Tag: Housing

  • PMQT – 17 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Will the Prime Minister inform the House why a trade mission from Nottingham chamber of commerce was allowed to go ahead on 22 June 1990 even though the products of the companies involved would have been useful to Saddam Hussein’s war effort? Will he assure the House that the role of such trade missions will be part of the Scott inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman’s point. As he may well know, my office receives about 3,000 letters and innumerable documentation each week so I cannot reply directly, but I will examine the point that he made.

    Mr. Lord : Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor’s autumn budget contained excellent news for the building industry? Does he further agree that allowing housing associations more resources to buy empty properties and local authorities more discretion to spend their capital receipts will be an excellent boost for the housing market?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is quite right. There were a number of aspects of my right hon. Friend’s statement that were very good news indeed for the housing market. As Abbey National has said, this may prove to be the point at which the housing market turns. That is the view of Abbey National, and I hope that it proves to be correct. My right hon. Friend had a meeting with mortgage lenders yesterday to discuss ways of ensuring that the money is used as effectively as possible to reduce the overhang of empty properties on the market. If it is, it will have a material impact on the housing market and a beneficial one.

    Mr. John Smith : Last night, a Downing street spokesman briefed the press that the 1984 guidelines for exports of arms-related equipment to Iraq were changed in 1988. Can the Prime Minister tell why Parliament was not informed of this change?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that we have set out the most wide ranging terms of inquiry possible–far more wide ranging than most people imagined–and that all these matters will be discussed on that occasion. I hope that he will now accept that those terms are so wide ranging and cover so many aspects that nothing will not be fully examined.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell me, then, why the question whether Parliament was misled is not included in the terms of reference of the inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being extremely silly. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If he reads the terms of inquiry more carefully he will see that they allow the judge to examine all the facts, all the decisions, the basis for those decisions and whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of the Government. The judge will have access to all the documentation as well as to individuals. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s fears are wholly unfounded.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister will recollect that he quoted the terms of reference as being whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty’s Government. But the allegation which is made, and which I also make, that this Government consistently, over a long period of time, misled Parliament, is not included in these terms of reference. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues have nothing to hide, why not include the misleading of Parliament in the terms of reference of the inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the terms of reference, when he would see that this is entirely implicit in them. The suggestion that Ministers misled the House is a serious charge, a scurrilous charge and has no basis whatsoever in fact. It is typical of the charges that have been made by the Labour party before. It is typical of the charges over the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which were utterly unfounded and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have never apologised for making.

    Mr. Fabricant : Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the ever growing recession in Germany over £360 million worth of property in central London has recently been bought by German investment trusts? Is not this a demonstration, by putting their Deutschmarks where their mouths are, of confidence in British economic policy?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, there is a very large amount of inward investment in this country from both within and beyond the European Community. Indeed, in terms of investment in countries within the Community by countries beyond it, by far the lion’s share comes to this country, because of this Government’s policies over recent years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Morley : Is the Prime Minister aware of the effects of his economic incompetence on companies such as British Steel in Scunthorpe, and on unemployment? Is he aware, further, that long-term unemployment has risen by 48 per cent., to stand at 302,000? Is it not a matter for regret that of all the things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet unemployment was not one?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly understands even less than I thought he did. He clearly has not read my speech or the press reports. The speech was nearly all about the strategy for growth to provide long-term secure jobs. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand anything.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House will settle down. Let us have some order. Front-Bench Members are bawling and shouting. Order.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his autumn statement, which did so much to preserve the Government’s capital programmes : programmes for new roads, new railways, new hospitals and new schools? Does he agree that this will not only help modernise Britain’s infrastructure but create new jobs in our construction industry?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is, of course, in sharp contrast to what happened under the last Labour Government, when they would always cut capital as the first and easiest cut, while avoiding the difficult decisions on current account. We have taken the difficult decisions on current account precisely to preserve capital, build up our future, create jobs and build up prosperity.

     

    Q3. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Ms. Hoey : Is the Prime Minister aware of the revulsion in the country caused by his Government’s inhumane, shameful and sickening policy on Bosnian refugees? Why was the Prime Minister so ready to provide a safe haven and air support for the Kurds when they were running from Iraqi aggression when he is not ready to provide a similar safe haven or air support for women and children fleeing from Serbian aggression in central Europe?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Lady that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will deal with this at greater length in a few moments. Let me say to her now that we have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors from Yugoslavia this year of whom more than 4,000 have applied for asylum, and we have agreed to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and with the International Red Cross to take the priority refugees they want us to take under the 1951 Geneva convention. With the best will in the world we simply cannot take everyone who, for understandable reasons, wants to leave Yugoslavia and, in this case, the group concerned were warned in advance that they should not go ahead with their mission to Yugoslavia.

     

    Q4. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his determination to bring a successful outcome to the current GATT round will bring enormous benefits not only to Britain and Europe, but to the countries of the third world whose interests the Government so clearly protected last week in the welcome and substantial increase in our overseas aid budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the GATT round to the third world. It is entirely unreasonable for the west to say to the third world, on one hand, here is some aid to help with your difficulties and, on the other hand, close our markets, which are of even greater benefit to them. It is imperative that we have the GATT round for the industrialised world, but it is no less imperative for the non-industrialised world.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Could the Prime Minister spare a few moments at 3.30pm to go downstairs to the Grand Committee Room and explain to a lobby of several hundred people from residential drug and alcohol projects why the Government have gone back on a clear commitment to ring-fence their funding with effect from 1 April next year? Is he aware that the decision will result in several of the projects closing, with obvious human consequences? It would be especially appropriate during European Drug Prevention Week for the Prime Minister to do a U-turn on the matter.

    The Prime Minister : The Government recognise that there are special circumstances for alcohol and drug misusers and we have met the specialist service providers. We will be encouraging fast-track assessment procedures, encouraging good practice in identifying who is responsible for each client and setting up special monitoring arrangements for those services for the first three months following implementation. That is in addition to the action we have already announced to ensure that the community care grant is spent on services that reflect people’s wishes and causes minimum turbulence and disturbance to them. The hon. Gentleman should be more accurate about our proposals.

     

    Q6. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Adley : I am sorry that I am in the wrong place, Madam Speaker, but these young whipper-snappers show no respect to us old fogies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of a national timetable is an essential element in changes that are made to railway policy? Is he aware that this morning, Select Committee on Transport members visited Crewe? Incidentally, we got back eight minutes early and were back here in time for lunch. We went to the national timetable centre and were somewhat dismayed to find that not only Ministers, but officials from the Department of Transport had not been there. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the civil servants responsible for the documentation to do a little more homework please?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that my hon. Friend has just done that, and in the most effective way possible.

     

    Q7. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Loyden : Given the Matrix Churchill debacle of the past few weeks and the Government’s obvious inadequacy in dealing with that matter– giving rise to questions regarding the very accountability of the Government–will the Prime Minister now accept that the only way to overcome such difficulties is to introduce a freedom of information Bill so that such situations can be avoided in future?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and, on the substantive matter that he mentioned, I have already said to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that there will be a full and wide-ranging inquiry to which every Minister concerned will give evidence, all papers will be available and all civil servants will make themselves available. There will be a full and total disclosure of all those events.

     

    Q8. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say what further steps he can and will take to press banks to lower their interest rates in line with reduced bank rates so that businesses can profit and, more particularly, so that young home owners and mortgage payers in my constituency and throughout the country can benefit?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, lower interest rates should benefit businesses and consumers alike and thus help the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, he will be taking the matter up with the individual clearing banks, and the Bank of England will be reviewing current practice by the banks.

  • PMQT – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Munich.

    Mr. McMaster : Will the Leader of the House guarantee not to guillotine the Maastricht Bill when it returns to the House for debate ?

    Mr. Newton : The Leader of the House will guarantee that the Government will consider all matters carefully before deciding how to proceed.

    Mr. James Hill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass as quickly as possible legislation dealing with imitation firearms ? Is he aware that they are becoming a serious problem for the public, because one can suffer as much trauma and be robbed just as effectively with an imitation firearm as with a real one ?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend’s concern is shared in many quarters. The Home Secretary is on the Bench beside me and will have heard what has been said.

    Dr. John Cunningham : Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Government’s moratorium on stamp duty for house purchase has been a success?

    Mr. Newton : I believe that the arrangements brought forward by my right hon. Friend and other colleagues at the turn of the year have materially assisted in reducing the number of repossessions and in bringing about an improvement in the housing market compared with what the position would have been. Frankly, I would find the hon. Gentleman’s answer more credible but for the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I understand speaking for the Opposition, described the suspension of stamp duty at the time as a racket and a gimmick.

    Dr. Cunningham : If it has been of material benefit to the housing industry, is it not a fact that when we are in the depths of the worst recession for 60 years, with confidence at an all-time low and the building and construction industry in disarray, this is the last moment to remove any incentive from the desperately needful building sector? As the Government have still not used up all the money that they allocated for the scheme, why will they not concentrate the relief on transactions up to £100,000, thus helping the lower end of the market and first-time buyers? That would be a sensible step to take in the depths of the present awful recession.

    Mr. Newton : The aim of the scheme was to bring forward transactions that might otherwise have been delayed. I believe that it has made an important contribution in doing just that.

     

    Hastings and Rye

    Q2. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Hastings and Rye.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hopes to include the south-east among them.

    Mrs. Lait : I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the opportunity of my right hon. Friend visiting Hastings and Rye and hope that he will leave plenty of time to come down the road affectionately known as the snail trail. Will he also visit the Conquest hospital, which is operated by the Hastings and Rother trust, which took its first out- patients yesterday and will take its first in-patients on 20 July? Does he agree that this is another indication that only Conservative health policies deliver health care to the nation?

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that, if he is able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish to join her in welcoming the opening of the new hospital–and, indeed, in looking forward to phase 2, which is currently under consideration by the regional health authority.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Denham : Does the Leader of the House agree that high-rise tower blocks are entirely unsuitable as homes for young children? Does he, like me, regret that, over the past few years, the number of young children trapped in Southampton tower blocks has risen two and a half times, and that hundreds of children will never have a decent home? Does he accept that Southampton council has a lower-than-average number of vacancies and that the number of children who are trapped in a high-rise hell is a direct result of Government policies? Can he offer those children any hope and what action will he take to ensure that they have a chance to live in a house with a garden?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have a range of policies designed to improve the supply of rented accommodation. They are channelling £6 billion into housing associations over the next two years to provide more than 150,000 new homes for rent and low-cost purchase by 1995-96. I very much hope that that will help to solve Southampton’s problems, given that the local authority wishes to participate.

    Dr. Hampson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing feeling on both sides of the House that the county hall site would be ideal for the London school of economics? Would it not be poignantly symbolic if the Prime Minister, while he is President of the European Council, assisted in the development on the Thames of a great European university on a scale to rival anything on offer in Paris, rather than allowing a fine building to become a second-rate hotel for Japanese package tours?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that the disposal of county hall is a matter for the London residuary body. It is now up to the LSE to put firm proposals to that body.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cohen : The Lord President will know that I shall be presenting my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill today. Does he agree that a woman who acts in desperation after suffering sustained domestic violence ought to have recourse to a mitigating plea of provocation? Is not the present law–which has gaoled women such as Sara Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia– unjust, and should it not be changed?

    Mr. Newton : I understand the concern that is felt about the matter, not least because of my past social services responsibilities. I am not sure that the solution is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I certainly undertake to bear his points in mind, along with my right hon. Friends.

    Mr. Ward : Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of fishermen are demonstrating outside the House today, largely because they fear that the conservation measures required by the EC–which are being dealt with in the House–will not be observed by their counterparts on the other side of the Channel? That has happened many times in the past. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food look again at ways of preserving our fishing industry?

    Mr. Newton : I assure my hon. Friend that it is no part of the British Government’s purpose to introduce what I take to be sensible measures to promote the conservation of fish stocks and the long-term future of the industry, only to see those measures destroyed by the actions of others. My right hon. Friend the Minister will take every possible step to ensure that that does not happen.

     

    European Community

    Q5. Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what approaches have been received by Her Majesty’s Government concerning reallocation of powers currently the responsibility of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The treaty on European union enshrines in Community law the principle of subsidiarity, but the Community should act only when objectives cannot be achieved at the level of individual member states acting alone. The principle should be applied strictly to existing as well as to future legislation. It calls for urgent work on the procedural and practical steps to implement the principle and invites the Commission and the Council to report to the next European Council in Edinburgh. The treaty contains a presumption of action at the national level.

    Mr. Spearing : Yes, but that is answering a question that was not asked. So what is new? Is this not about the possible repatriation of powers? Is it not a fact that President Major as well as President Delors have been in favour of that, or have mooted the possibility? In respect of the President of the Commission, why is it that the Commission must always call the shots? Would it not be an advantage if it reacted only to requests from the Council of Ministers or the Heads of Government and therefore made the whole outfit more intergovernmental than it is already?

    Mr. Newton : With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that my answer did address the question that he asked. The plenary session between the United Kingdom presidency and the Commission last week, which I attended, very much addressed precisely that question. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that plans are in hand to undertake a review of existing legislation before the Edinburgh summit at the end of the year.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Did my right hon. Friend see certain scholarly articles that were published over the weekend drawing attention to the fact that the word “subsidiarity” is derived from the Latin word “subsidium” which, apparently, is a term of Roman Catholic dogma and that the Roman interpretation of that word is quite different from the Anglican?

    Mr. Newton : Coming from a somewhat mixed religious background, I do not intend to allow myself to be caught up in ecclesiastical controversy.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Eastham : Two weeks ago one of my hon. Friends with a London constituency raised with the Prime Minister the question of the housing crisis. The Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester–

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Question !

    Mr. Eastham : Why don’t you shut up? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It may be very amusing, but it is a great waste of time when we are nearly at 3.30. Can we hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) in silence now?

    Mr. Eastham : In responding, the Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester, and said that we had empty properties. May I point out to the Leader of the House that we have hundreds of empty properties in Manchester that are dangerous and unlettable but that central Government are not allowing Manchester to borrow money to make those properties habitable? Is it not time that the Government got their spending priorities right and accepted their responsibilities, which clearly they are failing to do now?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have clearly accepted their responsibilities, with the arrangements that they have made concerning approvals for capital expenditure. I hope that Manchester will look carefully at the policy that leads to so many houses being empty.

    Dame Jill Knight : Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the level of public concern over the fact that a professional drug courier should have been protected from police action by hospital staff? Does he agree that drugs constitute an appalling danger, particularly to young people, and that the police ought to be helped, not hindered, in their fight against drugs?

    Mr. Newton : Again, I think that my hon. Friend raises a point which will be of concern to other hon. Members. I have seen reports of the case. Clearly, as I think all hon. Members will agree, it is important to balance a patient’s right to medical confidentiality against the safety of the community at large, but this is a very complex area. I understand that the chief executive of the North Staffordshire health authority is seeking an urgent meeting with the chief constable to discuss the confidentiality issue and agree clearer lines of communication.

     

    Q7. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Garrett : Last year 69,000 families had their homes repossessed. At the moment, 290,000 borrowers are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage repayments. The Government’s mortgage rescue scheme has so far managed to rescue 12 home buyers. When will the Government make a serious attempt to help home buyers and borrowers who are in difficulties?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that as a result of the action taken at the turn of the year some 55,000 repossessions will be prevented this year, and that the Halifax building society reckons that its repossessions are down by about 40 per cent. over the latest six months compared with the last six months of last year. That is substantial progress which has helped many tens of thousands of families.

  • PMQT – 23 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 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.

    Mr. Hall : The Prime Minister is aware that local authorities nationally have had £15 billion of assets frozen in the bank because of his Government’s policy. In the light of the national housing crisis we now face, will the Prime Minister give the House a straightforward answer to my question? Why do we not allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which are much needed, with the money that they already have in the bank?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are perfectly able to use a portion of their accumulated receipts and that has been the position for many years. It is the right position for us to keep and we have no intention of changing it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Amess : I believe that what is good news for Basildon is good news for the rest of the country. Does the Prime Minister share my constituents’ delight in Basildon at yesterday’s historic European air fares agreement? Is not it the case that yesterday’s agreement is a particular triumph for Britain and for Basildon, as we pressed for the liberalisation of air markets?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the triumph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the very talk of Basildon at the moment. The Community reached an historic agreement yesterday on the final phase of aviation liberalisation. I believe that that is excellent news for the travelling public and it should mean more choice, better services and lower fares. It has been a long time coming, but it is a very welcome agreement.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now serve the public interest by ensuring that the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation into the Maxwell companies’ pension fraud is published without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I well understand the concerns generated by the whole Maxwell case. I understand that the Securities and Investments Board intends to publish a report on IMRO’s findings and conclusions. However, the House will understand that it will be essential to ensure that publication does not jeopardise either civil or criminal proceedings in the Maxwell affair, including those currently under way against Kevin and Ian Maxwell.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful for that answer. However, I must express the hope that there will not be a delay, even given the requirement to take account of the implications for possible proceedings. Does the Prime Minister accept that the report, as so far recorded in the newspapers, says that the organisation fell short of the high standards which it should have expected of itself and that, therefore, publication is a pressing necessity so that everyone can know just how the organisation fell short, what is the Government’s full responsibility in the matter and how that bears on the future of the Maxwell pensioners who have been robbed?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, as I said a moment ago, the report will be published in due course. The SIB intends to publish a report of the findings and conclusions, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice in any way either the civil or criminal proceedings–nor, I believe, would any hon. Member.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I in the meantime put it to the Prime Minister that we now know that in 1987 the Bank of England blocked an attempt by Robert Maxwell to take over a bank, that in the following year, 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to a main Maxwell company and that later that year IMRO renewed that licence? Is it not clear that in those circumstances both the Government and the system that they established have a clear and serious charge of negligence to answer and that they must answer it? The main responsibility is not with the SIB to publish the report ; it must remain with the Government and they must account for their actions and omissions in the whole disgraceful episode.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has not addressed his mind to the necessity of ensuring that nothing is done to prejudice civil or criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman well understands. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am equally anxious to ensure that the report is considered alongside the SIB’s assessment.

    Mrs. Chaplin : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that shows that many 14-year-olds like taking tests, in direct contradiction of the many so-called education experts? Is that not another example of how Conservative policy is good for pupils, parents and those who are employed in education?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome the news contained in yesterday’s report about testing. It confirms that we were absolutely right to press ahead with testing in the teeth of opposition from the teaching unions and, indeed, from Opposition Members. I hope that, in the light of what has been said in the last couple of days, the Labour party will stop fighting testing, will support it and will change its policy, as it seems to have done on grant-maintained schools.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it was a profound error of judgment for the British Government to press the European Community to lift its package of economic and oil sanctions against South Africa earlier this year? At the European Council meeting in Lisbon this Friday, will he press the EC to reconsider that decision, urge it to support the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa and seek international monitoring of the violence there?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. I share the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about the recent violence in South Africa. I also note the commitment of the South African Government to bring to justice the people responsible for that violence. The prime responsibility for law and order rests, as it must do, with the South African Government. But they have made enormous strides towards representative democracy. I understand the strength of feeling that exists at the moment, but it is of great importance that the talks do not break down and that they continue, for great progress has been made. The people who will stand to gain most from the successful conclusion of the talks are the people in South Africa who have least and about whom we should be most concerned.

    Mr. John Carlisle : In the tragic and violent disorder that is now regrettably taking place in South Africa, is my right hon. Friend not absolutely right to send a message of support to President de Klerk, who has come so far in his brave and courageous attempt to find a democratic solution which is satisfactory to all parties? In those circumstances, should not the message go to Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress that empty gestures such as suggestions of Olympic boycotts and sanctions will only hinder their chances and restrict the people of South Africa in the wonderful opportunities that they now have in front of them?

    The Prime Minister : Over recent months I have had many opportunities to discuss the present situation in South Africa with both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I remain closely in touch with both of them. What is necessary at the moment is that both of them stand back from the present difficulties and then determine how it will be possible to continue the talks and reach a satisfactory conclusion.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 26 January that the Government’s mortgage rescue scheme had “stopped repossessions”? Is he aware that since then, for every family mortgage rescued, 2,000 homes have been repossessed and that repossessions are now running at 140 families a day? Does he recognise that what he did then, although welcome, was too little and too late and that he now needs to do something more?

    The Prime Minister : No. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were there to diminish the number of repossessions–where people are in receipt of income support, the repossession does not proceed. Repossessions are falling and that has been acknowledged, not merely by the Government but by many others. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts.

    Mr. Jenkin : Following my right hon. Friend’s meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week and in the spirit of subsidiarity and our right to govern our democratic processes, is the Prime Minister able to assure the House that the European elections in 1994 will be conducted under the present voting system?

    The Prime Minister : That is certainly my intention.

     

    Q4. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Betts : Would the Prime Minister like to commiserate with the millions of English football fans who have had to endure their team’s performance during the past few weeks? Would he like to reflect on Graham Taylor’s commitment to deal with his European problems by playing it long? Indeed, Graham Taylor might only be happy once he has picked the whole Wimbledon team to play for England. Does the Prime Minister agree that his European problems look just as difficult and troublesome? Does he further agree that, like the tactics of the England team manager, his commitment to play his European problems long, and to avoid an early debate on them in the House, is just as likely to prove to be unsuccessful?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries me with him on either proposition. I offer the same support and encouragement to the England football team that I was happy to offer to the Scottish team after its excellent performance in the recent championships. On the European policy of the Government, I have made it clear that we shall have a further debate before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. That remains the case, but the time is not yet right to bring the Bill back.

    Mr. Churchill : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the British Government’s part in negotiating the first-ever global ban on chemical weapons. Does he agree that one of the gravest threats to peace in the years ahead will come from the acquisition of a non-conventional weapons capability by third-world military dictatorships, many supplied by European countries? Is it not time that steps were taken to put on notice British defence contractors and others in European countries that they cannot expect Government contracts if they forge documentation, as evidence shows has been happening, to avoid the Government’s embargoes on the export of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in his strictures on chemical weapons. If he has any detailed information on the second aspect of his question, I should be happy to receive it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Enright : Does the Prime Minister recall that in February the Government announced a settlement of RECHAR and promised action with all expedition? It is now July– [Hon. Members :– “June.”] It is now almost July and no ground rules have been agreed. I have sent two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and have written him one letter, but he still has not replied. Will the right hon. Gentleman sack him and get something done?

    The Prime Minister : It is almost July and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is almost ready to reply.

    Mr. Dunn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcomed the abolition of the National Economic Development Council, or Neddy, last week for it meant an end to trade union domination and the running of the country through the union block vote?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that, in its day, Neddy did have a role to play, but that day has passed. I think that the right decision was taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Q6. Mr. Meale : To ask the Prime Minister if he will lists his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June 1992.

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

    Mr. Meale : Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where I hope that he learnt a lot about the environment, will he support moves in this Parliament to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, I will try to answer it.

    Madam Speaker : Order. If the hon. Member repeats his question, we will all be able to hear it.

    Mr. Meale : Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where, undoubtedly, he learnt much about the environment, will he support legislation in the House to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people?

    The Prime Minister : No, Madam. That is a matter of personal choice.

  • PMQT – 14 May 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to have an easy flow of goods and people between countries, it is essential to maintain effective national border controls, not only as part of our fight against international crime and drug trafficking, but to preserve that extra security which we as an island nation have come to expect?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits that we see from the freedom of movement could easily be lost if we could not protect ourselves against terrorism, smuggling and illegal immigration. On border controls, the Government do not agree that article 8A requires the abolition of all controls on people at the Community’s internal frontiers. It is our policy to control the entry of nationals at the point of arrival. That is the most effective way of control for an island nation, and our European partners must understand that.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that today’s rise in unemployment is the 24th consecutive monthly increase? Is he aware that during the past year unemployment has increased by over half a million and that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has increased by more than 200,000? Against that background, does he think it right to continue cutting Government funding for training?

    The Prime Minister : Any increase in unemployment is one too many. I accept that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about it. The only way we shall create permanent jobs that will be sustained and will provide proper career opportunities is to have the return of confidence, the right levels of investment and the right economic background. That is what we are seeking to achieve. That is the right way to deal with unemployment in the short term, the medium term and the long term. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most substantial training schemes that this country has ever seen or any other country has ever seen.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does not the Prime Minister yet accept that a critical part of any policy for future employment is a good, strong, continuing policy on training? The figures in the Government’s White Paper on public expenditure– [Interruption.] The figures in the Government’s own White Paper show that there is to be a continuing cut in employment training and youth training. There are 800,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 who are unemployed now. Is it not clear that the Government’s message to them is no jobs, no training, no hope?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that that is remotely accurate. On the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, training is improving all the time. More workers are qualified–up to 73 per cent.–more people are staying on at school for more skills and more firms are investing in training, the figure for which is now £20 billion. This Government have created 300,000 training places whereas the Labour Government created 700. Just a few weeks ago the British people were well aware of which party would put the nation back to work and they made their choice decisively.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister wishes to refer to it, the fact is that under the last Labour Government unemployment reached a maximum of 1.25 million. It is now well over double that. This Government have never managed to get unemployment down to that level. Why will he not face up to the problem of unemployment, accept his own figures and understand that the Conservatives have not only sabotaged employment in this country and lost 1 million jobs in the last two years, but are not providing employment training in the way that should be provided in any modern country, let alone one with 2.7 million unemployed people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should sometimes recollect that there never have been a Labour Government who did not push unemployment up dramatically. A higher proportion of our nation–70 per cent., a higher proportion than anywhere else–is in work. Our job creation record throughout the 1980s was better than that of most European Community countries, providing over 2 million more jobs than in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman takes a selective view of the rest of the world. He ignores it when he talks of recession. He accepts it when he talks of unemployment. He might need a more consistent line if he becomes leader of the Socialist International.

    Mr. David Evans : I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stunning victory at the general election. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Welwyn Hatfield on getting rid of a Labour administration after 13 years? Will he assure me that we shall not hold the next Conservative party conference in Sheffield and that we shall not close the conference in total darkness with fireworks going off? [Interruption.] They might all turn out to be damp squibs, as happened to the Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his own distinctive points in his own distinctive way, and I have no doubt that the voters of Welwyn Hatfield, in returning him, have seen him do precisely what they expected of him. In response to his direct question, I can certainly confirm that the next Conservative party conference will not be held in Sheffield.

     

    Q2. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Wareing : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his predecessor first entered the House, it was five months before she made her maiden speech and that, when she did, she introduced a Bill which opened up local authority meetings to the press and public? In view of the secrecy that presently surrounds the meetings of hospital trusts, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation under which all management committee meetings are open to the press and public?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy is examining areas of government where it is possible to remove levels of secrecy. That has begun and will continue. We shall make the outcome known to Parliament in due course.

    Mr. Bill Walker : When my right hon. Friend is carrying out his review, and is taking stock of the situation, of Scotland, will he bear it in mind that his leadership and the firm stand taken by him and the Secretary of State for Scotland against assemblies and parliaments in Edinburgh resulted in the splendid general election result and the subsequent splendid result at the district elections, in which Perth and Kinross district council was restored handsomely to Conservative control?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the Union has ensured that Scotland plays a full part in the most stable political entity to be found anywhere in Europe. It has served the whole of the United Kingdom well. It has certainly served Scotland and England well. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said recently, Scotland is alive and flourishing. Indeed it is. We welcome that. It is alive and flourishing within the Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that, despite his attacks on our proposals for a carbon tax during the election campaign, we now greatly welcome his conversion to the case for a carbon tax to tackle global warming? Does he accept that the European Commission’s proposals are too timid and too conditional to attack that problem effectively, that the next response must come from the Americans and that he has a role in persuading the Americans to make that response?

    The Prime Minister : There are many ways to deal with the problem of CO and we still await the Commission’s formal proposals. We cannot yet be certain what it will do. It is absolutely clear that it would make sense to adopt such a tax only if our major competitors in the world also did so, both for environmental reasons and because acting alone would harm competitiveness in this country and across Europe. I shall discuss with Japan and the United States what action might be taken, but I have no intention of prejudging what that action might be.

    Mr. Brandreth : Did my right hon. Friend happen to see the punch-up in the Italian Parliament yesterday, when it was attempting to elect a new President? Does he see that as an example of the benefits of proportional representation or merely a dress rehearsal for the election of a new loser- -so sorry–new leader of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I did not see that particular report, but I am aware of Italy’s present difficulties as it tries to determine a new Government after an election that has split the political parties through using proportional representation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the midst of a viciously high level of crime, the Leicestershire police force has been forced to cut its budget for the current year by more than £1 million? Will he, therefore, please take this opportunity to deny reports that the Government are placing pressure on his right hon. and learned and reticent Friend the Home Secretary to cut central funding for police forces, because to do so would be irresponsible, dangerous and totally unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : Those who know my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not suggest that he is readily susceptible to pressure. He will be as concerned as the Government have been in recent years to ensure that the police force is equipped for its battle against crime.

     

    Q4. Mr. Carrington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Carrington : Some pensioners and other people on low incomes in Fulham often struggle to pay their heating bills. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, join me in warmly welcoming the 3 per cent. reduction in gas prices announced today? Does not that show that privatisation, if properly and effectively regulated, is to the benefit of everyone?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I welcome the 3 per cent. cut in prices that has been announced. It adds to the reductions in recent years since privatisation took effect and illustrates clearly the benefits of competition.

     

    Q5. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Ms. Hoey : Does the Prime Minister agree that even if every single empty property in local authority and private sector control were used for families, there would still be a huge shortage of affordable, rented housing? Will the Prime Minister tell the House simply how many affordable, rented homes he plans to build in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : It would be a great improvement if all those empty properties, largely in the ownership of Labour authorities, were made available for letting. It would also make a tremendous difference to the availability of property if the Labour party would remove its long-standing prejudices against the private sector, which discourage so many people from bringing private property into the market for letting.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hague : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s report that, in line with the patients charter, the General Medical Council is to propose the biggest changes in the regulation of doctors for 150 years? Will he also welcome yesterday’s statement by the British Medical Association that, from now on, it wishes to work with the Government in implementing health reforms? Is not the increasing acceptance of the Government’s health policies by the medical profession a vindication at last of the work that has been done in the past few years to ensure that the health service today is better funded, better managed and provides a better service to its patients than ever before?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the statement made by the chairman of the British Medical Association. We now have a far better working relationship. As a party, we are looking ahead. Indeed, it is only the Labour party which fails to look ahead to see the changes, improvements and benefits taking place in the health service as a result of our funding and our reforms.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Loyal Address – 6 May 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 6th May 1992 on the Loyal Address.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I join the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) in congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on their excellent speeches this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has, of course, starred in this debate before. In 1979, seconding the motion, he called for three things–top priority in the fight against inflation, more openness in Government, and reformed procedures of the House. This afternoon, I hope that my right hon. Friend will hear commitments that will please him on each of those fronts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley served with flair and distinction in several Cabinets from 1985 : first, as Secretary of State for the Environment, then as Education Secretary, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Home Secretary. If I were to single out just one of his achievements, it would be his education reforms. By introducing the national curriculum and asserting the need for national standards, he initiated one of the most significant reforms of the past 13 years, and one that will stand the test of time for many years to come.

    My right hon. Friend must be the only Education Secretary to have served in the artillery as an instructor to the Royal Libyan army. [Interruption.] It was in the early 1950s. Perhaps that experience was a good preparation for his later years. It certainly taught him over many years where to direct his political shot and shell, as we saw again this afternoon.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Among all his duties, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has since 1980 found time to publish four anthologies. In view of the publicity given to those volumes this afternoon, I invite hon. Members to buy now while the stocks last. So good are they that I was tempted to make them part of the national curriculum. But my right hon. Friend’s modesty in not doing so himself dissuaded me. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) reads my right hon. Friend’s books with as much pleasure as I do. There may perhaps be just one poem in them which he does not much care for. In “Unauthorised versions : Poems and their Parodies”, my right hon. Friend included Chesterton’s “Cider Song”. This may well awaken unhappy memories for my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I understand that when he was at school he lost a mock election to the SDCP. It was not a forerunner of the party of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)–at least I think not. It was the Somerset Cider Drinkers’ party. I believe that it was a particularly devastating defeat for my hon. Friend.

    Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has experience of the armed forces, having served in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. No doubt that will be invaluable experience if my hon. Friend ever joins my right hon. Friend’s Whips Office. But I suspect that he may well be wary of such a posting after an early experience when he should have been in the House for a vote, was in the House for a vote, but could not be found by the Whips. A phone call from the Whips Office was made to my hon. Friend’s home. My hon. Friend’s wife was out. The babysitter answered and, as she told my hon. Friend on his return, “This strange man rang for you, but I had to put the phone down when he began to talk about whipping.” I share with the right hon. Member for Islwyn congratulations for both my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling on their speeches this afternoon.

    For the first time since 1826, Madam Speaker, a Government have been returned to office for a fourth successive term. In the next five years we plan a reforming programme : a programme to return to people more control over their own lives; a programme to encourage and build up the private sector; a programme to improve public services. The Gracious Speech is but the first instalment of that programme in this Parliament.

    Our programme is about trusting people and encouraging them to rise as fast and as far as they can to create, through their enterprise, the prosperity that enables us to take care of others. And we believe in empowering people : in giving individuals more power over their own lives, and the Government less power over people’s lives. The power to choose–and the right to own.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Later.

    So we will widen choice and extend opportunity in education; in the workplace; in housing ; in transport. We will continue to reform all our public services, to make them more responsive to the citizen–and to get the best value for taxpayer’s money. That way we can improve our services and still leave people more of their own money to spend. Measures to achieve these aims were set out in the Gracious Speech.

    Before I turn to the legislative programme, let me mention other matters high on our agenda. I propose to make reforms at the very heart of government. We will sweep away many of the cobwebs of secrecy which needlessly veil too much of Government business. We shall shortly publish for the first time the full list of ministerial Cabinet Committees, with their terms of reference and membership. We shall make available to the House the guidance on procedure and the conduct of business that has long been sought by many right hon. and hon. Members.

    I have also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to identify other areas where there may be excessive secrecy and to carry forward the moves already under way, across Government, towards greater openness.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : In a moment.

    As part of this open government initiative the Government have concluded that the time has come to acknowledge publicly the continuing existence of the secret intelligence service. SIS is a service distinct and separate from the security service. It provides foreign intelligence and overseas support in furtherance of the Government’s foreign, defence, security and economic policies. The chief of the SIS is appointed by the Foreign Secretary, in consultation with the Prime Minister, to whom he has direct access upon demand. He is responsible for the effectiveness, efficiency and security of the SIS and, in particular, for ensuring that information is obtained and disseminated only for the purposes that I mentioned earlier. The present chief of the SIS, the man colloquially known as “C”, is Sir Colin McColl. We intend to introduce legislation to place the secret intelligence service on a statutory basis.

    Successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear to the House : it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is or is not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness and safety of the staff of these services. Therefore, I have deliberately distinguished today between acknowledging the existence of the SIS and commenting on operational information. That is a distinction which the Government will continue to maintain.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister has talked about the necessary accountability and openness of government–reform at the heart of government itself. I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House. However, he has not yet said anything about the reform of the method of government. Given that, as he has rightly said, he has won a fourth term–I congratulate him–but given that this was the sixth consecutive election at which a third or less of the British people have supported the Government and the 14th consecutive election at which fewer than 50 per cent. of those voting have supported the Government, when will we– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. If the House comes to order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will conclude his sentence.

    Mr. Hughes : When will we have not only a classless society, but a properly democratic society as well?

    Mr. Skinner : Some 82 per cent. voted against PR and the Liberal Democrats.

    The Prime Minister : For once I can share common cause with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It may not happen all that often, which may be a comfort to both of us, but on this occasion I can share common cause with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I will leave it at that.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley set out clearly the difficulties that many countries in Europe are experiencing with proportional representation. Although I understand the concerns and feelings of grievance of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is not in the interests of this country to have weak government and a Government unable to command a majority in this House.

    Mr. Winnick : While I welcome what the Prime Minister has just said–indeed both statements–will he confirm that the security service, unfortunately, will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? I wish it would be. Can he explain why, if recent articles in The Guardian are correct, some of the documents relating to the Nazi wartime occupation of the Channel islands are classified until 2045? If the Prime Minister is so keen that there should be no secrecy and that people should have confidence in knowing what has happened, should not those documents be released into the public domain as quickly as possible? As for the person who has been named–Kurt Klebeck–

    Madam Speaker : Order. Let us begin as we mean to continue. Interventions must be interventions. The hon. Gentleman realises they they must not be long speeches.

    Mr. Winnick : I shall conclude my intervention, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to be able to raise this point.

    Will the Prime Minister ask the West German authorities whether that person, who was undoubtedly involved in Nazi killings, can be extradited? If not–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I cannot comment in detail on the hon. Gentleman’s point. He knows that that is the position. As I said a moment ago, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to examine areas where we may be able to relax the present levels of secrecy. That examination should precede an announcement, but I thought it right to tell the House at an early stage that we intend to conduct that examination, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to leave the matter there for the moment. I have already put in place reforms to the structure of Government. I have set up two new Departments that will affect the whole fabric of our national life. The citizens charter will be at the centre of the Government’s decision-making. Its objectives are to make public services more accountable and to ensure that they truly serve the customers who pay for them with their fares and taxation. I have therefore also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be responsible for the citizens charter programme and for the reform of the Civil Service. He will ensure that we set even tougher performance targets and extend further high quality, responsive public services to the individual citizen. I have also established a Department for National Heritage, responsible for the arts, sports, broadcasting, films and our architectural heritage.

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : What a nice little earner.

    The Prime Minister : If that is a job application from the hon. Gentleman, may I say that he lacks some of the necessary qualifications. However, I shall bear him in mind when we next have the occasion to meet at Stamford Bridge.

    In gathering those responsibilities together in one Department under a Cabinet Minister, I wanted to demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to them and to provide a strong voice at the centre of Government to speak for the needs of our national culture and heritage. That heritage is woven from distinctive strands from all four corners of the United Kingdom. Union is not uniformity. So we will ensure that the individuality of all parts of the United Kingdom is respected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will, for example, be introducing a Welsh Language Bill this Session to strengthen the position of the language in Wales.

    As I made clear during the election, the paramount importance of the unity of the United Kingdom and the union between Scotland and England is clear. I make no bones about repeating that. This Government stand firmly and four square for the Union. We want to see the ties between the two countries strengthened, not weakened, throughout this Parliament.

    A great strength of our constitution has been its capacity to accommodate change–to evolve. We shall therefore look at ways in which Government could be more responsive to Scotland’s needs. But the Union itself is not negotiable.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Just before the recent general election, when questioned in Scotland about the Scottish constitutional question, the Prime Minister said that he would take stock of the Scottish election result. At the general election, the Conservative party was rejected by three quarters of Scottish voters, who voted for parties committed to the setting up of a Scottish Parliament. If the Prime Minister refuses to accept that interpretation of the Scottish election result, will he do the decent, democratic thing and hold a multi-option referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future or is he, in the words of his predecessor, too frit?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman glosses over the fact that 62 per cent. of the electorate voted against the Labour party. We entered the last general election with the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members suggesting that the Conservative party would lose seats in Scotland, would have no seats left in Scotland and would dramatically lose votes in Scotland. It increased votes, it increased seats and it increased influence, which is what it will continue to do in the months and years ahead. I undertook to take stock and see what we could do to make the Government more responsive to the needs of Scotland–that I intend to do, but in a way that will not damage the Union, the interests of Scotland or the interests of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt about that.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : I am grateful to the Prime Minister. He says that he believes that there should be changes at the heart of Government and that there should be increased accountability. Surely that should be reflected in his enabling and empowering the people of Scotland to express clearly their views on constitutional change. Why does he not envisage in the Gracious Speech and in the Government’s programme such a democratic facility?

    The Prime Minister : I think that, from every part of this country, the constituents send Members of Parliament here to this place to express their constituents’ views on all matters. The voice of Scotland is represented on the Opposition Benches and on the Government Benches. In my experience in the House, the voice of Scotland has always spoken up forcefully in all parts of the House for Scotland’s interests, which is the way that it should be. We will take stock of the present position in Scotland and then report back to the House. It is a matter of some importance and we will proceed with it. We are proceeding with it now, and when we have concluded, we shall report back to the House. We shall also continue our determined assault on the problems of Northern Ireland. The courage of the people of Northern Ireland is undoubted. They have the assurance that we shall not turn our back on their needs. Our overriding aim is to eliminate the evil of terrorism, and to do that we shall make progress on security, and in the social, political and economic spheres.

    A further institutional reform is important to the whole House. I refer to the recommendations of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) into the procedures debated by the previous Parliament. But I believe that the present Parliament must also discuss them before decisions can be taken. Therefore, we shall make time available for debate and undertake further consultations. I believe, personally, that the time has come for some of our procedures to be reformed, although that is essentially a matter for the House.

    Mr. Skinner : We are not going to give the right hon. Gentleman an easy time.

    The Prime Minister : I would never expect an easy time from the hon. Member for Bolsover. Indeed, it would be very boring if he were to give anybody an easy time. I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not give his own Labour party Front Bench team an easy time.

    Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Does the Prime Minister understand that his comments on the recent report on the sittings of the House by the Select Committee are most helpful and welcome? Does he recall that previous proposals for change, particularly the Crossman proposal 25 years ago, failed largely because they did not have the support of a broad band across the House? Does he remember that the recent all-party Committee was unanimous in its findings? Does he also realise that many hon. Members would very much welcome Government action that would mean that the changes would take effect from when the House returns after the summer recess?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my right hon. Friend’s points are well made. As I said, we shall consult interested parties on the matter and lay a debate before the House to take the collective view of hon. Members.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : May we take it for granted that the reforms that the Prime Minister has in mind in the light of the report of the Procedure Committee and of the idea of giving power back to the people will include scrutiny of the Government by a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, to be set up at the earliest possible opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : That is one of the matters that we will consider, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no assurance this afternoon.

    The Government were returned at this election because we spoke for certain great truths. George Bernard Shaw–no Tory he–wrote that “all great truths begin as blasphemies”, and for many years the received wisdom denied many truths : the truth that lower taxes create more wealth for better welfare; the truth that competition produces better services at lower cost; and the truth that less state control makes for a better state. Those truths are now accepted by the vast majority of people in this country, and the latest election endorsed that process. People voted for greater choice and the freedom that flows from it.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way generously and I would like to make a little progress. I was referring to the freedom of people to keep more of their own money, to freedom from the fear of inflation and to freedom from state interference and the excessive influence of trade unions–and I refer only to the “excessive” influence of trade unions. Even today, as this debate is being conducted, we are witnessing an extremely important leadership election in which the trade unions wield the largest share of votes. Many of those votes will represent trade union members who voted Conservative at the last general election, as millions of them did. So whoever is elected as leader of the Labour party will rely on Conservative votes to become Leader of the Opposition; when the next general election comes he can rely on Conservative votes to keep him as Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose —

    The Prime Minister : Some unions may not even bother to ballot their members. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has recognised that inequity–and he wants it changed, but not now, not until he is safely home and dry. To paraphrase St. Augustine, “Give me goodness Lord, but not just yet”.

    Now that the general election is over we see signs of renewed confidence. Business surveys have immediately reflected stronger prospects. The stock market has risen by over 10 per cent., and sterling has risen to DM 2.92. This week we made the ninth successive reduction in British interest rates since we joined the exchange rate mechanism. The latest cut in bank base rates has already led to a further cut in mortgage rates.

    This renewed confidence in Britain flows from the economic policies that we laid before the British people, policies designed to encourage the creation of wealth in Britain and for Britain. We understand that without wealth there can be no welfare and without welfare we cannot discharge our responsibilities.

    Later this month we will introduce the Finance Bill to enact outstanding measures from the Budget–

    Mr. Canavan : Not again. The last one was rubbish.

    The Prime Minister : It is worth having another. Like so many Conservative Budgets, this one once more delivered cuts in income tax. Every taxpayer will benefit, while nearly 4 million taxpayers on low incomes will pay tax at the new 20p rate–young people starting out in their careers, many women working part time and many disabled people. Our aim in these cuts is to encourage effort and reward endeavour at every level.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the Prime Minister give way on that very point?

    The Prime Minister : I have given way generously–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

    The Prime Minister : The 20p band shows the way ahead to further tax reductions. We can steadily extend it up the income scale, so that, as and when prudent, more and more people pay income tax only at this lower rate.

    Both the Budget and the manifesto made clear our determination to pursue the fight against inflation. Within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism and with the support of sound monetary and fiscal policies we have the opportunity to do as well as and better than our European competitors. Our aim is to restore to this country the security of stable prices, and our plans on fiscal matters are clearly set out in the Red Book.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Prime Minister was pressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to say how he intended to balance the budget over the medium term. Will the Prime Minister give an honest answer? Will he increase the burden of taxation over the medium term? Does he rule that out?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised by the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question because he knows as well as any hon. Member that the plans about the change in the fiscal deficit are clearly set out in the Red Book. They are there for the House to examine. They were there before the election and they are there now, and we shall seek to stick to them until we have a balanced budget. The direction is clear. We saw the cyclical rise of the fiscal deficit during the recession, and as we come out of recession that deficit will begin to fall. We have made that entirely clear to hon. Members time and again.

    Mr. Skinner : When will the books be balanced?

    The Prime Minister : I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already dealt with that question but the hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand it.

    We shall take forward the crusade against over-regulation and state interference that stifled free enterprise for so long. We shall resist any pressure from whatever source–domestically or from Brussels–to reimpose handicaps on our industry that we removed one by one in the 1980s. Not for us the interventionism that would put people out of work, with minimum wages and artificial restrictions on working times. Not for us either the damaging paraphernalia of the social chapter.

    We shall continue to encourage opportunity in a labour market, free of unnecessary restrictions, and we shall develop the reforms of industrial relations that have brought peace to the workplace. As set out in our manifesto, we propose to introduce legislation to increase the rights of ordinary trade union members, to require proper notice to be given of an intention to strike, and to give every user of public services the right to restrain the disruption of those services by unlawful industrial action. Never again should the people who depend on our public services be held to ransom by illegal strikes.

    We shall also extend the benefits of privatisation. It has extended share ownership to millions who would never have dreamed of owning shares before. Millions of workers now own shares in their own industries, and all over the world other countries are now following our lead with those policies. Even the Labour party paid a grudging tribute to our success. Of course, that tribute was the dog that did not bark–the concealment of clause four. The Opposition dare not commit themselves to reverse every privatisation. They would like to, but they dare not. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would renationalise water and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would apparently renationalise the lot– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”] Clearly, he has support for that. I am grateful to hon. Members–not for the first time.

    Privatisation is a great aid to efficiency. It has transformed many loss leaders into world leaders–dead weight to heavy weight–but I am not sure that even a privatised leadership election could manage that trick for the Opposition.

    We now propose to return British Coal to the private sector, and we shall introduce legislation to enable the private sector to operate rail services and to encourage competition. At the same time, we shall safeguard the national network of services, and provide subsidy where necessary. We want to recover a sense of pride in our railways and recapture the spirit of the old regional companies.

    Industrial relations and privatisation are crucial to our continued economic success. Equally, so is the quality of education. For too long, education reflected the views of professionals to the virtual exclusion of parents. For too long parents found the education establishment more difficult to break into than Fort Knox. In the last Session we changed that. Parents will now receive clear, consistent information about their child’s education. Many people regarded that as outrageous ; astounding. The truly astounding thing is that it has not always been normal practice. Schools will be inspected once every four years and, under the national curriculum, children will learn a core of essential knowledge to meet the demands of adult life and the modern world.

    In just over two years grant-maintained schools have proved their worth. Already over one in 10 secondary schools has balloted its parents on grant-maintained status, and many more now plan to do so. We intend to extend the benefits of self-government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will publish a White Paper by the end of the summer and an education Bill this autumn.

    Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Will the Prime Minister give way? My point is on education.

    The Prime Minister : Our target is to raise standards, widen choice and open up opportunity for hundreds of thousands of children. We shall have a lengthy debate over many days. My right hon. Friend will be returning to this issue.

    We also want more choice for local authority tenants and leaseholders. Under a new housing and urban development Bill, local authority tenants will be able to join a rent-to-mortgage scheme. They will have the chance to buy a share in their homes, with mortgage payments no greater than their rent. It should help tenants whose current income is not quite enough for them to benefit under existing right-to-buy legislation. In addition, right to repair will be extended. Leaseholders of flats will have new rights either to buy the freehold collectively or to extend their leases.

    The Bill will also implement our manifesto commitment to create a new urban regeneration agency. Too much land still lies idle, especially in our inner cities. Idle land means lost hopes, lost opportunities and lost chances for people living there. The agency will bring vacant and derelict property back into use. It will bring more jobs, more wealth and more hope to our urban areas.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will introduce legislation to create a single national lottery. Hundreds of millions of pounds will be raised to foster the arts, to encourage sport and to sustain our voluntary bodies. It will provide funding on a hitherto unprecedented scale. It will improve massively our arts and sports facilities. It will help to preserve our heritage and perhaps create new buildings for us to hand on to our children. It will help support the network of voluntary bodies of which this country can be so proud, and with which it is uniquely blessed.

    During the next few weeks the House will debate the legislation that is needed to implement the agreement that we reached at Maastricht. At Maastricht, my right hon. Friends and I argued successfully for policies debated and agreed by the House. The House endorsed the results on our return.

    Shortly after the debate on the Maastricht Bill we shall take on the presidency of the European Community. We face issues that are vital to the health of the Community and the interests of this country : completion of the single market, continued reform of the common agricultural policy, negotiation of the Community’s future finances and the first steps towards the Community’s enlargement. These are far-reaching objectives and their achievement will involve hard negotiation–negotiation in which, as President, this country will take the lead. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that we shall continue to argue strongly for our national interests as well as for the interests of the Community as a whole. I agree with him that for the Community to succeed it must stay in tune with the democratic wishes of its citizens. The Community must adapt to those wishes across Europe.

    It will fall to the United Kingdom also to manage the Community’s relations with the rest of the world. No task is more important than developing our relationship with the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The west is now helping them on an unprecedented scale. Britain has led in successfully promoting Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund. We have won support for a stabilisation fund. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has played a crucial role in negotiating these measures to help the Russian reforms succeed.

    The survival of fledgling democracy in the east must be the top foreign affairs priority of those of us in the west. It is partly for that reason that Britain has championed the enlargement of the Community. Austria, Finland and Sweden have already applied. I hope that they will join by 1995, and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia by the year 2000.

    One crucial element over the coming year will be European security. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will enlarge on that issue later in the debate. We start with a system of defence that is built upon the continuing American presence in Europe. The Gulf war showed how crucial that presence is to the defence of our common interests.

    Mr. Dalyell : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I wish to make some progress. Many other hon. Members are waiting to speak.

    Increasingly, countries that join the European Community will also join the Western European Union, as the European pillar of a common defence effort; but, if the need ever again arose, it would be through NATO that the members of the WEU would defend themselves. Any European country joining the WEU will still look to NATO–including the American presence in Europe–for its defence. That is the reality ; it is also good sense.

    I was the first Head of Government of the Group of Seven to undertake to attend the Rio summit. I shall go backed by our commitment to the target of returning carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, provided that others will do the same. We hope to sign global conventions on biological diversity and climate change.

    We are continuing to work for agreement in the GATT trade talks. Too much progress has been made to allow the remaining gap to lead to a breakdown. These issues require constant management, constant vigilance and constant diplomatic effort. We shall need all the means at our disposal.

    Mr. Dalyell : Is there not enough environmental destruction in the world already, without the possibility of yet more? Will the Prime Minister rule out any military attack on Libya–especially in view of the fact that the lawyers acting for Pan Am’s insurers now have the gravest doubts about the whole case, and about whether the Libyan state was involved? Even Pan Am’s insurers’ lawyers are doubtful.

    The Prime Minister : No, I am afraid that I cannot accommodate the hon. Gentleman’s wishes and rule that out.

    Within the time available today, I have not been able to deal with all the plans that we have set out for this Session, but I have sketched in the majority of the most important. All those plans are geared to maintain a country that is respected abroad and has self-respect at home–a country in which, increasingly, everyone may realise his or her aspirations; a country in which people are able not only to get their feet on to one rung, but to scale the whole height of the ladder if they have the will and the skills to do so. There must be no barriers–no glass ceilings. I do not want people to be “cabined, cribbed, confined” by the action of the state. This Government have the vision to take the United Kingdom forward into the 1990s. They have the experience, the skills and the competence, and, after the election, they have the confidence of the country. The wide-ranging programme outlined in the Gracious Speech demonstrates that that confidence was well placed. I commend it to the House.

  • 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 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.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to General Election Candidates – 22 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given to a meeting of Conservative Party General Election candidates on 22nd March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me first thank Margaret Thatcher for coming here. Weeks ago when I invited her, she accepted immediately. It is what we would have expected. She is one of the most successful campaigners in our long political history – and no-one expected when the fight began that she would be anywhere other than in the thick of it.

    It is given to few people to change the face of our nation. But Margaret Thatcher did. And I believe her changes have made an enduring impact not only on our country, but on the world at large.

    We know she has many great qualities. But let me single out one. Looking forward. She always looks forward. It’s always on to the next thing, the next challenge. There is always more work to be done.

    As there is for us now. To build on the successes of the ‘80s. That is what our Manifesto does. It builds on Margaret’s legacy. And for the same two reasons. To promote Conservatism – and to beat Socialism.

    The Transformation of Britain

    Let me tell you why we’ll win the Election. We will win because of what we believe. Because of our principles. Because of our policies. And because we set no limit to our ambitions for our country.

    In the 1980s Conservatives built in Britain one of the most successful economies in Europe. Some things did go down, of course. Inflation. Strikes. And the Labour Party. Socialism’s unholy trinity. They all went down. And, together, at this Election, we must keep them down.

    But the things that mattered went up. Productivity. Prosperity. And pride. We grew faster than France, faster than Germany. Manufacturing exports grew faster than America’s, even Japan’s. Taxes on incomes were slashed. The standard of living of the British people has grown as never before. Today the income of a typical family man on average earnings is nearly 40% higher, after tax and inflation, than it was under Labour.

    Defend our record? No, don’t just defend it – go out and proclaim that record. It’s changed the face of Britain.

    Millions more people are owners. Owners of homes. Of shares. Of pensions. People who never imagined such things would ever be something for them.

    Britons have earned more, owned more, achieved more than ever before in our history. That’s what Labour call failure? Well, if that’s failure, there are plenty of countries across the world who’d like a share in it.

    Labour’s smash and grab raid

    Labour couldn’t have done it. But their Mr Smith wants a share in it. And his mock ‘budget’ shows he means to take it. Take it from the people who have earned it. What he proposes is a systematic smash and grab raid on the independent, the hard-working, the middle income families of Britain. Labour’s huge tax burden would shatter their budgets and alter their lives.

    It’s not just the unfairness of it. Or the injustice. It is the effect it would have. It would shut down small trades in droves – the jobbing builders, the electricians, the decorating businesses, all those people who depend on work in homes and offices.

    It would drive away from Britain the huge tide of foreign investment that we have attracted. Does anyone seriously imagine that Japanese, German, American firms would create jobs in Britain with their executives clobbered, and militant shop stewards loose on the factory floor? They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t come. They’d stay away. They’d go away. And the whole of Britain would lose.

    Labour’s tax plans are spiteful. They would hurt millions and millions of skilled people in Britain – and for what? Who gains? In order to pay out between 2 pence and 4 pence a week to 9 million families. Twopence a week – the price of a Polo mint.

    Don’t confiscate wealth – spread wealth

    There is no logic to this. It is the politics of the socialist stone age. The politics of envy. Economically illiteracy with a dash of calculated malice. Intended to wound. Intended to bite. Doomed to fail.

    That is the wrong way for Britain. We don’t believe in confiscating wealth from those who have created it. We believe in creating wealth. In spreading wealth. And we believe in taking the threat of inheritance tax off the back of the homeowners of Britain. What people have spent a lifetime building up, they should be free to hand on to their children. We will give them that freedom.

    Growing wealth to an ever wider number of families – that’s what we believe in. Growing living standards in which all can share, in a growing economy. That’s what our Manifesto promises. It’s for that we must go out and campaign.

    Labour’s Manifesto – £1250 a year more tax for everyone

    How different it would be with Labour. Then your worry would be how to protect your savings, protect your income, protect your home. There’s only one industry Labour would manage to revive – the tax avoidance business.

    But it doesn’t stop there. Yesterday the Chancellor revealed the true scale of Labour’s threat to Britain. All we’ve said up to then was based on John Smith’s absurd little mock ‘budget’. Now we have had a look at that ‘budget’s’ big brother, the other half of Labour’s plans. The spending plans. Their ambitions for other people’s money. Neil Kinnock promised to cost his Manifesto. But the promise “lapsed”. Somehow those costings failed to turn up.

    It’s not surprising he should suddenly forget them. Not surprising he should suddenly clam up. Never lost for a word – always lost in the sums, when it comes to paying for the promises he’s made. Labour are beginning to protest that we are campaigning on the key issues of spending and taxation. I bet they are. Well, I make no apology for that. They go to the very heart of this Election. The choice is clear. What kind of country are we to be? A country in which it pays to be ambitious, in which it pays to be qualified, in which it pays to be successful, in which it pays to work hard or be self-employed? That’s what we stand for. Or a country in which incentive is abandoned – a hands-in-the-pockets Britain where you can only go so far before a Labour Chancellor is at your throat? When all across Europe Socialism is going down and down, we cannot, we must not, we will not bring it back here.

    When you’re on the door-step you haven’t time to get across a long complicated message. You’ve got to keep it simple and clear. So let me give you one message to get across, come what may, at every hour on every day.

    The cost of Labour’s promises. We’ve added them up – £31 billion on top of Mr Smith’s less than complete ‘budget’. To pay for them, on average every person would have to fork out an extra £1,250 a year. I repeat – 1,250 extra to the tax man, on top of everything else they are already paying. That’s the price of Labour. As ever it taxes belief. So take that to every doorstep in the land.

    The challenge to Labour: a straight answer now

    Yesterday we produced a detailed analysis of Labour’s public spending pledges. We have set out their promises in their own words. The Labour leader calls this ‘fantasy’. But that’s just tax avoidance talk. So come clean, Mr Kinnock. Tell the people. Set out your own costed programme. Take all your pledges – one by one. Accept our costing – or refute it. Stand by your promises – or withdraw them. Dig deep behind those pledges and come up with the tax, the whole tax and nothing but the tax. I challenge you.

    The difference between the Parties

    Some people talk of there being little difference between the Parties. Where have they been these last few years? We want to bring income tax down. Labour want to put income tax up. Even this morning, Roy Hattersley, their Deputy Leader, refused to rule out further increases in the higher rates of income tax. Higher rates today – basic rates tomorrow?

    We will bring inflation down still further, set our course for stable prices. Labour will let inflation up again. We will extend choice. Labour will remove choice. We will widen ownership. Labour fight against it. We want to privatise more. Labour want to renationalise – though whether they’ll pay a fair price or not is another matter.

    Little difference? There is all the difference in the world.

    The Conservative Programme

    So go out and tell the people of our programme. Tell them what we are fighting for. Back to basics in schools.

    Go out and tell them we want a return to basics in our schools. Schools free from council control. Schools that reward good teachers. Schools where parents have more power. Schools that are regularly inspected, and that publish their results. Schools that families have the right to choose.

    Long-term lasting jobs

    Go out and tell them the truth about unemployment. Remind them how every move we make to control inflation and build the basis for recovery is designed to defeat it. Explain to them that introducing a minimum wage, bringing back trade union power, and putting up tax would send unemployment through the roof. Ram it home that 87% of businessmen say our economic policies are the best, and so the right way to create long-term, lasting jobs. Warn them that more than a quarter of business leaders say they would actually have to cut investment if Labour won.

    New attitudes in public service

    Go out and tell the people we want a new attitude across public services in Britain. Pride, quality and openness in service. A Citizen’s Charter that puts the customers first everywhere. Improving standards year by year.

    The real National Health Service

    Go out and tell them how we feel about the National Health Service. And by the way it is the National Health Service; it does not belong to the Labour Party. I will never forget what I owe to the Health Service. I will do everything I can to strengthen and develop it. So long as I am Prime Minister the resources we give it will grow year by year.

    But tell the people about the real Health Service. About the record support it is given, the new hospitals, the millions more cases it is treating every year. Tell them about the modern Health Service, the new treatments, the tens of thousands of hip and heart operations that were unknown a few years ago. And, above all, tell them about the miracle of daily care given by the million who work in the Health Service – the night nurse tending the patient in the small hours, the skill of the midwife, the devotion of the junior doctor, the GP rising from her bed at night, the amazing skill of the surgeon.

    And when you tell them all that, tell them how you despise the self-appointed ‘friends’ of the Health Service. Labour’s people who know the millions of things that go right every day, but boast of the few that do not. The people who know the truth, but proclaim the opposite. The people who stop at nothing to run down the NHS and those who work in it. The parasites who swoop on human error and personal tragedy, and can scarce disguise their relish as they do so. If you share my anger about the damage such people do to the Health Service – and to the peace of mind of the sick and the old – then go out and tell the people.

    The Right to Own

    And don’t forget to tell the people that we gave them the right to own, that we stand for wider ownership still. For rents to mortgages, homesteading and imaginative new ways to ownership in housing. For every firm to do more to spread share ownership to its employees – an end to a world in which there were share options for directors, but never for staff. Tell them we will be giving a new incentive, new help to the millions of young people who want personal pensions of their own. I want a growing piece of Britain for everyone – to have and to hold and to leave to their families after them.

    The Power to Choose

    Go out and tell them we stand for the power to choose – in schools, in housing, in the conduct of daily life through lower tax. Tell them we stand for sound money and stable prices. For freedom from trade union dominance. For freedom from council interference. For the family and the individual first, and the state only when needed.

    More privatisation and contracting-out

    Go out and tell them we believe in more privatisation and contracting out. That we want to bring a new spirit into our railways. To open up the musty corridors of Whitehall to new thinking and less secretive attitudes. That we will bring outside skills into lazy and incompetent Town Halls – housing departments that patronise their tenants, white collar services that have never felt the challenge to change.

    The Rule of Law

    Go out and make clear that it is we, and not Labour, who stand for the rule of law, as we always have. We don’t intend to see trade union flying pickets back on our streets. We’re going to sweep the threat of crime off them. And let me say again, we want a return to the old approach in policing – where local bobbies knew everything that was happening on their patch. We want police out there on the beat. And I must tell you, I intend to confront the ideas of some of our commentators that crimes of burglary, car theft are minor matters. Tell that to the widow who has lost her treasures. Tell that to the young mother who finds her car smashed up. Property crime is crime that hurts. And we will tackle it.

    A Brighter Britain

    Go out and tell them we want a brighter Britain in which we don’t just enjoy the heritage of our ancestors, but create something to leave to our descendants. Tell them how we are going to breathe new life into the arts, the sports, the communities, and charities of Britain through our National Lottery and Millennium Fund.

    A United Kingdom at home; no United States of Europe abroad

    And another thing. It doesn’t get the headlines. Doesn’t always arise on the doorsteps. But it is fundamental. For me it is a passionate concern. I believe in a United Kingdom. I understand the emotions in Scotland but Labour’s devolution proposals could lead to the break up our country. Proper debate on them has scarcely begun. They would set us on the road to bitterness, conflict, and possibly, separation. Wherever I go in this campaign I will expose those damaging plans. I urge you to do so with equal passion.

    As for Labour they would sign up to every idea from Brussels – with all the critical faculties of the toady who wants to be accepted. They would sign anything, sign everything, even a social chapter that would destroy jobs by the hundreds of thousands and halt our recovery. Labour would be a pushover in Europe. When it came to our national interests they wouldn’t even try.

    The result of their policies would be a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. The British people will never agree to that – tell them the scale of the threat and let them decide.

    Maintaining Britain’s standing in the world

    The standing of our country in the world is no light matter. In the last decade we have rebuilt that standing. Britain is now a world leader – a leader with new ideas, a leader for human rights, a leader against terrorism, against tyranny, against all who oppress.

    We cannot be certain what the years ahead will hold. Great opportunities, surely. But great dangers, too. Old lines are breaking. The new order for which we are working is yet to bed down. In a shifting, uncertain world men and nations look for rocks – rocks of principle, rocks of authority to which they can cling. I want a Conservative Britain to be such a rock.

    Firm Defence

    Twice in the last ten years we have faced sudden danger – the challenge of war, the threat of the dictator. We were able through the courage of our armed forces, and with the help of our allies, to meet and defeat those challenges. We succeeded because we were prepared – even for the unexpected. That’s the first rule in defence – unlike Labour, unprepared even for the expected.

    Labour’s Defence Confusion

    The world needs to know where Britain stands. We cannot afford to be defended by men who don’t even know, or daren’t even say, where they themselves would take their stand. For Labour defence is an embarrassment. Some of them hate it. Some of them resent it. None of them sits in the Shadow Cabinet to speak for it.

    Consider Trident. This government is clear. We will order, build, arm, and deploy the fourth Trident submarine. But what about Labour? Is CND out? Or is CND in? Can’t Neil Decide? And Trident? Will they build it? Won’t they build it? Or will they, as some so foolishly suggest, launch it, but send it floating round the world like a defenceless ocean liner? An unarmed Trident? A sort of submarine liner. That wouldn’t deter our enemies. That would have them falling about in ridicule. They would be queuing up to hang out their washing on the Kaufman line.

    Go out and fight for what we believe

    Ladies and Gentlemen, when you’re out there in the front line fighting this campaign at this most crucial election for our country, remember this. You’re fighting for the things that our Party stands for:

    – an enterprising society;

    – a caring society;

    – a genuinely classless society;

    – a country where opportunity is open to all and effort is rewarded;

    – a country that honours its obligations to the poor, the sick, the elderly;

    – a country, respected by all, that stands proud among the nations of the world.

    To those of you fighting an Election for the first time, one final thought. Trust the people. Give them your trust. And on April 9th, you will find, once again, that the people will trust us.