think the British public will want to see that power restored.

    But don’t think – don’t think for a moment – that the danger is past. ‘You’ll be all right, boys’, Mr Kinnock tells them. And they would. They pay the piper; they’d call the tune. I wonder if any of you have noticed the union shop stewards in your factory – the new spring they have in their step. They know. They remember the first great truth of Labour’s years. If Labour’s back, the unions are back.

    Flying pickets. Do you remember? We stopped them. Secondary strikes. Do you remember? We stopped them. The closed shop. Do you remember? We stopped it. Beer and sandwiches. Do you remember? We stopped them. Arthur Scargill? Do you remember. Margaret Thatcher stopped Arthur Scargill. Stopped him dead in his tracks – do you remember? – while Labour fiddled, floundered and flapped.

    And I’ll tell you someone else stopped them. The British worker stopped them. Sick of strikes. Sick of bullying. Sick of being denied the basic human right of a secret ballot on the right to work.

    It took guts. Courage. Do you remember?

    Well the British people are not ready to see the TUC limousines lined up in Downing Street. They don’t want to see the union bosses back. So let’s vote on Thursday to keep them where they should be – on the sidelines. A Labour Party dominated by the unions cannot, could not, and would not build recovery in Britain today.

    In the next Parliament we are going on with union reform. We are going to make sure that all pre-strike ballots are postal. We are going to require seven days’ notice of any strike. And we are going to give everyone in the land the right to take legal action against unions who interfere with public services through illegal disruption. A Labour vote gives you a Striker’s Charter. A Conservative vote gives you a Citizen’s Charter. That’s the difference. So go out and tell the people – and just see the backing you’ll get.

    A modern Health Service

    The sixth great task of the Conservative years has been to build a better, modern Health Service. Labour talk of care. We Conservatives act to care. That’s the difference between us. We have raised resources on health to over a half more than Labour ever spent. Increased nurses’ pay by a half, where Labour cut it. We are treating one-and-a-half million more in-patients, two million more out-patients every year. And we have 600 hospital building schemes of over £1 million; 400 more in design, planning, or build.

    The 1,000 Tory hospital projects. It is one of the proudest features of the Tory record. Despite Labour’s shameful record and shoddy lies, we have built a better and finer, yes and richer Health Service. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    In the next Parliament we will keep our Health Service the best in the world. Give it more resources year on year, every year. Go on with those reforms that Labour would scrap. Giving more power to family doctors to decide on the best treatment for their patients. Setting up the Trust Hospitals that have been such a success in treating more patients, cutting waiting lists and putting their community first. More treatment, less waiting. That’s the Conservative record. And I’ll tell you something. Labour know it. That’s why they lie their heads off about it.

    Better Schools

    The seventh Tory truth concerns better education. We took over a system frozen in the past, prey to left-wing ideas, obsessed with levelling down, bent on keeping parents in the dark.

    Now we have a National Curriculum that insists the right things are taught. A Parent’s Charter for parents’ rights. School management by headteacher, parents and governors, wherever they want it. Proper testing. Good pay for good teachers. The right for parents to choose the school they want.

    We are building a modern system. In the next five years it’s back to basics – and proud of it. So let’s tell the people.

    The Right to Own

    The eighth Tory truth – the spread of ownership. Four million new homeowners. Four-and-a-half million young people with personal pensions. Six million new owners of shares.

    That is the new wealth of Britain. It’s something we should passionately defend. In the next Parliament we want more people with homes of their own. More people with pensions of their own. More people with shares of their own. And we want each current owner to have more. We have the policies to extend the right to own across the whole nation. And, as we do it, we want to draw the sting of inheritance tax. Then more and more families can pass on the value of their homes and savings to their children and grandchildren. Aren’t those policies worth fighting for?

    It is that kind of ownership we stand for; the ownership Labour would undermine. Remember Red Wednesday when shares in water, gas, telecom, and electricity plunged by £1,300 million, just on the fear of a Labour government.

    If Labour were to win on Thursday, we would see a cut – almost overnight – in the value of homes, shares, pensions that would far outweigh those piffling promises of an extra two pence a week they claim they’d put in the pockets of some of the people while cutting the income of others by one sixth.

    It would be a massacre of the innocents by the ignorant. Perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth away from personal ownership that this country has seen. It is a nightmare prospect for family after family after family. Go out and warn the people. We in this Party will build the wealth of the people, not snatch it away.

    Privatisation

    The ninth Tory truth is that privatisation means wider wealth and better service. When we came to power the public sector was a huge loss-making dinosaur, a millstone round the country’s neck. Now that’s all changed. These are now great national assets. We’ve turned loss-makers into world leaders. We have created businesses, not owned by the state, but by the people who work in them. We have taken off the shackles of Whitehall – and handed responsibility to the managers. Our programme has been so successful that government throughout the world now look to this country. Go out and tell the people.

    Strong government

    The tenth truth, and by no means the least, is that great countries need strong government. We have provided it. In Britain and the world. Remember. That strong and decisive government would only have been possible under our present electoral system. Don’t let’s abandon it now.

    PR is no more than a ramp to permanent representation for the Liberals in power. For Neil Kinnock, until last week its strongest opponent, it’s the back door to power in Britain. Because he knows he can’t get in the front. It is nothing to do with fair play; everything to do with power play. And we will have none of it.

    The 90s are a critical decade. We will need strong government then, as never before. Look at the confusion in Italy, Belgium, or Israel that PR has brought. Look at the way that extremists can gain a decisive influence, last week in France, this week in Germany, and shudder at the prospect of the Lib-Lab pact.

    If we had had PR, instead of strong government, since 1979, there would have been:

    * no cuts in income tax;

    * no sale of council houses;

    * no privatisation and none of the six million new shareholders;

    * no National Curriculum in our schools and no choice for parents;

    * no end to the closed shop;

    * no nuclear shield in Britain against the communist threat;

    * no authority for a swift response to the aggression of General Galtieri or Saddam Hussein.

    The Lib-Lab Left would have prevented them all. If we hadn’t had leadership government, strong government, there would have been no revival of Britain at all. So I say to the country – steer clear of Labour’s Trojan Horse to power.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we will need strong government in the 90s. And, with a Conservative government, you will get it.

    The Contrast: Principle and Change

    To be successful in life and in government I believe you need firm principles and clear targets. That has always been the strength of this Party. We know which stars we navigate by and the ports we aim for.

    But what of our opponents? The Labour leader calls for a change. That’s hardly surprising. He’s changed so often you wouldn’t expect him to change the habit now.

    But the public should ask – just how seriously can you take his present stands? Can we trust it – any further than the lifelong principles he jettisoned yesterday? Or the opinion polls he reads tomorrow?

    Look at PR. He was always against. Now, in the latest, most cynical change of all he lurches towards it, grasping desperately at a prospect of power. Power before principle. Does he think the public can’t see what he is up to? What he’s down to? He was unable to answer when asked on television where exactly he stood. Well, let Doctor Major diagnose the problem. It’s the ‘anything for office’ syndrome. And let Doctor Major prescribe. There is only one known cure for this disabling condition. Five years on the Opposition benches.

    As Prime Minister you meet challenges; you face crises. That’s when principle and experience guide you. When no principle is so great it can’t be quietly forgotten – when no belief is so important it cannot be dropped, to what principles, to what beliefs, would the Labour leader resort when the going is tough? Labour would be a rudderless ship in a storm-tossed sea. Or they would – under pressure, slide back to socialist type.

    The Tory Nineties

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want a Britain where everyone has a chance to succeed. Where effort is rewarded. Where low taxes leave people free to choose how to spend their money – and where we have stable prices so that money keeps its value. Where everyone – yes, everyone – feels they belong. Where we all own a piece of Britain and have a stake in its future. Where people can pass on the savings of a lifetime’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    We are building a country where our public services set the standard for the world; where our great, free National Health Service gets better year by year. Where every child leaves school well-qualified for life; where more and more young people go into higher education, and people can secure the training that is suited to them.

    I want a Britain that offers dignity and security to older people; where people feel safe on the streets and secure in their homes; where our inner cities are reborn and our countryside renewed.

    I want a Britain where there’s a helping hand for those who need it. Where people can get a hand-up, not just a hand out. A country that is fair and free from prejudice – a classless society, at ease with itself.

    That’s the country I want. I want Britain to stand proud and respected in the world. Well-defended and well-admired. And I will stand firm always, as I have promised you, for Britain’s national interests in a wider Europe.

    I also stand with passion and with commitment for the unity of our country. I tell you, as your Prime Minister, there is no issue more crucial at this election than the defence of the unity of our United Kingdom. Only this Conservative and Unionist Party is pledged to do that. Our opponents would take us down a road that would lead to the parting of Scotland from our union. No greater disaster; no more irresponsible policy could be imagined. So remember – there is only one Party which will keep our Kingdom united. The Conservative Party.

    Conclusion

    And let me tell you something else I will fight for. It is for the future of this great country. The country I have travelled across in the last four weeks – from the Channel to the Highlands and the North Sea to Wales. A country with the proudest history, the finest culture, the most distinguished scientists, inventors and businessmen of any country in the world. But it is a country with something else greater yet – the British people themselves. I have been among them everyday these last four weeks. Independent of spirit. Generous of heart. Quiet in voice. Resolute in action. A people with a ready eye for what is genuine and what is false.

    No man or woman could have a higher honour than to serve this country as its Prime Minister. No-one knows more than me how much I owe to this country. How much I vow to give back to it for what it has done for me. I have lived life in many stations. I believe I understand what makes the heart of Britain beat. What inspires all those millions of families across this land who go out each day to work and strive and create for the future. They are the people who are carrying the long, glorious story of Britain forward across the years. It is their dreams and ambitions that are the building blocks of an even better future for us all.

    This country needs a government that will nourish and sustain their ambitions, widen their choices, throw open the great gates of opportunity, and help the whole nation march through. That can only be a Conservative government, ambitious not for the state but for the people it is its duty to serve.

    I have only just begun the tasks I have set myself. On Thursday I ask this nation to look at my record of service and my ideals for the future, to place their trust in me, and in this Party that has served them so well and faithfully. I set no bound to my ambitions for this country or its people. I want to raise the standard of Britain higher still and higher yet.

    I know that we have in our grasp a truly glorious future. It is what the whole nation has worked for these last few years. Let us go out together on Thursday. Let us seize that opportunity. And make that golden future ours.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Conservative Party Rally – 5 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at a Conservative Party Rally held at Wembley, in London, on Sunday 5th April 1992. The speech was titled “The Threat to the Integrity of Britain”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to turn first to a key issue at the very heart of this Election. It is the sleeping issue – but it matters more than anything. It hasn’t been much talked about, but it’s always been there. It is something that grips our very being as the British people. I speak of the unity of the United Kingdom – the rock of our constitution. We take it for granted – but at this Election it is at risk.

    Let me therefore speak to you simply, directly and, through you, to every part of the country. As your Prime Minister, yes, but as a Briton, too. Let me speak in plain, unvarnished terms.

    At this Election there are three great constitutional battles that we are fighting. These matters go way beyond Party allegiance. They affect the birthright of us all. There is no division in the British flag between red and blue. In it, and under it, we are one people. But if we take the wrong decision next Thursday, all that could change.

    The first issue arises in Scotland. At this Election, there is a Nationalist party which proposes to tear Scotland away from our union. It is a negative case, a socialist case, a separatist case. It is the fast route to divorce between two great nations. The exchange of Great Britain for a little Scotland and a lesser union. Our admirers and our rivals across the world would think we were mad.

    The Labour and Liberal parties see short-term advantage in seeking to appease, not to wrestle with, this demon. They propose a new tax-raising parliament in Scotland. Such a plan would shake the balance of our constitution. Set us on the road to bitterness, conflict and separation.

    There will be no further debate, no referendum. Just a headlong plunge into something of disastrous consequence to Britain. Scarcely a soul in England or Wales is aware of it. But, in the consequences of these changes, our whole nation would be caught. We could be no longer a United, but a Disunited, Kingdom – an outcome which would diminish us all.

    To imperil the tried and successful Union of our four nations for Party benefit, as our opponents do, is unforgiveable. To toss aside the Union through which, over three hundred years, this country has moulded the history of the world. That is unbelievable.

    Can you, dare you, conceive of it? Consider the outcome. The walls of this island fortress that appear so strong, undermined from within, the United Kingdom untied, the bonds that generations of our enemies have fought and failed to break, loosened by us ourselves. But that is what is at risk on 9 April. Labour and Liberal policy could break up Britain.

    This Party, and this Party alone, will defend our union. I ask you – go out and tell the people of the danger we face. If I could summon up all the authority of this office I would put it into this single warning – the United Kingdom is in danger. Wake up, my fellow countrymen. Wake up now, before it is too late.

    Europe

    That is the first threat to our constitution. But there are two more, hardly less grave than the first.

    The next relates to that independence as a nation for which our ancestors toiled and fell. It relates to the nature of the European community that we want to build.

    I have never been in any doubt that our political and economic interests require us to be at the heart of Europe. We must be at the heart of Europe in order to play our full part in the debates that will shape its future.

    For there is a choice about that future. We can – as we wish to do – build a Europe of nation states, based on the free market principles that have served us well. That is the right Europe for which we will continue to work.

    But there is an alternative – to move towards a federal Europe, towards a United States of Europe, in which power is centralised and influence is focused in Brussels and the institutions of the Community, not in the Parliaments of the nations. That would be the wrong Europe.

    The people of Britain do not look for such a Europe. So they must awake again – and realise that at this Election Labour implicitly and Liberals explicitly intend to move towards a federal Europe.

    I profoundly believe that is not in the interests of this country and should never be accepted by the people of this country. Let them think then for whom they cast their vote.

    I do not believe that the people of Britain realise the scale of this danger – the Lib-Lab left would not speak for Britain in Brussels; they would act for Brussels in Britain. They are prepared to weaken Westminster, sign up to a single currency now, right or wrong, irrespective of the conditions in which it might be introduced at a later date. They would bring in the social chapter – that would strengthen trade union power, it would impose new costs on industry and, as a result, cost Britain jobs up and down the country.

    None of those policies is in the interests of the British people. None is in Britain’s interests. All of those polices are damaging. That is why we have rejected them.

    When Douglas Hurd and I, at Maastricht, refused to accept these ideas, Labour’s Mr Kaufman called it a ‘betrayal’. He is precisely wrong. It was not a betrayal to say ‘No’. It would have been a betrayal to say ‘Yes’. But this misguided Mr Kaufman is the Shadow Foreign Secretary – not that we’ve seen so much as his shadow at this election. The Labour Party will not let him speak at home for all of them – but they propose to send him abroad to speak for all of us.

    There are great issues at stake at this Election. They require a maturer judgment, fuller debate. I want partnership in Europe between nation states. But I do not want to see a United States of Europe. And the British do not want it either. But that’s what they will get if they are not careful next Thursday – a United States of Europe, Lib hook, Lab line, and socialist sinker.

    Proportional Representation

    But, ladies and gentlemen, the Lib-Lab threat does not only relate to our position in Europe. Here at home our opponents are dancing a minuet over the spoils of office that they have not won – and, for Britain’s sake, must not win. Almost casually, they are toying and trifling with a new voting system. One that would ensure permanent representation in power for the Left. Disproportionate representation for the smallest and most unpopular party that presented itself at the polls.

    They want us to have that system they use in Italy, Ireland, Belgium and Israel. Would that be in our interests? No. Would we have better government? No. We would have weaker Government. And we would have thrown away that link between the MP and the constituency that is such a precious feature of our Parliamentary system.

    But more than that. What would have happened if we had had PR in the 1980s? There would have been no reform of the trade unions, no privatisation, no sale of council houses, no income tax cuts, no nuclear shield against communism, no revival of Britain. There would have been no authority to take immediate action to regain the Falklands. No active support for the United Nations in military action against Saddam Hussein.

    Minority governments in a PR system could have been frustrated in all these things. And the Lib-Lab Left would have prevented them all.

    Let me make one thing clear. The other Parties may fiddle and flirt with constitutional change for party political gain. This Party will not. Let them put their Parties first and their country second. We will put the country first. First, last, and always. I will entertain no constitutional changes that will weaken the United Kingdom.

    The Success of Britain

    I tell you one thing that has really irritated me about this Election. It is the insatiable appetite of our opponents for running Britain down. Day after day, on subject after subject, in their view it’s Britain that’s always wrong – criticising manufacturing industry that is beating export records; rubbishing a Health Service that is treating more patients better than ever before.

    I happen to believe – and I suspect most people in this country do too – that this is a great country. I happen to believe the British people should be proud of what they’ve achieved: we the country, and we the Conservative Party. In 1979 we picked the country up off the floor where the Labour Party and their trade union friends had left it. We are not about to listen to lectures from them about all that has been done since then.

    We have the greatest literature, the proudest history, the finest countryside, the best sporting tradition, the most brilliant scientists and inventors of any country in the world. What is our job? Our job is to keep it that way. Keep Britain the best. That’s what Conservatism stands for. And that’s what we are going to do.

    We have a golden tapestry of talents in this country. We always have had. And we want them all to stay here. They will – so long as we give people the room for ambition and the incentive to succeed.

    And we have a truly open society. Don’t believe for one moment the propaganda of our opponents. We have made this a country in which people from all backgrounds can rise to the top in their chosen professions. And you only have to look round this room to see how many have done just that.

    The biggest disaster for this country would be if we brought back an old- fashioned Socialism still speaking the language of class envy and division. We are on the road to the classless society that I want to see. For heaven’s sake, don’t turn back: let’s fight on to build it.

    No Return to Socialism

    Ladies and gentlemen, the choice at this Election could not be clearer. It is whether we continue with the work of the 1980s in changing Britain. Or whether we – and we alone in the world – turn back the clock.

    I know that over the years we in Britain have sometimes been the odd man out. But it would be more than odd, it would be stark staring mad for Britain – and Britain alone – to go back to Socialism, when it’s being kicked from doorstep to dustbin in almost every country of the world.

    All the world is turning to the free enterprise policies in which we Conservatives believe. The ‘British disease’ of trade union militancy, constant strikes, headlong decline; it’s a thing of the past now. This Conservative Government curbed it, then cured it. Now people in every continent are queuing up for a dose of the British cure – low tax, deregulation, private ownership, trade union controlling policies – that’s another export from Britain that the whole world is buying.

    Are we alone about to reject it? Will this be one more great British invention which all the world copies, while we throw away the patent? Is that what you want for your children, ladies and gentlemen? For other countries to race ahead of us, using our ideas? What folly that would be. We must never let it happen. NEVER. We must fight with every fibre of our being to prevent it. And we will.

    But it could happen. No other country could do it to us. But we, the British people, could inflict this damage on ourselves. We could take that sword of Socialism and fall on it. And if we did our country would fall with it. The choice will be yours on Thursday.

    On that crucial day we could decide that Britain will be the last refuge of a dying and discredited Socialist creed. We could lurch blindly down a cul-de-sac that by the middle of the ’90s would make Britain the last left-wing country left.

    And we would be left. Left out, left behind, left impoverished in the most competitive decade the world has ever known.

    In our country, we are one of the cradles of competition and enterprise, and, were we to abandon them, we would be a laughing stock in a world now singing the anthems of ownership and freedom. But here at home it would be no laughing matter. We would be left adrift.

    Ladies and gentlemen, can you believe that the people of Britain will make such a colossal mistake? I know them better.

    These are the people who in the ’80s won the Cold War, saw off the trade union barons, achieved the biggest rise in living standards this country has ever known.

    Can you believe they won’t see what the people of America, Germany and Japan have always seen, what the people of Sweden, Denmark and France now see, what the people of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia don’t need to see? That Socialism cannot be trusted, and ought not to be voted for.

    Of course, they can see. I know the mood of the people. Unlike some of my opponents, I’ve been out there amongst them, day after day after day from the beginning of this campaign.

    They can see why Socialism ought not to be voted for. Because one of the duties of Government is to take – and to hold to – the decisions that are right in the long-term. And this the modern Labour Party has never been able to do.

    They have changed their minds – or claim to have changed their minds – on all the crucial issues of our time – the market economy, nationalisation, devolution, Europe, and the necessary reforms to our great social institutions. It would be a nice change to find a subject on which they hadn’t changed, for a change.

    But above all they have wavered on defence. In the Cold War they campaigned to disarm in the face of the Soviet nuclear threat. It was Margaret Thatcher who insisted we install Cruise missiles here, while Soviet missiles were targeted on us. She was bitterly opposed by Labour, with their present Leader in the van. But she persevered. And because she did, fewer missiles are now pointing at us. Who was right? We were. Who was wrong? They were. And because of what we did we won the Cold War in Europe.

    But do the Labour Party acknowledge our success? Do they admit for a moment that their tactics would have lost the Cold War, not won it. No. Now the heat is off, now that others have won it, Mr Kinnock comes out boldly and claims he would stand firm. Welcome, but a bit late. That shows two things: that he was wrong before. And that he hasn’t even the courage of his own past lack of convictions. And who knows even now where he stands on the crucial question of the full Trident deterrent that Britain needs? His defence policy is a case of now you CND, now you don’t. And if you can’t trust his judgement on the defence of the realm, who knows what judgement we should trust? Ladies and gentlemen, because he has such a past, he doesn’t deserve to decide your future.

    The Road to Recovery

    I understand why some, who scorn the Labour Party, have been hesitating about joining our cause. I know what is in their minds. The difficulties caused for us – and for all the great economies of the world by the world recession. We have become used to record growth. It comes as a shock when we have to mark time. But you cannot wish away the business cycle. You cannot legislate against world conditions. What you have to do is to hang in there, get the basics right, and be ready to be first off the blocks when the world economy begins to move once more.

    That’s what we have done. I’ll tell you what you need for a strong recovery. You need low inflation. You need falling interest rates. You need low taxation. You need stable exchange rates. You need falling levels of debt. You need freedom for managers to manage, and incentives for workers to succeed. That’s what you need. And to get that you need a Tory Government in a Tory Britain.

    And to be strictly fair. Let me tell you what you need to stay in recession. You need higher taxes. You need higher inflation. You need higher interest rates. You need a weaker pound. You need policies that restore power to trade union bosses. You need a vendetta against the successful and the skilled. In other words, you need Labour.

    The message is simple. If you want to start recovery, stop Labour. If you want to stop recovery, start Labour.

    Ladies and gentlemen, all around us the signs of imminent recovery are there. There in the house-building industry. There in the growth of manufacturing exports – in February the highest in history. There in the growth of retail sales. There in the surveys of business opinion by the CBI. There in the fact that 93% of businessmen say Conservative policies are right for recovery. Just one in a hundred looks to Labour for a miracle cure. One in a hundred? We’re still looking for him, and we can’t find him. Perhaps he’s the result of the statisticians rounding up.

    I’ll tell you one thing about Britain today. We can expect a strong recovery. It may already have started. All the country is waiting for now is the confidence that would follow a Conservative victory. And on April 10th the whole world of industry and commerce will do two things. Breathe a sigh of relief that the threat of Socialism is gone – and then begin to invest.

    Don’t Throw It Away

    I warn the people. Don’t fall into Labour’s trap. Don’t sleep walk into Thursday. This is not a by-election. It will determine who forms a government on Friday and who governs our country for five years. Don’t let the short-term problems of recession, which so many other countries are feeling, blind you to the long-term truth. Don’t throw away the policies – the astoundingly successful policies – of the last 13 years in an idle moment. Because once you have let them go, you can’t begin to get them back for another five years.

    Just remember. You don’t cut down a mighty oak at the start of spring because its leaves are yet to show. And you don’t turn from free enterprise to Socialism because the world economy has caught a cold.

    The Achievements of Conservative Britain

    In 13 years of Conservative Britain, free enterprise Britain, proud Britain, we have cut tax by eight pence in the pound; we have controlled inflation, and made the economy grow. As a result, the spending power of the same average family man has risen, even after allowing for inflation, by £68 a week – £3500 a year more for the family budget than under Labour.

    So let’s hear it for the new wealth of Britain and what this Government has created:

    * 1000 more miles of trunk roads and motorways; 750 miles of railway electrified; more than 100 communities transformed by new bypasses;

    * record resources for the Health Service and for pupils in our schools;

    * four million new homeowners;

    * four-and-a-half million young people with personal pensions;

    * six million shareholders in privatised companies;

    * social security and support for pensioners and disabled people is better than at any time in our history.

    We have finer public services than we have ever had – and through the Citizen’s Charter we are going to improve them still further.

    And we also have a sea change in the living standards of the average family. So let’s hear it for a successful, low tax economy.

    Let’s hear it for the fact that the number of homes without central heating has been halved. Six homes in seven now have washing machines. Seven in eight a telephone. Four out five a freezer. Huge new industries in home computers, videos, and compact discs have grown up. The number of cars per head of the population is up by a quarter. The number of holidays taken by British people almost doubled.

    These things didn’t rain down from heaven. They had to be worked for. And they were made possible by that growth in the wealth of the average man which our policies allow. We are creating in this country a new commonwealth – in which wealth and ownership are for all, not for the few. In our time Britons have earned more, owned more, achieved more than at any time in history. So let’s hear it for our wealth creators that make welfare possible.

    Thirteen wasted years? There have never been 13 more productive years in modern British history.

    So Labour call this failure. Failure? It’s a miraculous, historic success. It’s the rebirth of ‘Made in Britain’ as a label of pride. It’s what the people of Britain have worked for. It’s what the people of Britain can expect more of when recovery comes. It’s what a Conservative government will let you keep. It’s what a Labour Government would tax away.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Labour are the masters of blame and shame, doom and gloom. They want us to forget the successes of the Tory years. They want us to close off the prospect of a golden future for us all.

    So just let me remind you of this. In five years of struggle and strife, in five years of cuts in the health service, strikes in the graveyards, scorn in the international arena, Labour managed to raise the living standards of the average family man by just £2 a week. Just £2 a week in five years. And they actually cut the living standards of single people and married women across every level of earnings. Socialism equals conflict equals poverty equals the past. Remember those things on Thursday. Say to yourselves: “Never again”.

    Wealth For All the People

    Ladies and gentlemen, many people come up the hard way – they know what it is to scrimp and to save, they know what it means when you can do more for your family and children. And let me tell you what it does mean – personal pride, personal dignity, personal satisfaction, personal choice – for the person’s own family.

    We’re not divisive and dismissive like Labour. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all of the people. If there is one thing that Conservative Government will do, it is to allow more people more money to buy, to own, to save and to leave more for their children and grandchildren. It is right that families want to create a better home and a better life. These are proper instincts, natural instincts, not selfish ones. And we will defend them to the last. For it is from the ambitions and efforts of millions that the wealth of the nation and the resources of our great public services grow.

    What we have shown in the ’80s is that you can have lower tax and more investment. The modern Britain is not an uncaring Britain – and the Labour politicians who make that charge have no understanding of the fellow countrymen they want to control. Uncaring Britain? Where its citizens respond more generously than any other country to international appeals. Uncaring Britain? Who has the finest, best funded charities in the world. Uncaring Britain? Where the Health Service has more doctors and nurses today than ever before, more patients treated, more money spent, shorter waiting lists. That’s not an uncaring Britain. It’s a Britain that cares. And it will see off a Party that scares.

    That is the biggest divide between the Parties in Britain today. Labour fought against wider, family ownership – and they’re against it still. They can take the Socialism out of their manifesto, but they can’t take it out of their souls.

    They have policies that – as we saw last Wednesday – would force down the values of the privatised shares people own. They have tax policies that would force down the value of the homes people own. They have policies that would destroy the value of the pensions people own.

    I have warned the people – and I warn them again. In a Labour Britain I warn you not to be successful. I warn you not to be ambitious. I warn you not to have a second pension. I warn you not to own shares. I warn you not to own a home.

    The Labour Leader has a word for those who want to do something extra for their families – to provide personal care. He calls it a sin. ‘A sin, a sin, a sin’. Was ever casual word more revealing? A sin, he calls it. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a sin, not a sin for parents to do more for their children, children more for their parents. It is right for people to do more for those they love. It is the natural instinct of the family. It’s our natural instinct, too.

    A Greater, Better Britain

    There is a choice before you about Britain’s future. Let me tell you about the sort of life I want for every family.

    Inflation heading towards zero; prices steady; taxes coming down again; more money in the pockets of the people; growth well under way, so overtime and extra earnings are back in business; a strong pound which holds its value; the right to a postal ballot whenever union bosses try to call a strike; and never, ever any threat from flying pickets at the factory gate; good state schools, that get the basics right, bringing the best out of each and every child, not controlled by the council, but run by the Head teacher, governors and parents; a modern, expanding health service there behind you, more say for your GP in how the best care should be given, and more successful trust hospitals cutting waiting times and performing more operations than ever before; the chance for everyone to buy their home, falling mortgage rates whenever we can bring them down, strong recovery, meaning a pick-up in house prices, and growth in the value of your privatisation shares; millions more people with second pensions of their own and the chance for every family to pass on to their children the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    That’s what I want for Britain in the 1990s. That is the choice you should make.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot express to you what I owe to this country and what it has done for me. In the next five years, if you continue to give me your trust as your Prime Minister, I will do all I can to repay that debt. I want to make Britain a greater, better place.

    But if we succeed in that, as I know we will, it is not the government, not the council, not the trade union who will do it. It is you. And you. And you. It is the people of this country, given their chance, given their choice, given their head, who will find the space to grow and the sky to aim for.

    That is the country I want. That is what is at stake on Thursday.

    A country which will lead the world in the respect it carries and the values it spreads. We are that country. Let us stay that country.

    What I want is a country of real opportunity, where every one of our people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Wealth and welfare hand in hand.

    If that’s what you care for, if that’s what you fight for, then go out with me on 9 April – and win for Britain, win for our children, win for freedom, and win for all our futures.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the Conservative Vision – 1 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Conservative Vision, made in Shepton Mallet on Wednesday 1st April 1992. The speech was entitled “Building a New Britain”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and gentlemen, on Friday 10 April 1992 the work of the next government will begin. It will be a Conservative government or it will be a Labour government. There is no other choice. If you vote Conservative you will get a Conservative government. If you vote Labour you will get a Labour government. If you vote Liberal you will get a Labour Government. That is a message that every elector must understand.

    Over sixteen months ago I started work on building the type of Britain in which I believe. You will decide whether I continue in that work – or whether to allow Labour to pull down all that British people have built since 1979.

    Let me tell you about the Conservative government I want to lead. It is not the intention of the next Conservative government simply to safeguard the achievements of the eighties – astonishing though those achievements have been.

    The aims of the new generation in the Conservative Party – the youngest cabinet this century – are set much, much higher. By the end of this decade, all that Britain has accomplished in the first thirteen years of Conservative rule will be seen in their true perspective – a magnificent beginning, but only that, a beginning, of a great nation’s historic and continuing revival. That is the pledge I give to you this evening. That is the challenge that the next Conservative government will meet and fulfil.

    The ideas we stand for – we fight for – are being adopted right across the world. Think of the political map of Europe – how it looked until quite recently. Great blocks of red interspersed with blue. Look at it now. Where have all the red blocks gone? Gone from Government almost every one. Going. Going. Gone.

    All over the world Socialism is discredited. It is fading in every part of Europe. And in Britain on 9 April we will see the red flag dying here. Let’s get out there and help it on its way.

    The New Britain

    Many people are yet to make up their minds in this Election – the ‘don’t knows’. On Election day you can’t afford to be a “don’t know”. So my message to them is ‘come and join us’. Help us build a better Britain.

    My job as Prime Minister in the 1990s will be to give millions more people a helping hand up the ladder in life – to a home of their own, more savings, more secure and well-paid jobs, a better future. I see clearly the new Britain I want to build: a classless Britain in which everyone has their full share.

    I have spoken of the Open Door Society – a nation in which more and more people can go through the doors of opportunity into a better life. To build up and to keep a piece of Britain for themselves. A Britain where what were once the privileges of the few can be enjoyed by all.

    That’s the kind of country I want to see.

    I see a Britain freed from the scourge of inflation. Where rising prices no longer eat into savings and bring misery to those on fixed incomes. My target is stable prices. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain in which there is true equality of opportunity for all. Where every boy or girl, whatever their background, can expect an education that brings out their talents to the full. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every family has the opportunity to own and to improve their home. Where there is no threat of credit controls, no need to depend on the council. My aim is ownership for every family – ownership for the security it brings. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every citizen has the freedom to keep the wealth they have built from a lifetime’s work. Where there is no threat of penal taxation and no confiscation of a lifetime’s savings. My aim is for everyone to have the chance to pass on what they have built up in life to their children. That’s what people work for. That’s what people care about. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where our government plays a confident role in the world, standing for what is right. Where we don’t neglect our defences, and never give way on what is right for Britain. My aim is for Britain to be a byword – the byword – for decency, principle and freedom. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where government continues to show a true responsibility for others. Where it plays its proper role in supporting those who cannot help themselves. Where we have a modern, expanding Health Service free at the point of use for all. Where we bring more help to our poorest pensioners. Where every citizen is free to walk the streets without fear of crime.

    I see a Britain where the cost of living falls and the standard of living rises. Where we don’t look to the State for answers, but to each other.

    I believe that every person wants to have more say, have more choice, be the master in their own private corner of life. That is what in these last thirteen years we have given the people. I want a Britain in which people have the incentive to work harder and produce more. That is the way – the only way – to create resources for better public services for all.

    Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. This is no time to be a ‘don’t know’. This is a time to fight for a positive future for our country.

    Taxation: the great divide

    Ladies and gentlemen, people ask why we contrast Labour’s tax policies so often with our own. It is because here in this single issue is the great divide between the parties. We believe that people express themselves by their choices – and must be allowed to do so. When they decide how much to spend on housing, how much on holidays, or how much on a car, on pensions or insurance, they are living according to their own priorities. They are their own masters. In a free society they must remain their own masters. But Socialism always takes that freedom away.

    And when Governments or councils make those decisions for them, they are preventing people from living by their own values. Every pound left in the pay packet is a token of freedom. It offers choice. Every pound taken out of the pay packet takes away choice. In raising taxes by the record amount that they plan, Labour are not just taking away your income. They are taking away, more than ever before, the chance for ordinary people to live their life as they please. That’s why Socialist policies are so wrong, ultimately so destructive. We must never, never, never let them come back to this country.

    Labour: The Opposition

    I warn you. Look beneath the surface of Labour’s policies. You will see the cold hard truth staring at you. They haven’t changed. They have not changed. They have not changed. Let no-one think for a moment that Socialism has lost its ambition to change people’s lives. They still want people to pay up for the privilege of being told what to do. That is the badge of Socialism.

    Socialism operates like a reverse philosopher’s stone. It can change gold to base metal at a touch. Opportunity and enterprise into regulation and control. That would affect everyone. In a Labour Britain it wouldn’t just be the gold bullion that they were shipping out the country, it would be the golden tapestry of British talent – business, scientific, sporting, cultural. Going. Going. Gone. And we would all be the losers.

    It’s not just their policies for the future that give Labour’s game away. It is what they have done, what they have said. As we struggled to change Britain for the better, they struggled to stop us changing Britain for the better. You can see why they call Labour the Opposition.

    We have lowered income tax for everyone by eight pence in the pound; they opposed it. They voted against every tax cut we have introduced – the one thing on which they’ve always been consistent. And one of the many things on which they have always had the support of the Liberals.

    We gave people the right to buy council houses; they opposed it.

    We sold loss-making State industries to the public and the staff in them. We made them profitable and made millions of people new shareholders; they opposed it.

    We brought trade unions within the law, banned flying pickets and ended the closed shop; they opposed it.

    We helped millions of young people to take out personal pensions of their own; they opposed it.

    We wanted the people to be free, to have choice, to have power. To have the space to live their own lives as they wished – not as the council, the union, or the State wished. And Labour opposed us. They opposed the people’s rights. Not just once. Not by accident. But deliberately. By design. And day after day after day.

    Whatever we proposed, they opposed. It is their only political programme – to tear down all the things that the people of Britain have built. Labour are the masters of opposition. What a pity it would be now to waste all that experience.

    To every owner a warning

    “Ladies and gentlemen, as this Election approaches one point is central to the decision that everyone should take. It is this. We believe in personal ownership in a way that no other party does. We believe that people have the right to own – to enjoy the security and peace of mind it provides for them and their families. No other party shares that philosophy. Do you remember? Labour did everything in their power to stop the people having the right to own. And still do, whenever and wherever they can.

    Let no-one out there who gained in the ’80s ever forget it. Four million new homeowners; four and a half million young people with personal pensions; six million shareholders in the State companies we sold to the people. Many of those must be in this audience tonight.

    I warn each of you. Just stop, listen, and think. Look at your children and ask yourself this. Dare you trust your home, your pension, your savings, your shares – your future – to the very Labour people who fought to stop you having them at all?

    Going. Going. Gone. Is that the future you want? For the freest country in the world? Never.

    Liberals

    Ladies and gentlemen, I hear Paddy’s still round about. Sounds comfortable, doesn’t it? But don’t forget what he stands for. Policies that are close cousins to Labour’s. A special tax on petrol. What would that do to large rural areas of our country? Swingeing cuts in defence – cuts twice as big as Labour propose. What would that do to the defence of this country and our great defence industries? I’ll tell you – no defence. And no industries. And they stand for big tax increases for all – rises in income tax nationally and rises in income tax locally, too. What would that do to recovery and prosperity and jobs? It would destroy them.

    Liberal policy would crucify rural areas. Cut back our defence industries. Impose new taxes. Whatever happened to real Liberal policies. These are Labour policies – left wing policies. And anyone who is thinking of supporting the Liberals should be clear about that. Don’t let the Liberal Party be the Trojan Horse to a Labour Britain.

    Beware Mr Ashdown. He is the doorkeeper to a Labour Britain. I warn you. Don’t look at the man; look through the door. The most famous door in the world is Number 10 Downing Street. Don’t let Mr Ashdown open it for Mr Kinnock.

    Economic Recovery

    A Labour Government would stop in its tracks the one thing for which the people of Britain are waiting – economic recovery. I know that many businesses and families have been feeling the impact of the world recession. There are families in America and in Germany who feel just the same. Your concerns will never be brushed aside by me, they will always be heard.

    But they should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in the British economy over the last decade. There’s a new spirit of enterprise – with management and workforce working as one to take on the competition and win. Quality, design, service are once more at the forefront. British companies are pushing forward the boundaries of innovation. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds.

    We’ve been keeping strike records for a hundred years. Last year, the number of days lost was the lowest ever. Why? Because we’ve changed industrial relations law and we’ve changed industrial relations attitudes.

    Britain has become a magnet for overseas investment. We have as much investment from Japan as the rest of the Community put together. It’s low tax that did that. Low inflation. They’re what brought investors here. Do you think they would all have come here under a Labour Government? Do you think the confidence the Conservative Government has built up would continue under Labour?

    On top of all this, interest rates have come down. Britain’s rate of inflation is now below Germany’s – the first time that has happened since before men walked on the moon.

    But, after a generation of striving to reach that very goal, within two days, just two days, of our getting there, Labour’s John Smith said he’d be happy to see inflation rise again. He dismisses our target for Britain – stable prices – as an ‘unnecessary virtue’. Those are the words of a shallow ‘chancellor’ – shallow and blind to what matters to every housewife and pensioner in the country.

    Labour talk of recovery. But what Mr Smith is ready to add to inflation would add £2500 million to the costs of industry. And he dares to talk of a billion pound recovery package. Labour’s inflation would destroy profits, destroy companies, destroy jobs.

    What is more it now seems that Labour plan special payoffs to their big union friends. Public sector unions would be given pay increases one per cent above the going rate in private business. Whatever that rate may be? That is a recipe for higher public spending with no improvement in service. For wage spirals and for rising inflation. For the return of trade union muscle to the heart of public policy. In other words the same old Labour policies. It would be a disaster for Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the foundations for recovery are in place. Let business speak for itself. Fifteen times more businessmen would increase investment under the Conservatives than they would under Labour. In fact, under Labour one in four businessmen would cut investment.

    I believe that under a Conservative Government the 1990s will usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs. The once impossible are within reach:

    – stable prices

    – sustained industrial peace

    – free enterprise given free rein.

    Only one thing could stop it. The Labour Party – pledged to tax; to nationalise; and to give power back to the unions. That would knock recovery on the head – for this year, next year and through the nineties.

    Labour would turn recovery into slump.

    I am not prepared to see that happen – it’s not going to happen. Britain is on the brink of a breakthrough to a great future. Is the dull, dead hand of Socialism to be allowed to strangle that future? Not if I can help it. And I can. I will. With your help, I will.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, we need a strong economy to sustain our spending on the National Health Service. Earlier this week I said I was taking the gloves off about the National Health Service. And I meant it. It is the national Health Service. It is not Labour’s Health Service. Well, the gloves are staying off. Because I’m not prepared to see our Labour opponents run down the work that this great service performs.

    The National Health Service has been in existence for 44 years. For 30 of those years we have had Conservative Governments. The Health Service has flourished and grown. We have cherished the National Health Service, built it, modernised it. We care for it and for those who it serves. And now we’re reforming it – not privatising it, never privatising it – to make it even more successful. To help it treat even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, our reforms, really working. We are now treating over a million more inpatient cases and two million outpatient cases a year than we did under Labour. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before.

    Hip replacements are up by a half. Heart, liver and heart and lung transplants have become a daily occurrence. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before. More year after year after year than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise.

    I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    And remember. The last Labour Government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their sorry history. The Conservative Party will take no lectures from them.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Cynical. Desperate for power. The ‘anything for office’ syndrome. These are people ready even to exploit and distort the case of one sick child in order to blacken the image of one great service and all who work in it. Nothing matters to Labour except that it should ‘serve their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Defence

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three momentous issues which lie at the heart of this election – defence, Europe, and the future of our Kingdom.

    Ten years ago this very day a dictator gave the order for the invasion of the Falklands. That act of aggression was triumphantly reversed by our armed forces. I do not think there is anyone alive who will not recall the emotions they felt as they watched those ships of the Royal Navy set sail for the South Atlantic. It was one of the boldest and most skilful expeditions ever to leave these shores. The victory they won came at heavy cost. We will never forget the courage and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their country, there in the South Atlantic. We will never forget. But we can give thanks for what they did. For they fought the fight that it seems must be fought by each generation – the fight for justice, for democracy, for the rights of every individual to think and breathe free.

    But ten years on what do we hear from the Labour Party – a threat from their defence spokesman to review and cut the strength of our Royal Navy. What message does that send to our armed forces?

    And what message did Labour send to those who went out nine years later to join the United Nations action against another dictator’s unprovoked aggression. They wanted to leave those troops sitting there in the desert, waiting for sanctions to drive out Saddam Hussein. Either they would still have been in the desert today or Saddam Hussein would have been sitting in Saudi Arabia.

    That is not how we see our armed forces. They deserve a better and a stronger lead. They were not easy times – for them or for any of us. I had only just become Prime Minister. And emotions stirred in all of us as we thought of the skill and daring of our pilots, and the cool professional resolve of the young men and women of the ground forces, waiting in the desert night for the order to advance.

    It is a great responsibility to lead a nation in time of war. It reinforced my passionate determination to preserve the peace in this dangerous world. But I never doubted that, whatever the challenge, our armed forces would be ready for it. And so they were. They did the job. They sent that barbarous dictator, licking his wounds, back to his lair, humiliated.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the first duty of any Government is to safeguard the defence of the realm. You can be sure that a Conservative Government, this one, the next one, every one will discharge that duty. You can take our word for that. And if you take the word of the Liberals and Labour you will know that they will cut defence, that they will risk our country. Such a course would never be for us.

    We will never take risks with our defence. One thing I learnt from the war with Iraq was the crucial importance of having the right equipment for our troops. We will make sure they get it. That’s why we have ordered the new Challenger tank for the Army; the Merlin helicopter for the Navy; the new air defence missile for the RAF. Our armed forces must remain the best armed the best supported in the world. And I promise they will be.

    The Liberals say that now the cold war is won we can hack back our armed forces to the bone – perhaps they have become too fond of one man armies. They want to cut our defence spending by a half. I tell you that would be utter folly. The story of the Falklands and Kuwait is the story of the sudden dangers that can arise in the modern world. We must stay on our guard, be prepared for the unexpected – and under this Conservative Government our armed forces will do so.

    And one other thing, ladies and gentlemen, for so long as dictators like the wicked man who rules Iraq are plotting to build a nuclear bomb, we will keep our independent nuclear deterrent. I say – and say again – we will order, build, deploy and arm that fourth Trident submarine that our armed forces tell me they need. We will not take any risk with that crucial shield.

    But I tell you who would. Labour would. They don’t say, can’t say, won’t say what their attitude on Trident would be. Because they don’t know.

    First Labour say they will build it. Then they say they won’t build it. They even say they might build it and send it floating round the world devoid of arms. What would they call it? HMS Spineless? HMS Witless? HMS Clueless?

    Ladies and gentlemen, you simply can’t trust Labour when it comes to defence. And since defence is about the most serious issue that any country has to face, you just can’t trust Labour with power.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, this Party took Britain into Europe. It is where our future lies. I said I wanted us to be at the heart of Europe. And I meant it.

    We need to complete that single market that is so vital for our industry – and we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    We need to strengthen co-operation between the nation states of Europe where our common interests point us. And we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    And I believe we need to extend Europe – to create a wider Europe. For the greatest benefit of the Community is not economic. It has made it inconceivable that war in Western Europe could ever again take the world to the edge of ruin. That is why I believe so passionately in widening Europe – until the Community comes to embrace Russia itself. Then we can take to the countries of the East that gift of peace that today we in the West take so much for granted. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And I will do everything I can to help it on its way. And when that new Europe has been built from Britain to the Urals, then we will have built a secure life for the next generation that will be greater than we have ever seen before.

    That’s what I want to see happen in Europe. That is my vision for Europe. But that vision doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical about how Europe now is. When you’re dealing with Europe you need to pitch in there fighting – fighting for Britain as well as for Europe. With a Conservative government Britain will always come before Brussels.

    That’s what Douglas Hurd and I did at Maastricht – fight for Britain in Europe. They were tough negotiations – but we got the right result for Britain. Just imagine what would have happened if we had a Labour Government. They wouldn’t have spoken for Britain; they would have broken Britain.

    There are just three words in Labour’s vocabulary for Europe – oui, si, and jawohl. Well, let me offer you a fourth absolutely vital word to defend Britain’s interests – no. Can anyone imagine Mr Kinnock saying anything so short?

    Labour has been wrong on all the critical issues of defence and foreign policy in our time. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I warn the people of Britain. Men who have been so wrong so often on so much would find it hard to break the habit of a lifetime.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these great issues of our time call for a clear head and a steady hand. You need consistency. Conviction. Coherence. You need experience. You need judgement. The one thing you don’t need is Labour.

    The Union

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want to turn to one of the greatest threats the United Kingdom has faced for generations. I don’t think the British people have yet woken up to the danger that Labour and Liberal policies present. To create a new tax-raising Parliament in Scotland would cause the very foundations of our constitution to quake. I warn the people; it could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    Nothing shows more clearly the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberals alike – and how alike they are. They don’t seem concerned; they don’t seem to care. They would diminish our Westminster Parliament. The end result of their policies would be a disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. A United States of Europe? That means a federal Europe. The people of Britain don’t want a disunited Kingdom; and they won’t accept a federal Europe. But I warn the people. If they vote Labour or Liberal that is what they will get.

    They will get a federal Europe taking powers away from Westminster. They will get a tax raising parliament in Scotland taking powers away from Westminster. And they will get federal assemblies throughout England and Wales taking powers away from Westminster. Is that what people want for the Westminster Parliament? To strip it of authority and influence. But that’s what they will get if they vote Liberal or Labour. I warn the people.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thirteen years ago the Labour Leader fought against devolution. If I had to use any label, he said, I would call myself a Unionist. Not the label I would use for him. Now he tells us – and I quote: ‘I think that people can trust my word and attitude, because I’ve always been in favour of devolution.’ Was that a temporary lapse in a record of consistency? I rather think not. This is the European who ‘wanted out’ of Europe just a few years ago. This is the man who talks of defence but campaigned for years to disarm our country in the face of the Soviet threat.

    Ladies and gentlemen, do words mean anything to this man? He’s the chameleon of politics. Consistent only in his inconsistency. Wouldn’t it make a nice change to find an issue on which he hadn’t changed, for a change?

    Conclusion

    Never forget. In spite of a world recession we’re on course for a better life, a more secure life. We’ve learnt what to avoid and what to strive for. We’ve learnt to protect the weak, to encourage the young, to care for the old, and to keep our cities clean and our country safe, safe from attack on our values and our principles from without and within.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three great issues at the heart of this Election. Little debated, so far. But fundamental to the very fabric of our lives, about which I warn the people, warn them before it is too late. I speak the defence of our country, our place in Europe, the very survival of the United Kingdom. None of these would be safe in the hands of a Labour Government.

    Labour and Liberals in office would give Scotland and Wales devolution without even a referendum. They have said so. And in Europe whatever Brussels asked for Brussels would get. That, too, is abundantly clear.

    The breaking up of our United Kingdom and abject surrender to the most extreme demands of the European Commission, along with the defence of the realm, these things go to the very heart of our constitution. The future of our country takes precedence over every other consideration, even Party allegiance. On these things Labour is not to be trusted. I warn the people.

    The Conservative case is not nourished by dogma. The Conservative case does not assert theories discarded by most of the civilised world. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all the people.

    Our standards and values are Britain’s heritage. It is we who are the traditional builders of national recovery and renewal.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a critical, vital Election. None of us can afford to stay on the sidelines. To be a ‘don’t know’ may well be enough at certain elections. Not this one. What is at stake is the future of Britain. From such a contest no-one can stand aside.

    I urge all Conservatives and those who are broadly in sympathy with us to talk to any who are still uncertain. Remind them what we Conservatives stand for and what we believe in. A country of real opportunity. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Open their eyes to the threat that our opponents present to their lives. Warn the people. And turn the ‘don’t knows’ into ‘now I know.’

    Tell them to vote for the team with experience. Vote for the team that will help recovery, not kill it. Vote for the team that will unite the country, not divide it. Vote for the team that will keep your family safe, not sorry. Vote for the team you can trust. Tell them those things – and on April 9th they will vote for a Conservative future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Conservative Values – 30 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Conservative values, held in Birmingham on Monday 30th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, let me come straight to the point. What is this Election about? It is about the future of our country. It is about the prospects we build for the next generation. Our security. Our place in the world. About the sort of society and the sort of values we want. About the unity of our United Kingdom. It is not about distorting the problems of one sick child for party political propaganda. It is about building the future of one healthy country – and who builds that future.

    Thirteen years ago, under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership, the British people dragged this country up from the floor. Why was it on the floor? Because that’s where the Labour Party and their trade union friends had left it. We don’t want to see that again. So we’re not going to let socialism slither in through the back door, when it’s being thrown out the front door all over the world. When they’re kicking out big brother everywhere else, we’re not going to let little brother come creeping back here.

    I know Socialism. Britain does not want it. Does not need it. Cannot afford it. It spreads envy; it creates division; it nourishes spite. It makes people feel uneasy about the things they’ve achieved for themselves. Are you successful? Then feel guilty. But you shouldn’t be guilty about being successful. You should be proud.

    Don’t fall for the Socialist con-trick. Don’t be bullied. Don’t be brainwashed. Socialism’s strictly for the dustbin. So go out and put it there.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud of what our country has achieved under a Conservative Government. And you, the British people, can be proud of it, too. You have every right to be. It’s your achievement. You did it. You put pride back into our country – created more wealth, higher living standards and better public services than we’ve ever known in our long history. And under the next Conservative government I say to everyone – you will keep and increase the wealth your hard work has earned. Choice for the people. Ownership by the people. Power to the people – that’s our aim. Opening the doors that socialism holds shut. I want every man and woman in Britain to enjoy the Right to Own and the Power to Choose.

    The Conservative Future

    Why does this Election matter so much? Let me paint the sort of life I want for every family.

    Inflation heading towards zero; and prices steady. Taxes coming down again. More money in the pockets of the people. People with spare cash so they can sign with confidence the purchase of a new car. Growth well under way, so overtime and extra earnings are back in business. A strong pound that holds its value. The right to a postal ballot whenever and wherever union bosses try to call a strike. And never, ever, any threat from flying pickets at the factory gate.

    There will be good State schools, that get the basics right, testing and reporting on progress, bringing the best out of each and every child. Schools no longer controlled by the council, but run by the headteacher, governors and parents. For some it could be a place on the assisted places scheme. For others a place at the local grammar school. Either way, it will be up to parents to choose.

    Whenever illness strikes, there will be a modern expanding Health Service there behind you, with free care for all. More say for the GP in how the best care should be given. And more successful Trust Hospitals that are cutting waiting times and performing more operations than ever before.

    Many a family will have bought the house they live in from the council. If it’s a Labour Council, it will probably have tried to hinder them – but thanks to the Conservatives all who want it have the Right to Buy. Though there are difficulties and sacrifices, it will in the end be worth it. And we have new policies to make it easier still. If it is prudent to do so interest rates will be cut, and the monthly mortgage brought down. Strong recovery will mean a pick-up in the housing market. And there will once again be a strong demand for property on sale.

    Privatisation shares should grow in value once the threat of a Labour government is gone – and we will give more opportunities to invest in shares. More people will have cash in hand to spend on the house. And once the world recession is over, and business is prosperous again, companies large and small should be working flat out.

    We will help millions more people to personal pensions, so they know they will have that extra security when they retire. And what’s more, I want every family to be able to pass on what they have built up in a lifetime of work. Pass it onto their children without the taxman taking another swipe.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these policies touch the lives of everyone. They are what Conservative policies began to open up for millions in the 80s. They are our ambitions for every family in the 1990s.

    The Labour Alternative

    Now look at the alternative. What would the country be like under Labour? I’ll tell you.

    No control of inflation. No stable prices – indeed a target to raise inflation to the European average. For the first time ever a political party goes into an Election promising to put inflation up. But not only inflation would go up.

    There would be big tax increases instead of tax cuts. A Labour government would mean £38 billion of extra spending. That’s the equivalent of £1250 a year on average for everyone who pays income tax, on top of Mr Smith’s mock budget tax attack. What price then the new car, the holiday, the mortgage?

    Overtime no longer worth it because of Labour’s National Insurance increases. The economic recovery clobbered by huge tax hikes. Inward investment chased away and jobs destroyed. More strikes and flying pickets back on our streets. Mr Kinnock’s credit controls making it harder to buy a new car and harder to buy a new home. The pound right down and devaluation back on the agenda.

    No self-managed schools. They’re gone. Fewer rights for parents. They’re not on offer. No assisted places scheme. That’s scrapped. Grammar schools closed. They give what too many parents want. Trust hospitals gone, along with all the reforms that had cut waiting lists and boosted operations.

    No cut in mortgage rates. Up they would go. And, far from house prices picking up, down they would plunge. No work for small trades – and with their policies few small traders at all, because the families that employ them would be paying their savings in tax.

    Personal pensions deliberately wrecked. Shares in privatised companies renationalised or their value driven down. And, at the end of their lives, inheritance tax waiting to grab the fruits of a lifetime’s work. No big legacy for the children. Just one last cheque for the State.

    In other words – a Nightmare on Kinnock Street. Every detail of everyone’s lives and everyone’s future will be affected by the decision you take on April 9th 1992. Don’t believe for a second that it doesn’t matter who wins. It matters desperately. It matters to Britain. And it matters to you.

    Don’t be fooled

    So don’t be fooled. Here’s the Labour Leader, nodding and winking and grinning, a foot-in-the-door salesman, trying to sell you a gentle, harmless semi-demi-socialism. Don’t buy that line. There’s no such thing. As a Polish politician who came to see us once said – and heaven knows the Poles should know from bitter experience – “socialism can’t be improved. It has to removed.” So remember: everything seemingly safe and secure can be reversed almost overnight. And with Labour in power it would be back to yesterday with a vengeance.

    Right Voice in the World

    Ladies and gentlemen, the world is moving fast. Shifting under our feet. We have won the Cold War. Just think about that. The Cold War has been won – by the West.

    Socialism in its most extreme form has been defeated. There are opportunities for freedom to grow, for partnership between nations, for the rebirth of a new Europe, for a new generation.

    But we have to take the right decisions, give the right leadership. So – under whose leadership do we go from here? Let us remind people:

    – Who won back for Britain the respect in which we are now held abroad? We did.

    – Who came to the defence of freedom in the Falklands and again in Kuwait? We did.

    – Who stood firm beside the United States in leading the NATO alliance? We did.

    – Who safeguards Britain’s security by keeping our nuclear deterrent up to date? We do.

    – Who first held out a hand to the new Russia and to Eastern Europe’s new democracies? We did.

    – Who reached an agreement at Maastricht which pointed the way to a wider, stronger Europe, whilst protecting Britain’s basic national interests? Yes. You’re right. We did.

    In short, whom can you trust to defend Britain and keep her safe? Whom can you trust to speak for Britain in Europe, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations as we build a new world? You can trust a Conservative Government – this one, the next one, and every one.

    But what of Mr Kinnock, with Mr Kaufman walking half a step behind? What of him?

    – Who campaigned for CND when the Cold War was at its height, and then let his membership ‘lapse’ when others had won it? He did.

    – Who fought NATO’s policy of standing up to the Soviet Union and opposed putting in Cruise Missiles when they had nuclear weapons targeted on us? He did. Yet it was because we stationed cruise missiles pointing to the East that today we have far fewer missiles pointing at us.

    – Who called our closest ally – the United States, the bastion of the free world – a threat equal to the Soviet Union? He did.

    – Who stood for office on a policy of giving away our nuclear deterrent and taking to the hills? He did.

    – Who refuses to give a commitment to build the fourth Trident that our armed forces say is essential for Britain? He does.

    – Who would have kept our troops sitting in the desert waiting for sanctions to dislodge Saddam Hussein? He would.

    – Who has changed policy on Europe six times – so far – ‘wanted out’ at one Election and wants surrender to Brussels at another? He has.

    – Who at Maastricht would have signed up to anything, any deal – at any price? He would.

    That’s the Kinnock and Kaufman line. Of course it may change. If we can’t make out what the two Ks believe in – and we speak English – what on earth would the rest of the world make of it all?

    Ladies and gentlemen, to safeguard the interests of Britain you need a clear head and a cool hand. Consistency. Coherence. Conviction.

    These serious issues need experience, judgement, a firm line, and a sure stand. The stakes are too high in this dangerous world for Britain to put its trust in Labour at home or overseas. They don’t know what they are doing on foreign policy or defence. They don’t know. We don’t know. Nobody knows.

    The challenge and the opportunities in Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, what kind of world are we to build for our children?

    When you come to cast your vote, that is in every sense the heart of the matter.

    Before everything Britain must be secure. We must take no risks with defence. And no Conservative Government ever will. But we don’t want a negative Britain, a tentative Britain. We want a country with the courage to stand up for what it believes.

    That ‘s what we did at Maastricht. We are right to be at the heart of Europe, but let’s not be starry-eyed about it. Of course, we believe in it. We are part of Europe. It’s our community, our continent, too.

    But we must ask ourselves what kind of Europe we want.

    I want to complete that single market in Europe on which this Party has taken the lead. We need those open spaces for free enterprise to breathe and grow.

    But the greatest virtue of the European Community is not economic. Twice in this century a European war has brought the whole world to the brink of ruin. The bonds we have formed in Western Europe make it inconceivable that such a disaster could ever again begin here. That’s why I want to extend the Community wider until it reaches the far borders of Russia itself. Then we can bring to the countries of the East that gift of peace that we in the West enjoy. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And a secure life for our children will be the certain result.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that’s the positive side of Europe. That’s what we aim to develop. But there’s another side, too. And we’re not planning to jump in blindly as Labour would. There’s the scandal of countries that sign up for European directives and then do nothing about them. There is unnecessary interference by bureaucracy and red tape. And there’s the fatuous pursuit of conformity for the sake of conformity. Seeking to scrap the rules on quarantine that defend us against rabies. Pushing us to make illegal use of pounds and ounces. We’ve made it clear that we will have nothing to do with nonsense like that.

    And we’re not going to change our stand either on the Social Chapter we rejected at Maastricht. It would increase trade union power, push up industrial costs, destroy jobs and deter foreign investment. Hand over to Brussels decisions that are best made in Britain. All things bad for Britain – no wonder our opponents just can’t wait to sign up.

    Most important of all, if anyone but us had been there at Maastricht, Britain would now be signed up to full European Monetary Union; irrespective of whether it was right.

    That was the demand that was put to me at Maastricht. It was a demand that I wasn’t prepared to accept. We worked to negotiate a better deal for Britain. Labour called it a betrayal. But I believe you can be a good European and still say ‘No’. Indeed, to be a good European, you sometimes have to say ‘no’.

    Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to a crunch at a summit, you’re alone in there. Alone with other countries’ leaders arguing the case for Britain. There’s nobody else to help you. Nobody to protect you. No minders. You’re on your own. That’s when experience counts. You’ve got to know your case. Got to master the details. One slip – one careless word – one stroke of temper – one gaffe – and you’ve sold Britain short. You can’t go back into the conference chamber and say: “Sorry, boyo, I got it wrong.”

    Safeguarding the Union

    But there is another crucial constitutional issue at the very heart of this Election. The unity of the United Kingdom. It is, quite literally, the national issue. I do not believe that many people understand what is at stake in this Election. Our political opponents now advocate a course which could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    The Labour and Liberal parties are proposing a separate tax-raising parliament for Scotland. It is a policy that would cause the very bedrock of our constitution to quake. It would have profound consequences for Parliament at Westminster. You cannot deny English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs the right to vote on health or education or industry in Scotland and then keep full rights for Scottish Members at Westminster to vote on these matters for the West Midlands.

    It simply cannot be done. It wouldn’t wash with the people of the other parts of Britain. They wouldn’t see it as reasonable or fair. And it wouldn’t be reasonable or fair. But once diminish the voting rights of Scotland’s MPs at Westminster, and you would cause new bitterness. Once create a new Parliament in Scotland, and you would create a focus for every grievance – imagined or real – that one part of this Kingdom had against another.

    It is with these dangers that our opponents are now playing. Devolution is at the top of a slope that leads down into the disaster of separation. Once start on that slide – and it would be perilously difficult to stop. The demon of division would be abroad in the land.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the future of the United Kingdom is not something to be toyed and trifled with for short-term Party advantage. But that is what our opponents are doing.

    Labour and Liberal policy would weaken us all. It could lead to a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. No issue at this election is more far-reaching, more fundamental. A little Scotland and a lesser Union. It would be an unimaginable disaster. Are we, in our generation, perhaps without even realising, to toss away the Union, the rock on which Britain’s greatness rests?

    Ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘No’. The Conservative Party says ‘No’. We must rouse the people to this danger. Warn them. So that they rise and reject with scorn the policies of those foolish men who would have our country surrender in Europe and separate at home. Never, never, never, must the people of Britain go down that road.

    Changing Britain: the reforms of the 1980s

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want a country for our children that is proud and confident, dynamic and prosperous.

    During the 1980s we Conservatives introduced the fundamental reforms needed to create a successful and thriving economy.

    We reduced tax and restored incentives.

    We reformed trade union law and changed industrial attitudes.

    We returned to the people two thirds of the companies owned by the State.

    And we created a culture in which risk-taking and enterprise became attractive again.

    As a result we transformed the British economy. Strikes fell to the lowest levels ever recorded. Investment and productivity soared. And living standards were raised to record levels. And for the first time in a generation our share in world trade began to grow.

    Over the 1980s manufacturing output and manufacturing productivity grew by leaps and bounds. I am sick and tired of hearing British manufacturing industry run down by our Labour opponents. In the West Midlands you know – as I do – how crucial manufacturing is for our children’s future. Manufacturing success is vital for Britain. I will do all in my power to make it secure. But I will tell you what would wreck it. Higher taxes would wreck it. Higher inflation would wreck it. Higher costs would wreck it. Bad industrial relations would wreck it. A Labour government would wreck it.

    Only Labour can stop recovery

    Our economic reforms of the 1980s are still in place. We’ve got the fundamentals right. Inflation is falling. Interest rates have come down. And the exchange rate is stable. It all means Britain is poised for a strong recovery. All it needs is the confidence a Conservative victory will bring. Then we’ll see the Midlands hum again.

    Success for our opponents would stop that recovery dead in its tracks. That’s not just our view; it’s the view of business. One quarter of all businessmen say they would cut investment if Labour won. And why? Because Labour would reverse every one of the Conservative measures on which recovery depends.

    Where we have lowered income tax, Labour would raise it.

    Where we have privatised, Labour would nationalise.

    Where we have taken Government off industry’s back, Labour would put industry on its back.

    And where we have curbed the power of the militants, Labour would unleash them again. It’s one thing seeing them at Bolton and Luton. But I am not going to let them back in Downing Street again.

    Ladies and gentlemen, under Labour, the recovery that lies ahead would be turned into slump.

    When will they ever learn? You can’t tax people into a national recovery. You can’t build national recovery on a philosophy that has emptied the shelves in every supermarket of the Eastern block. The selfsame socialism that, last time they were in office, reduced Britain to the indignity of Mr Roy Hattersley – he of the ‘dream ticket’, remember, administering a third-world subsidy on the price of bread? Not, I imagine, that Mr Hattersley dines principally on bread.

    Homeowners under Labour

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s one thing about Britain in the 1980s that you won’t hear about from Labour. It is what Conservative policies of the Right to Buy and the Right to Own have given to families who never dreamed they would have anything to leave to their children. 6 million households have bought their homes since 1979. Four and a half million people have personal pensions. 10 million people now own shares – 6 million in the State companies we sold to the people.

    On all these issues Labour fought us all the way. They wanted to stop the British people becoming owners. No-one out there who gained in the 1980s should ever forget it. Dare you trust your home, your shares, your pension to the very people who battled to stop you having them? Who in this hall would ever do that?

    The return of a Labour government would undermine all that you have worked to build. Not by accident. Not by oversight. But by policy, deliberately. For socialism is the doctrine of common ownership, State ownership, not personal ownership. When it comes to ownership they don’t begin to understand – and they don’t begin to care.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, a word about our National Health Service. It is our National Health Service. It doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. We have cherished it, built it, modernised it. And now we’re reforming it to make it even more successful, treating even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, those reforms, really working. Strengthening the Health Service. Extending wider, ever wider, the frontiers of free, modern patient care. It’s time somebody took the gloves off about the Health Service. Well, mine are coming off now – and staying off. I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    We have given the Health Service the strongest support it has ever had from any Government. Over 13 years, year after year after year, we’ve put more money into the Health Service than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise. And why? Because we know how to run a free market economy, how to create the resources that, through thick and thin, help our Health Service grow.

    Labour couldn’t do that with their now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t promises. The last Labour government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their barren history. And these are the people who dare to lecture us.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Shallow. Cynical. Negative. Desperate for power. These are people ready to fabricate every imaginable fiction about our great national institution if it ‘serves their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Education

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s another great service about which I feel passionately – the education service. So here’s another pair of gloves coming off. I will fight for a good start in life for every child. I will fight for the rights of parents, for variety in education, and for a return to basics in the classroom. Our children have only one chance for a proper grounding in life. And I am simply not prepared to see their future blighted by destructive theories. I want them to concentrate on the basics in education. To read. To write. To add up. That’s where they must start. And it’s on that we must build.

    Too many of our children have been victims of Labour’s fetish for levelling-down. Vital props for life, like spelling, tables and dates banished from the classroom. Children of different abilities made to learn at the same speed. Tests resisted – in case they showed how little had been learned. Parents denied information, results, reports – in case awkward questions were asked.

    Where’s the logic in setting out deliberately to close down good schools and undermine quality in those that remain? But that’s what the Left did, right here in Britain. And that’s what Labour still plan, right here in the West Midlands. Nine people out of ten in Birmingham support its grammar schools. But Labour would shut them – and every other grammar school in Britain. What a pointless, negative policy it is. And what a degrading spectacle. Grammar school men and women picking on grammar school girls and boys.

    I make no distinction between any school, any parent, any child. In our Manifesto we have set out 39 steps to a better education for all. So be in no doubt. After April 9 we will press on with our reforms in education, extend parents’ rights, and let more schools go free of council control, wherever the parents so wish. My belief is easily expressed. The best for every child – the best from every child. That’s what I will fight for in this Election and after it. That’s what our children deserve. Nothing but the best. And they shall have it. For they are our tomorrow.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, the day of decision is coming nearer. It’s the day when Britain will decide whether to go on leading the world towards a future based on choice, personal ownership and private enterprise. Or to slide back almost alone into the mire of socialism.

    Go out and tell the people what’s at stake. Go out and open their eyes to the threat that Labour and Liberals present to their lives. Go out and tell them what the Nightmare on Kinnock Street would mean for us all.

    And go out and tell them of the new wealth, the new opportunities a Conservative Government will bring. For our pledge to Britain is a better future for all. A future where every individual counts. Power to the people. And pride in the world. That’s our battlecry.

    What I want is a country of real opportunity, where everyone of our people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Wealth and welfare hand in hand.

    If that’s what you care for, if that’s what you fight for. Then go out with me on April 9 – and win for Britain, win for our children, win for freedom, and win for all our futures.