Tag: Maastricht Treaty

  • PMQT – 18 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Q1. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to Bury.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I shall be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend’s constituency among them.

    Mr. Sumberg : Is my right hon. Friend aware that at tonight’s annual general meeting of the Bury, South Conservative association we shall celebrate our recent victories in the local and general elections and welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent speech on the citizen’s charter to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he made it absolutely clear that in the battle between the Goliaths, who want greater state intervention, and the Davids, who want greater individual freedom, he backs the Davids every time?

    The Prime Minister : I wish that I could be with my hon. Friend this evening for his celebrations. The people of Bury, South made a wise choice, and they certainly did in the general election. My hon. Friend is right : I want to see a change in attitude in many areas of public services. We need public services that meet what the public want, not what the so-called experts tell them they should have.

     

    Q2. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Woolwich.

    The Prime Minister : I will be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include different parts of London among them.

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Does the Prime Minister share the enthusiasm of the President of the Board of Trade for the economic regeneration of the east Thames corridor? Does he share the views of previous Secretaries of State for Transport that the Jubilee line is essential for that economic regeneration and that it can be achieved at far less cost to the Exchequer than building the east London river crossing and without the environmental damage that would ensue from the road?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that in due course we shall be able to proceed with the Jubilee line, but we shall wish to see the private sector contribution that we previously set as the sum necessary to ensure that we can proceed. Providing we can achieve that, I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Jubilee line. Economic regeneration is welcome everywhere.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Sir Anthony Durant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

    Sir Anthony Durant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in nuclear weapons that was agreed between President Bush and the Russian President is good news and is to be welcomed? However, will he assure the House and the nation that he will maintain strong United Kingdom defences within NATO and will continue with the Trident programme?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome the announcements that were made after the meetings in Washington between President Bush and President Yeltsin. We shall certainly continue to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent. We shall maintain it, build it, arm it and deploy Trident.

    Mr. Kinnock : On this day on which unemployment has gone above 2.7 million again, does the Prime Minister recall that it is exactly a year since he said that economic recovery would begin–and I use his words– “within weeks” and that Britain would come out of recession by the end of 1991? Why was he so absurdly wrong?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will have been very pleased to see the economic indicators this week in the light of that remark–very pleased indeed. He will have been pleased to see that manufacturing production has risen for three months in a row for the first time in two years, that retail sales are up again, that the rate of increase in average earnings has slowed further to 7 per cent. and is now at its lowest level for 25 years. While the increase in unemployment is very unwelcome, it is clearly now slowing, so I think that the right hon. Gentleman can now see that we are on the road to recovery.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am always glad to see any movement out of the trough into which this Government’s policies have pushed the British people and the British economy, but, after the Chancellor’s statement yesterday that Britain is three years away from full recovery, as he put it, is not it clear that whenever the Prime Minister or the Chancellor have made optimistic comments about the economy, they have simply not been telling the truth to the British people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be misled by everything that he reads in newspaper headlines ; he should read the speech itself. He should recall that in January he relied a touch too heavily on a press report and criticised me when he was confusing taxes and interest rates. The reality was that what my right hon. Friend actually said yesterday was :

    “In two or three years’ time people will look back and see that it was now, at this critical juncture, that the right decision was taken.”

    He did not say that it would be two or three years before recovery.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister giving us a date for recovery? He used to be very anxious so to do. I remind him that this time last year he said that it would start “within weeks”. This time last year he said that there would be recovery by the end of the year. Why is he much more coy now, a year later, in giving us a firm forecast on when Britain can rejoin the countries that enjoy some growth, since we have now had two years with negative growth under his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman should now know that we are on our way to recovery, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know perhaps why the recovery was later than it might have been, I quote the words of the general secretary of the Labour party who claimed that the Labour party did not win the election because of the

    “fear of high tax, plus general unease about [Labour’s] economic competence.”

    That did no good at all while the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that he would be sitting on this side of the Chamber.

    Mr. Renton : While I hope that the Irish people will reach a positive conclusion in their referendum today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the holding of referendums on major constitutional issues runs contrary to the practice of parliamentary sovereignty in this country and that further, it would be impossible to boil down the many complex issues of the 134-page treaty of Maastricht into one short, but fair and comprehensive question? Further, has the Prime Minister noted–

    Madam Speaker : Order. One question.

    Mr. Renton : –the recent twists and turns on the European issue by the Labour leader?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair in putting so many questions in a short space of time. I call the Prime Minister to answer the first two.

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments on the subject of referendums. I believe that he states the classical position concerning parliamentary democracy.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Mrs. Fyfe : As the Prime Minister says no to a devolved Scottish Parliament, against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, and also says no to a referendum on how Scotland should be governed, will he tell us to what, after 10 weeks of taking stock, he is prepared to say yes?

    The Prime Minister : I shall tell the hon. Lady when we have concluded taking stock.

     

    Q5. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he advocated more choice and opportunity for the less privileged in our society. Does he agree that we have a lot to do for our inner cities–and in particular that we must ensure that standards in inner-city schools are raised?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. We are determined to raise standards in all our schools, and especially to deal with the problem that clearly exists in many of our inner-cities. I believe that school governors and education authorities must act quickly where inspectors’ reports show that standards are unacceptably low. That is too often the case in many of our inner-city schools, and the Government do not intend to stand idly by and see it continue.

    Mr. Ashdown : What will the Prime Minister do about unemployment, which is now rising inexorably towards 3 million? It is now two months since the election, and only a handful of weeks until school leavers come on to the register. Are the Government so consumed by self-satisfaction and so sunk in lethargy that they offer no hope, no policies and no action for those who are losing their jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I am in no sense satisfied with the level of unemployment in this country, and I have made that clear before. We need the right sort of economic policy, which will sustain long-term employment prospects ; that is what we are putting into place and we shall ensure that we achieve it.

    When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asks for action he means short-term subsidy–that is what he is really asking for. His only answer is to subsidise the inefficient, the uneconomic and the out of date. No wonder the Liberal Democrats have so much in common with the official Opposition.

     

    Q6. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Is the Prime Minister aware that a distinguished predecessor and former Minister for administrative affairs– Mr. Jim Hacker–reaches pensionable age today? In the spirit of that great statesman, I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s speech to the Adam Smith Institute this week. I also ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues at tomorrow’s citizens charter seminar at No. 10 to press forward with further improvements to our public services. In particular, will he tell us whether we can expect the publication of a courts charter, to deal with the interminable delays to which so much of our law is subject?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend touches an important matter, which causes frustration for many of our fellow citizens. We are proceeding to produce a courts charter and I hope that we shall be able to make announcements about it before too long.

     

    Libya (Sanctions)

    Q7. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on representations from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister : We have had various approaches from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya. We and the Arab League share the same objective–to see a satisfactory outcome to the Lockerbie problem. This, as the Arab League well knows, will require Libya’s full compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 731.

    Mr. Dalyell : In the light of my two letters to the Prime Minister on this subject, will he consider putting in the Library a response to the cover story of Time magazine–not exactly a publication of the left–which challenges the whole basis of the Anglo-American position? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider approaching Spain on the legal proceedings relating to Monzer al Kassar, a Syrian drugs and arms dealer?

    The Prime Minister : I saw the article in Time magazine ; I examined it and sought advice on it. The theories about involvement and links with drugs are not new. They were thoroughly examined by the police during the investigation and were discounted at that stage, at the conclusion of the investigation. No evidence has yet been found to link the Syrian, al Kassar, to Lockerbie–but I shall, of course, examine the matter again in view of the hon. Gentleman’s representations.

    Mr. Wilkinson : Can my right hon. Friend enlighten the House about any dealings between Government officials and the Government of Libya over links between the Libyan regime and the Irish Republican Army? Has the IRA received any supplies from Libya recently? Have the Libyan authorities given assurances to the Government that they will not continue to supply the IRA?

    The Prime Minister : The Libyans have provided some information to the Government about their relationships with the IRA ; they did so in Geneva on 9 June. The preliminary assessment of that information suggests that although in places it was incomplete and unsatisfactory, it contains some positive elements which may well prove useful. One positive development is the fact that the Libyans have indicated to us that they wish to cease providing assistance to the IRA. We are not convinced that that is yet the case.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1992. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) rose.

    Mr. Skinner : Remember to give short answers.

    Mr. Newton : I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in his usual friendly form.

    I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Rio de Janeiro to attend the Earth summit and will have bilateral meetings later today with various Heads of Government.

    Mr. Darling : Why did the Secretary of State for Social Security need to issue a statement yesterday expressing his confidence in and support for the Prime Minister’s policies?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security clearly thought–in my view, rightly–that his position had been misconstrued and that it was sensible to make that clear. I am glad to note that in some quarters journalists have begun to question the interpretation that had been placed on a meeting which had been interpreted as a conspiracy, but which appeared to have Government Whips present. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House should come to order and let us get on with our business properly.

    Mr. Biffen : During my right hon. Friend’s hitherto busy day, has he borne constantly in mind the speech made just under four years ago in which Mr. Jacques Delors said that 80 per cent. of economic decisions and perhaps even 80 per cent. of fiscal and social decisions should be subject to initiation at Community level? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the unacceptable ambition of political centralism? Does he further agree that, in those circumstances, the reappointment of Mr. Delors would be provocative and counter-productive? May I say that my question was formulated without the assistance of the Whips?

    Mr. Newton : I think that I could have guessed that.

    The British Government’s position on subsidiarity is that we are concerned to enhance and underpin the concept. The Maastricht agreement did precisely that, and the British Government will continue to pursue that objective.

    Mr. Hattersley : Why did the Government promise that after 1 April no patient would have to wait more than two years for hospital admission?

    Mr. Newton : The Government made commitments in the patients charter and in relation to the development of health service policies that the aim was to ensure that no one should have to wait more than two years for treatment. Huge progress has been made in that, with a drop of nearly 50,000 in the numbers awaiting treatment in the year running up to April. It is obviously a disappointment that there was a small increase in April. That is now being addressed.

    Mr. Hattersley : I will give the Leader of the House credit for getting the statement wrong by mistake rather than by intention. The document that went through every door in the land guaranteed–the Government’s word–that after 1 April–the Government’s date–no one would wait longer than two years. Did the Government ever really mean that, or was it just pre-election propaganda?

    Mr. Newton : Not merely did the Government mean it, but a huge improvement, to which I referred, has been delivered. That progress will be reinforced by the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has taken.

    Mr. Hattersley : Whether or not the Government meant it, they clearly failed in that ambition. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those citizens who believed that the Government were honest in the guarantee that after 1 April they would not have to wait for more than two years but who now find that they are having to wait for more than two years because the Government failed to keep a promise which was made purely for electoral purposes?

    Mr. Newton : A reduction in the number of patients waiting over two years from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 in a year is hardly a failure of ambition.

     

    Q2. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting the international drugs trade is vitally important? Will he join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on his announcement yesterday in Colombia?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The illicit drugs trade is an international problem which demands an international response. What the Prime Minister has agreed with the Colombian Government in the last few days represents a significant and valuable advance.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to the people of Northern Ireland why, despite the Government’s promise that hospital waiting lists would be reduced, they have been going up rather than going down and today we have had the announcement of further hospital beds being closed although people are waiting for treatment.

    Mr. Newton : I have made the Government’s position absolutely clear on that matter. Whether in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, the Government are determined to deliver the improvement in service set out in the citizen’s charter and the patient’s charter. Further progress has still to be made, but the progress already made is striking.

     

    Q3. Mr. Richard Alexander : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Alexander : Is my right hon. Friend aware that some local education authorities are discriminating against pupils who attend grant- maintained schools? Does he agree that any authority that treats children in that way is not fit to be called an education authority?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend and join him in deploring what has been reported in relation to some local authorities’ attitudes towards children at grant-maintained schools or, for that matter, at city technology colleges. For once, I wish to pay a compliment to the Opposition Front Bench. I was pleased to read the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday, which suggested a responsible shift, for once, in the Opposition’s position.

    Mr. O’Brien : How do the Government intend to reduce the waiting time for operations in hospital, as people are now having to wait over two years?

    Mr. Newton : I do not know how many times I have to say this to get it understood– [Interruption.] For those waiting over two years, there has been a movement of 400, in relation to a total number of operations running into many hundreds of thousands, and against the background of a reduction from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 over the year before. We intend to maintain that improvement.

     

    Q4. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by NatWest to return £33 million to Maxwell pensioners is good news for those concerned, and also an example to others who hold Maxwell pension fund money?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. What has happened is a substantial vindication of the approach and effective package announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this week. I hope that that will be of especial comfort to my hon. Friend, as I know how much effort he has put in on behalf of Maxwell pensioners in his constituency.

     

    Q5. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Reid : Will the Leader of the House describe to my constituents in the Bellshill area some of the supposed advantages of the specialisation that would accompany the opting out of the local hospital? In particular, will he identify the services that could be regarded as non-essential or peripheral and may be curtailed or closed down according to the law of supply and demand? I should tell him that the local hospital is the Bellshill maternity hospital.

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have noted the reference to a particular hospital. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that if they are in any doubt they should come and visit the growing number of trust hospitals and talk to the staff and patients, who are experiencing the benefits.

    Mr. Gorst : As the British Government are a signatory to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government feel that they should do to protect the family life and privacy of the royal family who, after all, are entitled to the same consideration as other members of the community?

    Mr. Newton : I made some observations on that subject on Tuesday. I am sure that people both outside and inside the House will take note of my hon. Friend’s concern, which has been added to that expressed in other quarters earlier this week.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Jones : The Lord President of the Council will no doubt recall that in a previous Parliament I introduced the Consumer Guarantees Bill, which endeavoured to give rights to people who had purchased shoddy goods. The Bill was killed by Conservative Members. It had no Government support, but offers were made for guarantees to be considered. Will the new Government and the Prime Minister consider guarantees and give people real rights instead of the confetti of charters?

    Mr. Newton : I had better acknowledge that I am not familiar with all the details of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed private Member’s Bill, but the Government already have a considerable record in protecting the rights of consumers of all kinds, and a continued determination to do so. Indeed, we have greatly improved the rights of consumers of public services.

    Mr. Cash : Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), about Mr. Delors, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in line with the EC principle that everybody seems to like to move step by step, there could at least be a review of Mr. Delors’ position, if not an announcement that he will not be reappointed?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend, who puts his question a little more gently than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), will be aware that those are matters for consideration at the Lisbon Council. It would not be sensible for me to go further than I already have in respect of my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q7. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Watson : Following the decision of the Danish people to reject the Maastricht agreement, the Prime Minister and the Government have stressed their commitment to ratifying the treaty. Whether or not the people of the United Kingdom are also given a referendum–I, for one, am not afraid to trust them on constitutional matters–a fundamental cornerstone of the treaty remains subsidiarity, to which the Leader of the House referred in answer to a previous question. On the Prime Minister’s return from Rio, will the Leader of the House urge him to accept that the principle of subsidiarity must also be applied within the United Kingdom, starting with a referendum to allow the Scottish people to decide their constitutional future?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no plans for a referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made perfectly clear on a number of occasions. The principle of subsidiarity already applies to the Government’s approach to the United Kingdom, where much of the power is devolved down–at national level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and at local authority level in England.

    Mrs. Currie : Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of us voted for the Maastricht deal as we felt that it was the best deal to be had, both for the United Kingdom and for Europe, and we have in no way backed off from that view? Does he agree that when we take over the presidency of the European Community in three weeks’ time our partners will look to this country for positive leadership, backed up with the full confidence of the House, including Opposition parties and including the Whips? That is what we should be aiming to achieve.

    Mr. Newton : In my judgment there is widespread support from hon. Members of all parties for the emphasis placed by the Government, and achieved in the Maastricht agreement, on the concept of subsidiarity and the development of the Community through intergovernmental co-operation. The Government will pursue and advance those key objectives during the United Kingdom presidency.

  • PMQT – 9 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th June 1992. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    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 visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour’s spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government’s aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not done his homework?

    Mr. Newton : I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend’s statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year–an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994-95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.

    Mrs. Lait : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a waste of precious time.

    Mr. Newton : And– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

    Mr. Newton : And the– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country ; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war ; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome : it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.

    Mr. Hattersley : Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?

    Mr. Newton : What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week–this is acknowledged on all sides–to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long- standing enthusiasts for European unity– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.

    Mr. Newton : There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government’s position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago ; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country–this one–but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

     

    North Atlantic Treaty

    Q4. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communique, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Dr. Godman : With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty’s Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : May I first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on joining Her Majesty’s Privy Council this morning. As you did so, I was presiding over 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. Moss : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smaller countries have a vital part to play in the life of the European Community? Does he further agree that Denmark should not be sidelined or pressurised, merely because its people expressed their views in a democratic way about the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : I emphatically agree with my hon. Friend about that. The work of the Community will go on, and Denmark and all the other small member states will play their full part in it. We have no wish whatsoever to slam the doors in the face of Denmark or to rule out any procedures whatsoever that will help Denmark in her present difficulties and enable her to join the Maastricht treaty. But it is unrealistic to think that everything has been changed by the Danish vote, just as it is unrealistic to think that nothing has been changed by it.

    Mr. Cryer : But does not the Prime Minister accept, in the wake of the mess that the Common Market is happily in now, as a result of the Danish referendum, that if he brings back a renegotiated treaty and some sort of deal with the Danish Government, there will be a great deal of pressure in this country to require the Government to hold a referendum here over any constitutional alterations which might be involved in that new treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that I made the Government’s position about a referendum entirely clear yesterday, and I have nothing whatsoever to add to that today. On the subject of the treaty itself, there is a great deal in it that represents concessions by our partners to what we have long sought in this country. That would also be open to renegotiation, if any renegotiations were to take place. I hope that today in Oslo, where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is attending a meeting, they will begin to examine in detail the way to deal with the particular difficulties, following the referendum in Denmark.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing unease of both listeners and viewers about the coverage of live sport? Irrespective of the long-term implications of the deal over the premier league football coverage, is my right hon. Friend aware that there was genuine resentment, among my constituents at least, during the recent world cup coverage from Australia? There is uncertainty over the future of the ball-by-ball cricket commentaries. Is it not a fact that the arrangements that were designed to give greater opportunities to listen or to watch seem, in practice, to be having the reverse effect?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows–I am pleased about this, as he is–ball-by-ball cricket commentaries are now continuing, albeit on a different wavelength. I know that some people have been and are concerned whenever areas of activity are opened up by market forces–that has often been the case in the past–but in time many of those anxieties have disappeared and the beneficial effects have found their way through. The net effect of new television channels is that there is more and better coverage of sport on a wider number of channels.

    Mr. Hattersley : Does the Prime Minister recall the statement on 26 March that an asylum Bill would be the first action of a new Conservative Government? Why did he change his mind?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will see the asylum Bill before too long.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister characteristically tried to evade the question. On 26 March the asylum Bill was to be the first priority, to be introduced before anything else. Why was that Bill needed so urgently before the election, but not afterwards?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at the right hon. Gentleman’s sudden enthusiasm for the Bill. I can put his mind at rest. The Government are committed to reintroducing the asylum Bill at an early opportunity and we propose to do so.

    Mr. Hattersley : Nobody should be surprised that the Prime Minister is ashamed to give the real answer. The Asylum Bill was introduced in an attempt to legitimise many of the scare stories about immigration put about by the Tory party. It is to the Prime Minister’s shame that he is not prepared to denounce that policy and attitude now.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know better than to make remarks such as that. As we have said in the past, it was the first Bill that we decided to reintroduce and put into the Queen’s Speech. It remains essential now, as it was then, to streamline the decision-making process. We intend to resist the misuse of asylum procedures and to ensure that genuine refugees are properly protected. That is the position of the Bill, and it will be introduced shortly.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming case for the enlargement of the European Community has been in no way diminished by the result of the Danish referendum? Can he assure my constituents in Swindon and the entire country that he will use the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom’s presidency of the Community in the next six months to press the case as vigorously as he can for the enlargement of the Community to include the countries of the European Free Trade Association and the countries of central and eastern Europe when they are ready to join?

    The Prime Minister : No one in this country or within the Community can be in any doubt about my total commitment to opening up the Community to the EFTAns and, in due course, to those from eastern Europe. Nothing that has happened in recent days changes my belief that that is necessary and urgent, and we will continue with it. I do not accept that anything has put enlargement at risk. I can assure my hon. Friend that this will have a high priority during our presidency.

    Mr. Mackinlay : Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay felt by a number of hon. Members and many historians at the fact that the papers relating to Rudolf Hess are still not being fully disclosed? Is he aware that it is the view of many people that there is a continuing Establishment cover-up which should now be revealed and that the undisclosed papers reveal matters relating to the non -royal status of the Duchess of Windsor?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I cannot share the hon. Gentleman’s conspiracy theory. If there has been a cover-up, it has been covered up from me as well.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 174, which has been signed by a substantial number of Conservative Members. Is he aware of their deep desire that the British presidency should promote the Conservative principles of free trade and intergovernmental co- operation and not the socialist diktats of Jacques Delors?

    The Prime Minister : I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly use the presidency to pursue issues that are in our interests and those of the whole Community : the introduction of the single market, reform of the CAP, developing relations with the EFTA and eastern countries, future financing and deregulation–matters for which this party and this country have stood for so long. We shall pursue all of them during our presidency.

     

    Q6. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Mitchell : Does the Prime Minister accept that, in the face of the Danish announcement today that they will not attempt to renegotiate, to reintroduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which we would have discussed yesterday and today, would be like reintroducing a Bill for the resurrection of Shergar?

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept that premise and the hon. Gentleman would be rather surprised if I did. The Maastricht treaty was the result of a lot of difficult negotiations that were conducted over some time. If we went back to square one, I do not think that we could assume that our partners would agree all the matters that are of interest to this country. We must wait and see how events fall out.

     

    Q7. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Amess : Following the collapse of socialism in Basildon, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that last month’s local election results in Basildon, which ensured the success of every Conservative candidate, showed that residents were fed up with an inefficient, high- spending socialist council and believed that only Conservatives could provide good services at a low cost? Does the Prime Minister have any advice for the new council on where it might stick the nuclear-free-zone signs? That was another daft socialist idea.

    The Prime Minister : I feel sure that my hon. Friend will already have passed any advice that is necessary to the new Basildon council. I very much doubt whether I would dissent from what he said. The electors in Basildon made an extremely wise choice in the local elections and in the general election, and I am sure that it is a choice which they will repeat many times in the future.

     

    Q8. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : As part of his “taking stock” of the situation in Scotland, has the Prime Minister made any representations to the EC to have the European central bank set up in Scotland? If not, will he agree to do so now?

    The Prime Minister : I have made no representations, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, on this matter, but we shall certainly do what we can to ensure that, whenever possible, Community institutions, including the bank, are situated in the right place in the United Kingdom.

     

    Q9. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent launch of the campaign for physics and of a survey of sixth-formers which showed that 90 per cent. of them believe that physics is essential to solve the world’s environmental problems? Does he agree that good science is preferable to slick pressure group campaigning, to ensure that the Earth summit at Rio leads to a good future for our planet?

    The Prime Minister I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of understanding physics, although I must confess that I cannot claim to be among those who understand it very well at all. However, environmental education is an important theme of education these days and I hope that it will be a growing theme. It will certainly enable people to understand the deeply important issues to be discussed at Rio.

     

    Q10. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Williams : When the Prime Minister took his present post, he described the notion of a society at ease with itself. Does he feel that when he goes to the Earth summit next week, against a background of a dismal record on the environment in Britain and development aid having been cut from 0.51 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0.27 per cent. during his years in the House, he will be representing a society at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, runs down what this nation has done and is doing to assist with aid. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have the sixth largest aid budget in the world, that it is one of the most effective programmes that the OECD recognises– [Hon. Members :– “It has been cut in half.”] It most certainly has not been cut in half as was inaccurately stated earlier this week. He ignores the fact that there are other forms of aid that we can and do give, that the Toronto terms originated with my former right hon. Friend, Nigel Lawson, that the Trinidad terms originated under this Government and that they are two of the biggest debt write-offs that there have ever been, and that there is no other country with a comparable record and no previous Government with a comparable record to that of this Government.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Skinner: He would get a bigger pension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : Not at this stage.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : A little later, perhaps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I believe–

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

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

    I believe that the development–

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : Yes, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 12 May 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Earth Summit

    Q1. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific objectives of Her Majesty’s Government at the Earth summit.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The Government’s specific objectives for the Earth summit are signature of global conventions on climate change and biodiversity ; a statement of principles on forests ; a short “Rio declaration” of environment and development principles ; a comprehensive action plan ; and reinforcement of international institutions dealing with environment and development.

    Mr. Hughes : As that was the Prime Minister’s first parliamentary answer, will he make it his No. 1 priority this Session to tackle the global environmental crisis? Is he aware that the secret documents that we have seen contain proposals which amount to a watering down of the tough energy-saving commitment and replace specific targets with vague promises, and are to be put to the European Commission tomorrow? Will the Prime Minister ensure that, at the Earth summit and thereafter, tackling the global crisis will be his priority and that of his colleagues on the world stage?

    The Prime Minister : This is an important conference–an important priority–and there is a great deal to be done. The political will is there, not just in this country but in countries around the world. It appears that the attendance at the Rio summit will be very high–and very high at Heads of Government level. I must emphasise that what is agreed at the conference is only the beginning of the work that needs to be done. Some people might set their expectations too high. There is bound to be a limited amount of success at Rio. There will be a good deal to be done subsequently in this country, in the European Community, and beyond.

    Mr. Lester : If my right hon. Friend gets a chance to watch television, I am sure that in the past two or three days, and certainly this month, he has noticed the beginning of the one world ’92 campaign, linking 66 nations’ broadcasters throughout Europe as well as the general public in preliminary matters to the Rio conference. On 30 May, it will culminate in a day of action throughout Europe and the tree of life, for which I am sure he has signed his pledge. Will he support all the work that is being done to involve the public in this issue because, however much we feel that it is important, without general public support we shall never get anywhere?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It needs a commitment by Governments, by which I mean Governments across the world. Little will be gained if some contribute while many others do not. A great deal of commitment by individuals will also be necessary. This may be one of the areas of policy where it is often the individual driving the Government, rather than the reverse, in terms of commitment to the environment. I have little doubt that individuals in this country and beyond will commit themselves to these environmental and desirable aims.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

    The Prime Minister : 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. Janner : Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House the extent to which, in his own opinion, the Parliament of the United Kingdom should surrender sovereignty in the interests of European unity and what role he considers that a British monarch should play in influencing policy and opinion within the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : Influencing policy and opinion in the European Community at a political level is a matter for the politicians. That has been a long-established tradition and it remains the position. The position of the sovereignty of this House is a matter which we have discussed on many occasions. The sovereignty of this House is not a matter that is up for grabs–that is perfectly clear. What we have said is that there are areas where we can pool decision making in the general interests of the whole of Europe and in those circumstances it is right to pool decision making, but perhaps one of the most essential parts of the Maastricht agreement was the agreement on subsidiarity–that things must be done on a national level when they can best be done at a national level.

    Sir Anthony Grant : While recognising that miscarriages of justice are bound to take place from time to time and must be rectified, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no weakening in the attitude of the Government, of the police or of the courts in the relentless battle against terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Terrorism is one of the most wicked and evil problems faced by this Government and by Governments across the world. There will be no weakening in our determination to fight terrorism and no weakening in our determination to work with our European partners at a European level to fight terrorism.

    Mr. Kinnock : As the Prime Minister rightly says that he wants to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy, is that a principle that he will be applying to the financing of the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : The financing of the Conservative party is not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Banks : What representations has the Prime Minister made to President Bush to get the pilots of the A10 tank busters to submit themselves to the inquiry into the deaths of the nine service men killed by the so-called

    Madam Speaker : Order. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing is sub judice. If he can rephrase his question, I will certainly hear him.

    Mr. Banks : The Prime Minister will recall in principle terms that President Bush gave assurances to the parents of the service men who were killed that the pilots would come over here for examination. Will he tell us what representations he has made to ensure that President Bush carries out those assurances?

    The Prime Minister : As I believe the House has been told on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be drawing the families’ letters to the attention of Mr. Cheney, the United States Defence Secretary.

    Mrs. Peacock : Now that my right hon. Friend has been returned to Downing Street for a further five-year term, may I invite him–when he is planning his visits–to visit my constituency of Batley and Spen in Yorkshire where he will find much manufacturing prospering as it has been investing during the recession? He would be made most welcome on such a visit.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her invitation and it is certainly one which I shall hope to take up during the course of this Parliament. I share her view about the prospects for manufacturing industry and, in particular, for the new areas of manufacturing which have flourished so much in recent years and which are so often overlooked when people talk about manufacturing in the generality.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : What pressure has the Prime Minister put on President Bush in relation to the British soldiers who were massacred in the friendly fire incident and to fulfil the promise to their relatives? Will he tell them why nothing has been done in that respect? What does he intend to do in the future to bring that sorry state of affairs to an end?

    The Prime Minister : I responded to that point a few moments ago, as the hon. Gentleman and the House heard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that United States officials have discussed the handling of the evidence with the coroner, who has made it clear that he accepted the United States decision not to provide witnesses. That matter has been raised at the highest level with the American Government and Defence Secretary.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Gill : As the first Conservative Member whose name appears on the Order Paper for the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of the new Parliament, may I convey the congratulations of all Conservative Members to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on leading our party to its unprecedented fourth election victory? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that his strongly anti-federalist stance was instrumental in securing that general election victory? In view of today’s press reports, will he reassure the House that British sovereignty is not “insignificant”?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said a few moments ago, decisions need to be taken as close to the citizen as possible. That was the principle of subsidiarity that we fought for and obtained in the negotiations at Maastricht. Where the nature of a problem requires a European response, we believe that it should have a European response. That was the balance that we struck, and I believe that it was the right balance.

    Mr. Wigley : The Prime Minister has again emphasised the importance of the subsidiarity concept that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people. How will that be applied to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or is it a principle which starts in Brussels and ends in London?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that we are one United Kingdom and the Government are determined that we shall remain one United Kingdom.

     

    Q6. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Davies : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous sense of pleasure, relief and hope in the future generated by our victory at the election under his leadership? [Interruption.] There are obviously some sour grapes on the Opposition side. Does my right hon. Friend agree that after another five years of Conservative Government, instead of this country’s performance being measured by how fast we are catching up with Germany, for the first time in 100 years we shall be a model for others in respect of economic performance, enlightened administration of public services, and social peace and cohesion?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. We very much want wealth and welfare to go hand in hand, and I believe that the fear of the election of a Labour Government had been holding that back. Since polling day we have seen a dramatic change in the confidence of the markets and individuals. Share values have risen by about a seventh, sterling is up, and interest rates have been cut by a further per cent., bringing us almost level with German rates for the first time in a quarter of a century. That is good news for British industry, for British investment and, over time, very good news for British employment prospects.

    Mr. Cryer : As the Prime Minister is so complacent about British manufacturing industry and claims that there is much good news about, will he assure the House that he is not prepared in the GATT negotiations to sacrifice the textile industry to gain advantages on behalf of the farmers who have supported the Conservative party? Will he give an unqualified guarantee that he will fight to keep jobs in the British textile industry, as many thousands of jobs have been lost in the past years of Conservative rule? We want to keep that industry going in Bradford and elsewhere. Will he give that guarantee?

    The Prime Minister : What I have never understood in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about manufacturing is why he and his colleagues are always so keen to assume that British manufacturing industry is failing, doing unwell and needs special assistance and special subsidies to survive. The reality is that the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures rose in 1991 for the third successive year. Right across the country we have seen growth in areas of manufacturing industry which did not show signs of growth in earlier years.

     

    Q7. Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Sir Thomas Arnold : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent actions of Ofgas and Oftel to reduce prices still further show that the community charge has real teeth when it comes to protecting the interests of the consumer?

    The Prime Minister : The work of Ofgas and Oftel goes right to the heart of the citizen’s charter. The principles of those two regulatory bodies are important and the citizens charter underlines our commitment to put the consumer first. The regulators have achieved significant price cuts. British Telecom’s prices have been cut by 27 per cent. in real terms, British Gas has cut domestic prices and standing charges, and the regulator is demanding more cuts. The impact of the citizen’s charter will continue to put the citizen in the forefront of people’s minds when state prices are determined.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 6 May 1992

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 6th May 1992.


    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    I look forward with great pleasure to receiving the State Visits of His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei and Her Majesty the Raja Isteri in November, and His Excellency the President of the Portuguese Republic and Senhora Soares in 1993.

    I look forward to my forthcoming visit to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, and to my visits to Malta later this month, France and Canada in June and Germany in October. My Government attach the highest importance to national security. They will continue to give full support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and will work with our allies to adapt it to changing risks. They will aim to develop the Western European Union as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and the defence component of the European Union. The United Kingdom’s armed forces are being restructured to reflect these changes. Britain’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    My Government will work for a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons, to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and to encourage greater international responsibility in conventional arms transfers. They will help the Russian Federation in the task of dismantling surplus nuclear weapons.

    My Government will work to strengthen the United Nations. They will require full Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. They will work for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia. They will support moves to bring lasting peace to the middle east.

    They will lay before Parliament the treaty of Maastricht and introduce a Bill to implement it.

    My Government look forward to welcoming the European Council at our palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh towards the end of the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the Community in December. During the Presidency, my Government will attach particular priority to enlargement of the Community and completion of the single market. They will promote sound finance and budgetary discipline. With our Community partners they will continue to strive for a successful conclusion to the GATT trade negotiations, and to press for changes in the common agricultural policy.

    My Government will encourage Community agreements with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and will support democratic reform there.

    They will maintain the fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

    They will energetically pursue policies to combat the trafficking and misuse of drugs.

    My Government will play an active part in the Commonwealth. They will support efforts to build a democratic society in South Africa. My Government will maintain a substantial aid programme to reduce poverty in developing countries. Its objectives will include promoting good government, sensible economic policies and respect for human rights. They will continue to press creditor countries for a further reduction in the official debt of the poorest countries. The United Kingdom will work for a successful outcome to the United Nations conference on environment and development.

    My Government will continue to administer Hong Kong justly and efficiently, in the interests of its people, and to co-operate with China on the basis of the Sino-British joint declaration to promote the political and economic development of the territory.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will pursue, within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism, firm financial policies designed to achieve price stability and maintain the conditions necessary for sustained growth. They will set policy in the medium term to ensure that the United Kingdom meets the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty. They will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector and balance the budget over the medium term, reducing taxes when it is prudent to do so. They will promote market mechanisms and incentives and improve the working of the economy. To help business, legislation will be introduced to amend the non- domestic rate transitional arrangements.

    A Bill will be introduced to improve further the law on industrial relations.

    My Government will pursue vigorously their programme of privatisation. Legislation will be introduced to return British Coal to the private sector.

    My Government are committed to increasing the role of the railways in meeting the country’s transport needs. Legislation will be introduced to enable the private sector to operate rail services. My Government will give priority to improving public services through the Citizen’s Charter which will be at the centre of decision-making. Steps will be taken to apply charter principles throughout the public service.

    My Government will continue to work to raise standards at all levels of education, to promote vocational training for young people and adults, and to improve teacher training. A Bill will be introduced to extend choice and diversity in education. Action will be taken to combat crime and promote law and order. A Bill will be presented to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be determined quickly and effectively.

    Legislation will be presented to facilitate the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

    My Government will work to enhance the quality of life provided by our nation’s cultural and sporting heritage. A Bill will be introduced to establish a national lottery to raise money for good causes.

    My Government will continue to improve the quality of the national health service and community care and their responsiveness to patients’ needs.

    My Government will work both at home and abroad to protect the environment. They will ensure that the environment remains a key issue in all policy- making and will continue to publish annual reports.

    Measures will be introduced to enhance the rights of local authority tenants in England and Wales and in Scotland, to establish an urban regeneration agency, and to enable leaseholders either to acquire the freehold or to extend the lease.

    My Government will continue to improve and modernise the social security system with sustained emphasis on those groups with the greatest need. Legislation will be introduced to maintain an additional rebate for holders of personal pensions aged 30 or over. Legislation will be introduced to promote improvements in agricultural marketing.

    A Bill will be presented to promote the Welsh language. For Scotland, legislation will be introduced to amend the laws relating to bankruptcy and early release of prisoners.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government will continue their efforts to eliminate terrorism through resolute enforcement of the law, combined with progressive economic, social and political policies. They will promote the re-establishment of stable institutions of government, within a framework of positive relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • 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 to the 1992 Young Conservatives Conference – 8 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Young Conservatives Conference in Eastbourne on Saturday 8th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, it’s good to be back at your Conference. It has been an important year. I’ve seen the UN in New York, the EC in Maastricht, and now the YCs in Eastbourne.

    And by the way, there’s something else I can tell you about

    1992 … it’s the year the Conservative Party will win the next General Election.

    We will win that Election. And win it clear and well.

    A National Party

    Mr Chairman, let me tell you why we’ll win – and what we’ll do. About what we stand for – and what we don’t stand for – and what we won’t stand for.

    Why should people give us their trust? Because our ideals meet the hopes of people in every walk of life. And in every age group. Because we don’t see good fortune for some as injustice for others. We don’t scorn the successful. We don’t preach envy. And we don’t trade on division.

    For us each person counts. We never forget those with their foot on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity. Or those who have been knocked off it by misfortune. The Government I lead will always protect their interests.

    And that means taking decisions that are right in the long- term, not easy and popular in the short-term.

    Holding firm on the economy

    Mr Chairman, the world economy is showing greater strain now than it has for a decade. That doesn’t make it easy for Britain, as we work our way out of recession. A quick fix is the wrong way. It calls for steadiness. Keeping inflation down. Keeping strikes out of fashion. And keeping faith in policies that are the only sure foundation for our recovery.

    You may have heard what our opponents suggest. A poisoned chalice. They want to raise taxes on incomes and savings. Raise National Insurance. They want us to put new levies on business. And bring in a minimum wage.

    We know where that would lead. We’ve been there before. Higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher taxes, more unemployment, a longer recession, and the re-invention of the Brain Drain.

    Not one of their policies would help our recovery. They would mean perpetual recession and terminal decline.

    If we had had the high taxes and the strikers’ charter that Labour demand, I can tell you this. We wouldn’t have had Nissan investing nearly £900 million at Sunderland.

    We wouldn’t have had Honda investing £300 million at Swindon.

    Wouldn’t have had Toyota investing £700 million at Derby.

    And wouldn’t have had, in the five years to 1990, twenty billion dollars of United States investment in Britain.

    The conditions which attracted this investment are what Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, Gerald Kaufman, condemns as a sweatshop economy. Sweatshop economy?

    Last year Japanese firms invested £3,600 million in Britain – more than half all the Japanese investment throughout the European Community. Under Labour all that would have been at risk. “Alien investment”, their union friends call it. They would rather have unemployment in Britain than investment from overseas.

    Mr Chairman, Britain simply can’t afford Socialism. What an absurdity it would be, as the world ditches it, for us to let it to creep back in this country. Labour’s attitudes are old hat. And its prescriptions are yesterday’s prescriptions. We live in a harsh and competitive world today – the most competitive decade we’ve ever known. And unless we’re able to compete we’ll face a harsh future.

    A Nation at Ease with Itself

    Mr Chairman, when our Party honoured me by making me its leader I was asked what my aims for Britain were. I had no doubt the first of these was to create a nation at ease with itself.

    That sounds a simple idea. But for me it is fundamental.

    We live at ease with others when each of us has the same choices. The same opportunities. Peace of mind. Simple human dignity. We’re all entitled to that.

    But what is our path to these things?

    For our young people, the chance of a good education. Up to date skills. Qualifications that mark their achievements.

    For workers, freedom from trade union pressure. To feel a part of their enterprise. To be able to earn more and keep more for their families.

    For the sick, to know that there is – and always will be – a free National Health Service which develops and grows.

    For older people, to know that inflation will not destroy their security. That the State will not confiscate their savings. And that the streets must and will be kept clear of crime.

    For all to know that their contribution – whatever it may be – is respected and valued. And crucial in binding every local community together.

    These are the things that bring security and self-respect. And self-respect breeds respect for others. An old lesson of history, long understood in Britain, before Socialism began to eat it away.

    Any Government can aspire to these aims. But it’s only the Conservative philosophy that is able to secure them.

    So what is it that is special about the Conservative way?

    The Principles of Modern Conservatism

    Let me tell you. The principles of modern Conservatism are the principles of choice. Of opportunity for all. Of ownership. Of responsibility. Those four themes run through every part of our programme for the 1990s. And everyone’s policies should be judged against them. For they are the foundations of a free society.

    The Power to Choose

    Of these four great ideas, I put choice first.

    There are those who say that choice is selfish. Or that some people are too foolish or too stupid to choose. That the safest choices are made by the State. By other people who know better than you.

    Those who say that are the people who defended the closed shop. Resisted the Right-to-Buy. Pushed up tax levels in Britain until it wasn’t just the pips that squeaked. It was the whole fruit-stall.

    You know who they are. The people of Britain know who they are. The shifty men – who once proclaimed their Socialism in public, but who now phase out the hymns they once sang with such gusto.

    Of course it all depends on which Labour shadow you’ve been listening to. They talk about “lime for a change”. What do they mean? They mean it’s time for Neil Kinnock to change John Smith’s policies. Or vice versa. Cometh the dinner, cometh the fudge. A blinding conversion on the road to Luigi’s.

    Mr Chairman, the harder they fought us, the more our policies of choice put power in people’s hands.

    We’re putting it back where it belongs:

    With the individual. Not the trade union.

    With the customer. Not the controller.

    With the citizen. Not the State.

    We’ve widened choice by breaking down nationalised monopolies and opening up markets. Giving tenants and parents more say in their lives and those of their children. Above all by keeping taxes down.

    It’s no good looking at the mail order catalogue, the holiday brochure, or even the take-away menu, if a tax demand from a Socialist Chancellor has left you no money to pay for it. Your modest hopes are swallowed – in his huge ambition.

    So be on your guard. 35 per cent basic rate income tax? They denied it before; and they did it before. They deny it again. But, given the chance, they’d do it again.

    Extending Choice

    Mr Chairman, once again our Party is bubbling with new ideas. Widening choice in all sorts of ways. We are giving council tenants even more rights. We’ll bring private sector skills more into public service. And we’ll be acting to end – once and for all – the monopoly power of arrogant Labour councils over the management of housing estates.

    And there will be more choice in the way we travel. We’re going to end the public monopoly of London’s bus services. We’re going to ensure better service on the railways. Break up the huge, inefficient monopoly that is British Rail. When you’re young you want to travel and see the world. Well, we’re going to challenge the cartels and the cosy deals that keep too many international airline prices far too high.

    Mr Chairman, last year at this Conference, I told you that education was top of my agenda. Since then we have pressed on with a tide of reform. One by one the citadels of the trendy left are tumbling down.

    We are insisting on new standards in the curriculum. We’ve given parents more power. But, as we’ve made clear in our Citizen’s Charter, choice is meaningless if, like millions of parents in Britain today, you never see the school’s results, and you’re never sent a school report.

    So we are now bringing in – for the first time ever – systematic inspection of all schools. The results will go to every parent. And – again for the first time – league tables will be printed showing how different schools compare.

    Free choice must be informed choice. That way you can help us to secure our foremost aim – higher standards. For every child. In every classroom. In every school.

    More Accountability

    In the next Parliament we intend to put on record the performance of every local authority in the country. There must be no more municipal cover-ups. No hiding place for uncaring and incompetent councils.

    Labour don’t like league tables. And you can all guess why. Who doesn’t collect rents? Southwark and Lambeth. Who costs the public most? Lambeth, Haringey, lslington and Bristol? Who keeps the most homes empty? Hackney, Liverpool, Newham and Salford? Where are maths results the worst in England? Bradford, Newham, and Sandwell? No wonder Labour don’t like league tables. There would be Labour councils at the bottom of every list.

    You didn’t hear any of that at Labour’s local government conference yesterday. Of course they attack our Citizen’s Charter. They’re terrified at what the public will be told.

    I believe that where the public have no choice, the inefficient must be held to account. That’s why we also want more independent inspection in key public services. Like the police. Or social work.

    Too often eccentric theories and slack management have escaped proper scrutiny, undermined public confidence, overshadowed the dedicated service of tens of thousands of social workers.

    I want to see rigorous and independent inspection of social work. Some of the most vulnerable people in Britain depend on it. And in the next Parliament we will see to it that it is provided.

    Choice where we can bring it. Accountability where we can’t. People’s rights. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is all about.

    Ownership and Wealth Creation

    Mr Chairman, alongside choice there is a second great foundation to the Tory approach – ownership. And with it goes wealth creation, which is the only way to provide for those who need help. Wealth creation and welfare hand in hand – those are the central pillars of the Tory temple. So it’s in everyone’s interests to have low taxation on business. Regulation which promotes competition and open markets, and doesn’t stifle enterprise. That’s what’s wanted. Low inflation, freedom in the workplace, and reforms in education and training to bring out each person’s skills.

    We also need low income tax. Incentives to save. The chance to inherit. Wider ownership. These things broaden and deepen our freedoms.

    Those are not Labour’s priorities. Labour believe that taxes should be higher and promotion penalised. That shareholders are second-class citizens. That Whitehall knows how to run industry. And that trade unions should call the shots.

    Millions of people in Britain think differently. They know that the homes, shares and pensions they own were won despite bitter opposition from Labour. They fear the impact of Labour taxes on the housing market. Labour regulation on the stock market. And sheer Labour hostility to personal pensions which over three and a half million people in their 20s and 30s now have.

    Mr Chairman, ownership is at the very core of Conservatism. It gives people pride. Spurs on their efforts. Offers them security. Satisfies their hopes and dreams.

    There is nothing wrong with the wish to have something of your own. Or to pass it on your own. There is no other party which believes in making ownership easier across the generations. But we do. We want more people to gain more, own more, leave more. Yes, and inherit more. I make no apology for that. For if families get richer, so do we all.

    Savings

    In recent weeks a lot has been said about Labour’s policies on income tax and National Insurance. By everyone – except Labour. But in all the comment on their damaging and vindictive proposals, there is one which has yet to be given the attention it deserves. Their carefully calculated plan to hit out at personal savings.

    Any one with more than £3,000 a year from their savings – a worker taking early retirement, a businessman selling a corner shop, a child inheriting a home, would be clobbered by a new Labour surcharge on savings. How can you trust a Party that calls for investment and attacks the investor?

    Mr Chairman, after the success of the home-owning democracy, we must move on. We are a Party that believes – as no other believes – in savings, in shares, in pensions for all. I am proud that as Chancellor I introduced the tax-exempt savings schemes, the TESSAs that are proving so popular. People are showing in their millions that they want, and believe in, Tory savings policies. Saving regularly, with the tax incentive to do so. Partnership with the investor – not the confrontation that Labour would bring.

    Pensions

    People have also shown in their millions that they want Tory opportunity in pensions and share ownership, too. I simply don’t understand why Labour are so hostile to savings. They now say they would scrap help to those with personal pensions. Force them back into the State system. So let me assure you of this, the next Conservative Government will go on encouraging personal pensions and reduce long-term reliance on the State.

    Labour talk of increasing pensions for all. But they say nothing about the obstacles they’d put in the way of people saving up for old age. Nothing about the folly of pushing up taxes to pay out £1,000 million across the board to those in the top half of the income bracket. And nothing about policies which would increase inflation and hit the pensioner hardest. This Government has protected the pensioner, lifted the fear of inflation, and concentrated help where it is needed most. We will stand by our pledges in the 90s.

    Shares

    Another question for Labour – wholly unanswered – is how far they would tamper with or take away the rights of owners of shares. Where they wouldn’t renationalise, they would interfere. Force down dividends. Cut the values of shares. There are 8 million new shareholders who have entrusted their savings to investment in privatised industry through shares. Not one of them – not one of that 8 million could feel safe if Labour crept back.

    For us the question is different. How can we extend share ownership further? My ideal is to see every worker in every firm with a real personal interest in its success. And how can we make it easier to own shares? I want it to be as natural to deal in shares as it is to invest in a building society or bank. It will take time. But that’s the way this country must go.

    Responsibility

    Mr Chairman, our Conservative ideas are the right ideas for the ’90s. The tide is running ever more strongly against the fading grip of the Left. Labour is awash. Adrift. And sinking. Everywhere, all over Europe, the sandcastles of Socialism are slipping away.

    Mr Chairman, there is one responsibility that this Conservative Government, the next Conservative Government, every Conservative Government will always fulfil.

    To defend our nation. No ifs. No buts. No small print. No Kaufman quibbles. Defend our nation. Week by week. Year by year. Quiet. Careful. Cautious. But always on our guard.

    Of course, we want peace. Of course, we want to see more resources available to health, education, and the protection of the weak. In recent years we have shown that, with our policies, we can modernise our defences, and still provide the quality services the nation needs. But for us, defence spending is an insurance premium that, as long as any risk remains, we will continue to pay.

    You don’t need me to tell you the risks that remain. Even in recent years you have seen twice how suddenly an aggressor can strike. In the Falklands. And in the Gulf. In those wars the young men and women of our armed forces – many of them at school or college with you – fought superbly.

    I hope that no-one, ever again, will have to lead this nation in time of war. There is hope of a new spirit in the world. Nine days ago I signed an historic declaration with President Yeltsin. And last Friday we brought the Security Council together at Head of Government level, for the first time in 47 years of UN history. These were both British initiatives. But they offer hope for the world. And whatever it is in our power to do, to strengthen this positive spirit, that, I promise you, we will do.

    But let me also be blunt. There are still dangers ahead. The future is uncertain. The collapse of Communism has brought great opportunities. We will do all we can to help democracy take root in the new Russian Republics. But there is still dangerous instability. And, in the wider world, Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator longing to lay his hand on a nuclear trigger.

    In such a world, as Boris Yeltsin has acknowledged, it is essential to maintain a minimum level of nuclear deterrent. Labour don’t want a nuclear deterrent. They just see it as something to bargain away. But will never take risks with Britain’s defence.

    We will keep a deterrent – a minimum deterrent. Britain must have the capacity to keep a deterrent at sea. Labour don’t want to build it. But I can assure this Conference. We will. The next Conservative Government will complete, and deploy, the fourth Trident submarine.

    Conclusion

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years we have seen 400 million people cast off Communism as the ideals of the free market spread across the world.

    Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Now the whole of Europe is throwing it out, neck and crop. Well, let me tell you this. Here in Britain it’s not coming back.

    I know the ambitions you have for our future. The high hopes. I share them.

    The right policies will help us achieve them. The wrong policies would destroy them.

    That is what is at stake at the election.

    For your generation. For every generation. Soon it will be time to choose. And I look to you to be in the vanguard when we win the coming election.