Category: Speeches

  • John Major – 1993 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    johnmajor

    Madam President, as I walked through the Winter Gardens during Conference Week, I passed the bookstalls and what do I see, I see memoirs, memoirs to the left of me, memoirs to the right of me, memoirs in front of me, volley, volley and thunder. Madam President, let me say right away I’m not about to write my memoirs, not for a long time.

    There’s a job to be done, a job of service to this nation and I believe in service. There’s a job to be done, a job I was elected to do and I propose to go on doing it. Madam President, there’s one aspect of the memoirs that I may write in future that you needn’t wait for – I can tell you now, straight away, precisely what I think of my Cabinet.

    Do you think any of them look worried? Apprehensive? Touch concerned? They needn’t be, they’re a first-class team, they’re steady under fire, they’re united and they’re serving Britain superbly.

    And isn’t it good to see Michael back?

    Did you see those exercises? I dare say they’re going to enliven quite a few Cabinet meetings in the future.

    Madam President, I’ve been coming to this conference on an off for about 30 years. It’s a very great event in the political calendar, but it’s something else as well. It’s a family gathering and like all families, from time to time, we have our squabbles. So today, before I turn to other matters, I want to say something to you, specifically as leader of the Conservative party. Our party has served our country in Government more often and better than any other democratic political party in the world. We’ve done so because we’re the broadest based political party this country has ever seen. Our support comes from all classes, all income groups and all parts of the United Kingdom. Madam President, I know our party. It can bear many things – unpopularity, deep controversy, setbacks – we’ve seen it all before, but there’s one thing that demoralises our workers and that breaks apart our support in the country and that is disunity.

    We’ve always known where it leads, and so, in this private gathering we have today, we might as well state it plainly. Disunity leads to opposition. Not just opposition in Westminster, but in the European Parliament and in town halls and county halls up and down this country. Of course we won’t agree on every single aspect of policy. No one expects that. We’re a democratic party with a whole range of lively ideas. But I think you’ll agree with me upon this – people look to us for commonsense and for competence and we have a responsibility to you and to the people who put us in Parliament to show those qualities day after day. And that means we have to have our agreements in public and our disagreements in private.

    And if agreement is impossible, and sometimes on great issues it is difficult, if not impossible, then I believe I have the right, as leader of this party, to hear of that disagreement in private and not on television, in interviews, outside the House of Commons.

    Madam President, the last year has shown how hard every part of our party can fight for what it believes in. Let the next year show that we can channel all that energy together in a common effort against our opponents and for the policies we care about.

    This week, an unusual week, this week we had two conferences for the price of one. First, there’s the one we’ve been at.

    And then there’s the one we read about.

    You know, I’m not absolutely sure that everyone’s caught up completely with the current mood of our party, so I’m going to ask you three questions and I want to hear the answers loud and clear so that no one can doubt where you stand. They’ve very simple questions and very straightforward.

    Aren’t you fed up with people running our country down?

    Aren’t you fed up with people writing our party off?

    When people ask, “Will the Conservatives win next time?”, what do you say?

    I didn’t quite catch that.

    Yes. Yes. And yes again. And you don’t need shorthand to get that down.

    You see, Madam President, this is a family gathering, just as I said. But now I want to reach out a little further to speak not just to you, but to those outside this hall who may be listening. I want to share some thoughts with you and see if they strike a chord with your own experience. I think that many people, particularly those of you who are older, see things around you in the streets and on your television screens which are profoundly disturbing. We live in a world that sometimes seems to be changing too fast for comfort. Old certainties crumbling. Traditional values falling away. People are bewildered. Week after week, month after month, they see a tax on the very pillars of our society – the Church, the law, even the Monarchy, as if 41 years of dedicated service was not enough. And people ask, “Where’s it going? Why has it happened?”. And above all, “How can we stop it?”.

    Let me tell you what I believe. For two generations, too many people have been belittling the things that made this country. We’ve allowed things to happen that we should never have tolerated. We have listened too often and too long to people whose ideas are light years away from common sense.

    In housing, in the ’50s and ’60s, we pulled down the terraces, destroyed whole communities and replaced them with tower blocks and we built walkways that have become rat runs for muggers. That was the fashionable opinion, fashionable but wrong. In our schools we did away with traditional subjects – grammar, spelling, tables – and also with the old ways of teaching them. Fashionable, but wrong. Some said the family was out of date, far better rely on the council and social workers than family and friends. I passionately believe that was wrong.

    Others told us that every criminal needed treatment, not punishment. Criminal behaviour was society’s fault, not the individual’s. Fashionable, but wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Madam President, on all these things, received opinion with the wisdom of hindsight, received opinion was wrong. And now, we must have the courage to stand up and say so and I believe that millions and millions of people are longing to hear it.

    Do you know, the truth is, much as things have changed on the surface, underneath we’re still the same people. The old values – neighbourliness, decency, courtesy – they’re still alive, they’re still the best of Britain. They haven’t changed, and yet somehow people feel embarrassed by them. Madam President, we shouldn’t be. It is time to return to those old core values, time to get back to basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state.

    Madam President, I believe that what this country needs is not less Conservatism, it’s more Conservatism of the traditional kind that made us join this party.

    This week, this week we’ve made a start. Now we must see it through. It’s time for this party to return to its roots. Madam President, our economic roots are clear. We’re the party of Adam Smiths, not John Smith.

    And Adam Smith was the apostle of free markets and that is why we regard the present world trade talks as so important. At meeting after meeting, we have battled to keep those trade talks alive against difficulty after difficulty, because nothing will do more for growth, nothing will do more for jobs, nothing will do more for confidence in our future than agreement in those trade talks. But if other governments don’t play their part, if they hold back, if they won’t face up to their domestic difficulties, then those talks could collapse and the dangers of that happening are devastating. They could unlock protectionism, poverty and unemployment on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s. A great deal is at stake. And because a great deal is at stake, I don’t believe we ought to be mealy-mouthed about the dangers. Today, on this issue, is not a time for holding back. So let me say to some of our European colleagues, “You’re playing with fire”. Or, to put it more bluntly, “Get your tractors off our lawn”.

    People accuse us – accuse us – people accuse us of being the business party. Well, you bet we are. We’re for small business and we’re for large business. We’re for more business, not less business. When business booms, Britain booms, so we’re for private enterprise and we’re proud of it.

    Over the last three years, the whole country has sweated and slogged and suffered to turn this economy around. Now, steadily, it’s happening. Recovery is under way. That’s the message from British business. The economy’s growing. You may not see it yet, but it clearly is growing and it will show. And as the economy grows, the family budget will follow, so people have every reason to begin to start feeling better again. Inflation’s down. Interest rates are down. Exports are up. Productivity’s up. Retail sales are up. Manufacturing output is up. And the number of people in work is up. Madam President, it’s the opportunity cocktail we’ve been wanting for years and it gives this country a head start on prosperity for the rest of this decade.

    So, let’s try and build up that confidence, instead of forever seeing it knocked down. Why don’t we try something different? Why don’t we tell people about Britain’s successes? And let me tell you about them, in the strictest confidence…

    … so they’re sure to leak out.

    Who says we can’t make things in this country? Manufacturing industry is one of our great national assets.

    Three weeks ago – sometimes it seems longer – three weeks ago I was in Japan, the industrial wonder of the world, and there with me were British manufacturers, selling solutions to problems that Japan hadn’t solved. Successful British firms, international leaders in their own fields, firms at the leading edge of technology, selling successfully to the world technology leader. Two days later, I was in Malaysia, and we came back with £1 billion worth of orders for British companies. They didn’t buy British to do our companies a favour. They did it because we made what they wanted and we made it better in this country than anyone else in the world.

    Fourteen years ago, Britain was going nowhere. Now it’s going everywhere and selling everywhere. We’re making goods, making profits, making waves, right across the world. But despite that, despite the growth we’ve had there and the growth to come there, I must warn you, it’s still going to be tough and everyone in business here today, or everyone who listens to what I say today, knows how hard they have to compete. At present, Europe, our biggest market, is stuck deep in recession. It’s held back by social costs it can’t afford. It’s losing markets to Japan and to America and to the Pacific Basin. And that, Madam President, that, amongst other reasons, is why I refuse to accept the Social Chapter. It’s not a chapter of rights, it’s a charter for unemployment and we don’t want it here.

    What we do want is more of our best brains going into manufacturing industry. Let’s see them give politics, the City, journalism a miss and go into manufacturing industry where their skills can be so badly needed.

    And let’s see our great manufacturing centres humming with activity as we move towards the millennium. Let’s turn British inventions into British industries, British factories and British jobs. Let them make pounds for us, not dollars, marks, and yen for other people. Ministers are told, whenever they go abroad, part of your job these days is to open the door for British business. We’re backing exports with cheaper credit, more Government muscle and a new breed of diplomat – people who know as much about exports as they do about etiquette.

    At home, at home we’re taking the ridiculous burden of red tape off business and off citizen alike. And I can tell you, in the next session of Parliament, there will be a big deregulation bill to show how seriously we take that.

    Here’s a good old British maxim you can all remember: if the price is right and the goods are good enough, then sell abroad and buy at home. That’s the way to make sure that British industry continues to boom.

    But there are other things we need to do for industry. Industry isn’t asking us for handouts and special help. It’s asking us, as the Government to play our part in creating the right economic environment for industry to let loose its own energies and compete on a level basis with the rest of the world. So here, Madam President, is another ambitious target for our country: not months but years and years and years of sustained growth without the curse of inflation. That is at the heart of our economic policy for the 90s. It’s a prize for which British Governments have struggled for 30 odd years and yet now, it’s within reach and we are not going to throw it away.

    Just remember, only three years ago, inflation was over 10%. Now it’s under 2% and it must be kept low. Inflation is in check but it’s never in checkmate. Back in the 70s, soaring prices destroyed savings. We all remember that. We all want to make sure it never happens again. But to do that, to make sure it never happens again and destroys businesses and livelihoods and savings, sometimes we may have to hold back our ambitions for tax and spending.

    Madam President, let me get one thing entirely clear. Our views on tax are different from those of the other parties. What the Conservative Party is aiming for is a Government that lives within its income and without your income. Other parties tax because they want to. We tax only because we have to. So come rain or shine, taxes will always be lower under us than any other kind of government.

    But success has another vital ingredient, getting public finances back under control. At the moment, largely because of the recession with the great collapse in come than that created, we have a huge gap between what Britain spends and the tax we take in. We have to narrow that gap. It is true – Government has spent more over the last two years. We had to help the weak and protect the vulnerable through the recession. And that, Madam President, is an important part of Conservatism as well.

    But now Britain’s recovering so we have to cut the deficit. We all agree on that but it’s no good agreeing on the principle unless you take the action and it’s no use people urging us to take the action unless they are prepared to back us when we have taken it for it may often be difficult.

    There are tough choices ahead and we must make them and we will make them because it is in the interest of our country to make them and we have that responsibility.

    Of course, people’s opinions will differ. Some say tax more, some say tax less, some say spend more, some spend less but stay out of my backyard. All that’s perfectly okay for the opposition but it won’t do for the Government party. We can’t have a lobby against every difficult decision. Decisions are what government is for and we have to take them.

    So, once the debate is over, once Ken Clarke has announced out budget proposals, we Conservatives must work together and take that message to every single part of the country. But there is one thing I can tell you that you can take with it: high income tax is no part of this party’s programme.

    It never has been and, as far as I’m concerned, it never will be.

    Madam President, high on every Conservative list is raising standards in our schools. That’s why John Patten’s first concern is with what parents think and what our children need. There are tens of thousands of excellent teachers up and down the country and I’m proud to pay tribute to all they do on behalf of our children. But there is bad teaching as well and many parents and many pupils know that only too well. Our children must be taught what they need to know. That’s why we need a national curriculum. It’s why we need national testing. Not just for the sake of it but to find out what our children have learnt and what they have failed to learn. And when we know what they’ve failed to learn, we can put it right. But without those testing, we fail those children because we never learn what they haven’t understood at an early stage in their school career.

    The principle of tests is not negotiable. We don’t need reams and reams of complex papers that take hours for teachers to handle. What we do need is those simple pencil and paper tests that this party has always asked for and that is what John Patten is going to deliver for us. Because unless we teach a child to read, to write and to add up, then we hobble that child for the rest of his life. Take John Prescott. For the audience at Brighton last week, his speech was a religious experience, mainly because it passes all understanding.

    But push him to one side. I saw a letter recently from over 500 university teachers of English. And they say in their letter that it’s disastrous and harmful to teach standard English, great literature and Shakespeare in our schools. Apparently, teaching Shakespeare threatens to reduce a living language to a dead one. They say – and believe it or not, this is a quite – they say, “It would do serious damage to the moral and social development of our children and to the cultural life of society as a whole and all who are concerned with such matters should oppose in the strongest possible terms.” What claptrap!

    Well, I’ll answer them in words, perhaps, they might approve of. Me and my party ain’t going take what them on the Left says is okay, right.

    Madam President, over the past few months, in meetings with party workers – many of them I think will be here today – I’ve made it clear in private that the attack on crime would be the centrepiece of next year’s legislation. On Wednesday, after one of the best conference debates I have ever heard, Michael Howard delivered the first instalment. Lord Archer, if I may call him that…., made it clear how much we’ll have the support of the whole country in that programme. But don’t let’s pretend that we’ve been idle over the last 14 years; we haven’t. We’ve increased sentences, built more prisons, spent more, recruited more police, and those police have served us magnificently. And no other party would have done as much.

    But we know now, it was not enough. In many parts of the country, crime figures have risen remorselessly. Crimes once confined to the cities have spread out into the rural areas, bringing alarm where alarm was never before. And that is the reason for our new approach. We have tried being understanding. We have tried persuasion. Madam President, it hasn’t worked.

    I know criminals are a problem in a cell but they’re much more of a problem on the street. And policy must be dictated by the needs of justice, not by the number of prison places we happen to have available on any given day. If someone belongs in prison, when that is where they should be and that’s why we’re building more prisons. Better the guilty behind bars than the innocent penned in at home.

    Let me tell you how I see things. We need tougher rules on bail and no bail for the worst offenders. An end to the right to silence, as Michael Howard announced earlier this week. And more information for the police from DNA testing. We’re going to use science to help catch the criminal and not let silence protect the criminal.

    Here too it’s back to basics. For some, punishment seems to be a dirty word. Well, you’ll find it in my dictionary and I strongly suspect that it’s in yours.

    Some time ago, I said we should condemn a little more and understand a little less. And I meant that for this reason; if we let young people at an early age think crime is a normal part of growing up, if we let them off with a caution, a caution and a caution, it is small wonder if they feel there is no peer pressure turning them to law and order, and they turn to bigger crime later.

    And if we extend those parameters of leniency so far, we betray our children, for we do not give them the values that we expect them to live up to when they become an adult part of our society.

    There’s one other issue in the range of measures that Michael announced in his remarkable speech the other day that didn’t find room for it, for there was, even for the Home Secretary, a limited amount of time at this conference. But it’s an issue upon which I feel very strongly and I can tell you today that we plan a big crackdown on the loathsome trade in pornography that offends so many people in this country.

    There will be new powers of arrest and search, new powers to seize videos and other material, and – something I personally particularly support – a new offence to make the possession of child pornography a crime that can lead to imprisonment.

    Yes, Madam President, it’s tough. And so it should be. There’s no place in a civilised society for that sort of exploitation of our children.

    But don’t let us delude ourselves. Fighting crime is not just a matter for the police or for the Government. We can legislate, we can provide the resources. We can do all that and the police can perform miracles on the resources they have. But Governments can’t make people good. That is for parents, for churches, for schools, for every single citizen.

    Like many people in this hall today, as a boy I knew people who had nothing, who expected nothing. They didn’t commit crime because they did have something. They had values, dignity, pride, respect for their neighbours, and, above all, respect of the old.

    And in the long-term battle against crime, that respect needs building every bit as much as Michael Howard’s new prisons. Madam President, let me make it clear beyond a doubt. I simply do not accept that crime can be excused and under this Government, I give you my word, it never will be.

    Madam President, from the serious to the less serious: our opponents. Our opponents can’t string two policies together but they can cook up a scare. And of course there’s a ready market for scares. Every day I’m told what I think that I don’t think, what I’ve done that I haven’t done, what I’m planning that I’m not planning. Hearing the news day after day is a voyage of discovery for me.

    Voyage of discovery for me, but very unsettling for many others, many of them elderly, more of them, not very rich, and most of them very worried. So let me offer some reassurance, not rumour, fact. Next time Labour and the Liberals say we’re going to charge for visits to the doctor, you can tell them confidently, “No, we won’t”.

    Next time they say we’re going to charge for stays in hospitals, tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    And when they say we’re going to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, you can get right out on the doorsteps and tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    They say we’re going to force older people to go to the bank, not the post office, to collect their pensions. Well, really. I have 500 square miles of Huntingdonshire in my constituency and heaven knows how many rural post offices. I know their value to local village life. I know their value to the community. I know how much pensioners rely on them and that’s why I promise you they’ll be able to go on picking up their pensions at the post office.

    So go out and knock all that nonsense on the head. And yes, I know the concerns – nobody could possibly have missed them – the concerns that people have about their fuel bills. They believe they’re going to face massive rises. They aren’t. And the most vulnerable fear they’re going to be left without compensation. They aren’t. Kenneth Clarke made that clear yesterday and I’m happy to repeat it today.

    This nation owes a huge debt to its pensioners. it’s something this Conservative Party will never forget. So, it’s our duty to keep our country a place in which they feel both safe and secure.

    So when you hear people saying this, that or the other, don’t always swallow it wholesale. Remember, in the immortal words of Sporting Life in Porgy and Bess, “It ain’t necessarily so”.

    Madam President, scares take me naturally to the Labour Party. I’m not going to be savage about Labour, I think the people of this country would welcome an end to the bad-mouthing between politicians.

    So, as a man damned every Sunday for his moderation, I think I shall stick to my own civil instincts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have a bit of fun. Did you hear John Smith’s speech last week? He’s a good man, is John, but Lord doesn’t he go on about it?

    He rather reminds me of a Scottish Buddha, the very essence of immobility with a faint smile of perfect self-contentment upon his face. And the Buddha has watched his Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, Labour’s gift to melancholia, he’s watched him run from not sure about taxes, to no more taxes, to lots and lots more taxes in just six weeks, and there’s a long time before the next election. And the Buddha said nothing. The Buddha has left his Northern Ireland spokesman say, “Stop tests, cover up school results and scrap A Levels”, and what did he say? The Buddha said nothing. One hears that the only sign the Buddha ever gives is a slight shake of the head… if anyone proposes a new idea.

    Madam President, we saw something rather remarkable in Brighton last week. They called it a “famous victory”. Famous victory? I would call it John Smith’s political Munich. Here it is, composite – I beg his pardon, composite 55 and 56. Let me read you the victory roll – the trade unions will now only make 70% of policy and choose on third of the leader.

    Which one third is unclear. Perhaps they don’t think it matters. After all, they’ve long had the bit above the neck.

    What we have out of last week is a minor reduction in union influence in the Labour Party and the promises of a huge increase in union power in Britain, if there was a Labour Government. One small step for the Buddha, one giant step leap for the brudders.

    Whatever the trade unions ask for, they got. And they asked for was unconditional surrender. Remember what Mr Smith said, “The country needs strong unions today, as never before”. Madam President, after all we fought for over the last 14 years, I think this conference would beg to differ with that judgment.

    Madam President, there’s another strange party in British politics. It gives a different answer to the same question in Cornwall or London, in Ryedale or Eastbourne, on Monday or Tuesday. They’re against VAT on fuel in the morning, and for a carbon tax in the afternoon. But they are consistent about two things, the first of them is tax. They are the other high tax party – income tax, local income tax, carbon tax, regional tax, Scottish tax, Welsh tax, and given half a chance, Euro tax as well. If they thought it would raise money, they’re produce revenue from syntax and tin tacks.

    And the second thing they’re consistent about is federalism. Centralism in Europe. The Liberal Party is a federal party. Don’t take my word for it, this is their conference agenda – “The autumn”, it says, “the autumn conference of the federal party” – that is the Liberals in their own words. And look what they called for in this conference for a federal Europe – turn to page 99, though I would not recommend to you pages 1 to 98….

    This is what they called for on page 99. They called for sensible application of the social protocol and they had an amendment – “delete sensible” was the amendment.

    I agree. Sensible stands out like a sore thumb in every Liberal conference. But their leaders are fanatics for federalism. They have been out of government for so long, they have forgotten how to take decisions. The only decision they can take is that they want someone else to take the decisions for us in this country.

    Next June, we will have European elections in Britain. Let me say to all our candidates who are present, and everyone here who will work in that campaign, that will be a national campaign. We are going to fight those elections on a clear and distinct British Conservative manifesto for the future of Europe.

    Madam President, I have risked and sacrificed more than most for what I passionately believe in, a strong Britain playing a leading role in a strong and growing Europe, a wider Europe, a free trade Europe, a less intrusive Europe, our vision of an independent confident Britain, giving leadership with our partners in the European Community. And in our elections, in this country, next year, we will be the only mainstream party that is not prepared to move towards a centralised Europe and take that message to every doorstep in the country.

    And tell them this too, tell them that any vote against us, for whatever party – Labour, Liberal, makes no difference – any vote against us for whatever party would be seen in every capital in the Community as a signal that the British people want a centralised Europe. We know they don’t. You know they don’t. They know they don’t. We must make sure the people of Britain vote to show the rest of Europe that we don’t.

    The Liberal leader says, rather nervously I thought, that the guns are turning on him. Too right they are, and not before time. Let the Liberals loose and the prospect of a federal Europe could be a reality again. In this country, they are federalism’s fifth column. Away with them next June in the elections.

    Madam President, before I leave the Liberal leader, I want to say a word about his posturing on Bosnia. I find it distasteful. No, no words suffice for the sheer dreadfulness of Bosnia.

    The violence that has torn apart what used to be Yugoslavia has deep and bloody roots. They go back to the Middle Ages and beyond. People there have suffered great wrongs and unimaginable cruelties. We have given, as we always will, help, food, medicine, technical aid. We have sent British troops with humanitarian aid; the first country to do so. And those troops have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, men, women, children who would be dead from cold and starvation, are still alive, thanks to the activities, the skill and the bravery of those troops we sent to Bosnia.

    Madam President, right at the start of this war, I said that I was not prepared to put British troops into combat to hold the various sides apart. It’s my responsibility, my responsibility as the Queen’s first minister, to advise when soldiers should be sent to fight and to risk being killed. It’s all very well to call from the sidelines for a huge military commitment to Bosnia but I listen with respect to the views of the senior professional soldiers and airmen. They know the depth of the problem. They know what we would be asking their men to do. They know that while the threat of air strikes is a good deterrent, you cannot finally settle a guerilla war by bombing. They know that. We saw it in Iraq after the biggest Armada of bombing for week after week after week. it was not until we sent in ground troops that Saddam Hussein finally lost. And those senior servicemen warn me against trying to separate three sides, three sides that hate each other, in a cruel civil war, in some of the wildest hill and forest country in Europe.

    There is another form of intervention, which we may have to contemplate. Intervention, not to impose a settlement on parties at war, but to implement a negotiated peace. Right now, alas, the peace prospects are thin and speculative. Too speculative to risk the life of a private in the Cheshires or the Prince of Wales’ Own. The negotiators will go on trying. I earnestly hope they will succeed, but I shall not ask a British private to risk leaving his mother without a son his wife without a husband unless there is a real settlement.

    Unless there is a real will by the people of Bosnia to stop fighting, not some ploy to suck outsiders in and then start the war again. I have never been in doubt about Bosnia. Though one cannot always speak one’s mind plainly, I have understood that to intervene is to risk an intolerable number of British dead. A war is easily started. The boys are always going to be back for Christmas, but wars, particularly wars in the Balkans, have other ideas.

    So, let me make clear. I leave the talk of a quick away-day outing for the commandoes with everything sorted out in a couple of weeks to the commentators, and to the royal corps of columnists. Yugoslavia is tragic. I consider all the options but I must think first of the lives of British soldiers.

    And I will not put them at risk for the sake of talking big and striking attitudes. I will not rush into war.

    Emotion says yes, logic says no. I say no.

    Madam President, an unstable Yugoslavia is one thing. An unstable Russia would be quite another. So, let me say a few words about the events of the past week. We should be under no illusions about the real motives of the rebels in the Russian Parliament. They were out for blood, the blood of democrats and reformers and, had they won, the consequences for Russian and for the rest of the world would not have borne thinking about. Yesterday morning, Boris Yeltsin told me that the courts would now deal with his opponents. Madam President, that is not how they wanted to deal with him.

    The Russian people have twice voted for President Yeltsin and for reform. Now he plans further election, free elections, not rigged Communist elections. He invited me, yesterday, to send British observers to ensure those elections were fair. I agreed and promised that we would certainly do so. Those elections in December will be the surest test that democratic reform remains on track. We backed Boris Yeltsin against the 1991 coup. We were the first to do so. We backed him last weekend and I promise you this, we shall go on backing reform in Russia in the months ahead.

    When we speak of the threat of violence, there is one other place that is never far from our minds. Each day, every day this week, whilst we’ve been gathered here in Blackpool, thousands of young men and women risk their lives in the Army and in the security services in Northern Ireland. They stand in the defence of democracy and of the rule of law. Under a Conservative Government, they will continue to have all the support that they need.

    Northern Ireland is part of our democracy. We are not going to bargain away the people’s democratic rights, or any part of them, in order to appease those who seek to rule by bullet or by bomb.

    Do to do, to do so, would betray the people, and, in particular, those of every party, many of them brave, who take a part in constitutional politics in Northern Ireland. So, no Government that I lead will negotiate with those who perpetrate or those who support the use of violence.

    There is only one message for them to send. We have finished with violence for good. Madam President, we are and we will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    At the heart of our philosophy is an abiding belief in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Unlike the Labour Party, we are not in the business of securing the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    For us, the union and all it means is immensely important. In all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, the union has the decisive support of those who live there. So, I give this assurance to the brave and resilient people of Northern Ireland, for our part, we will always back your democratic wishes.

    Madam President, before I sit down, I want to congratulate all of you in the hall, all of you who are the backbone and the strength of our party, for your cool, your warmth and yes, your resilience during a remarkable and, how shall I put it, most diverting week in Blackpool.

    Throughout the 1980s, the political energy of this country came from the Conservatives. That energy must go on through the 90s and not only go on, but grow and develop, driven not just by those in Government but by you who work on our behalf for our philosophy, for our party, in each and every part of the United Kingdom. And if you feel, as I do, refreshed and recharged by our work in Blackpool this week, then go home and help us restore the fortunes of our party, through hard work and a passionate belief that what we Conservatives stand for is more true, more deep, more enduring, more in touch with the basic instincts of the nation we love, than all the words of all the other political parties rolled together. We stand for self-reliance, for decency and for respect for others, for wages that stay in the pay packet and don’t drain away in tax. We stand for money that keeps its value, for a country united around those old, commonsense British values that should never have been pushed aside.

    The message from this conference is clear and simple, we must go back to basics. We want our children to be taught the best, our public services to give the best, our British industry to be the best and the Conservative Party will lead the country back to those basic rights across the board. Sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family and respect for the law. And above all, we will lead a new campaign to defeat the cancer that is crime.

    Carry out that message. Reach out, not only to those who already think as we do but to all those with no special party allegiance who care for what we care for and who love this country as we do, for the same reasons we do. Do that. The fight goes on, the waverers will return and yes, a fifth victory will be ours.

    And one final word. Thank you, thank for for something that has been quite fantastic, your loyalty to this party and your loyalty to me.

  • John Major – 1993 Speech to the Carlton Club

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Carlton Club in London on 3rd February 1993.

    CONSERVATISM IN THE 1990’S – OUR COMMON PURPOSE

    When I became Leader of our Party, I spoke of ‘carrying forward the Conservative tradition’. I spoke of Conservatism as ‘a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective’. I set out my aim to create ‘a classless society’ – and ‘a nation at ease with itself’.

    In every speech I made in the general election campaign I talked about those aims again. I spoke of the Britain I wanted to see. A Britain in which effort is rewarded; and everyone has a stake in our country’s future. A Britain where every youngster can aim high; every family can build for its own future.

    Dignity, security, independence, self-respect – these are the human aspirations we understand and we endorse. Conservatism in the 1990s has the ambition to bring them within the grasp of every citizen.

    The instincts of the British people

    In every city, in every town, in every village we found a ready response to our message. That was – I believe – because our message was rooted deep in the instincts of the British people.

    These are the instincts of a free people; an enterprising people; a generous people; a tolerant people.

    Of course these instincts can be suppressed, or twisted, or simply lost. We should not claim too much for ourselves! Of all political philosophies, Conservatism has been perhaps least prone to foolish optimism about human nature. But our defining characteristic is to have greater faith in the individual than in the State.

    We believe in fostering freedom by giving people more power to choose for themselves; by leaving people more of their own money to spend.

    We believe in fostering enterprise by keeping personal and business taxes low; by cutting down the jungle of regulation; by creating a level playing-field on which businesses can compete freely and fairly.

    We believe in fostering generosity by respecting and reinforcing the independence of local communities, in which neighbours willingly help each other.

    We believe in fostering tolerance by respecting the individual; by recognising every citizen’s power to choose and right to own.

    It is on those instincts of the individual that Conservatism is founded; and that Conservatism trusts.

    Carrying Conservatism forward

    The policies and language of our Party may evolve, but the principles remain the same. Our political strength has always rested on our ability to keep a finger on the pulse of the British people.

    We have no repository of doctrine which we set on an altar above commonsense and instinct. There is no Clause Four in the Conservative Party – and there must never be one. But what we do have are four cardinal principles: the principles of choice, ownership, responsibility and opportunity for all. These were the core of our Manifesto – and they guide us in Government, as we put that Manifesto into effect.

    As a party, we have always worked to meet people’s aspirations to own their own homes; to have greater opportunities for themselves and their children; to enjoy the respect that follows from the exercise of choice; to build up wealth and then to be free to pass it on.

    This has always been a great Tory tradition – a continuous thread in our thinking. When Disraeli spoke of the ‘elevation of the condition of the people’ he made it clear, even then, that he meant all people: ‘all the numerous classes in the realm, classes alike and equal before the law’. If this was not exactly ‘a classless society’, it already expressed many of the aspirations of one: the equal treatment of all citizens by the state, and the chance of advancement for all.

    The second continuous thread of Conservative thought, from the time of Burke onwards, has been a wariness of the danger of over-government. We don’t like big government. We know the State can destroy, as surely as it can preserve – and more conclusively than it can create. We know the danger that unless it is reined back by constant and vigorous effort, it will grow inexorably, It is a parasite that can destroy its host.

    We reject utterly the idea that the state can manage economic and personal relations between people better than businesses or families.

    And the third great thread of thought is our understanding of what binds a stable and healthy democracy together. It is a sense of continuity that permits change without instability. Above all, perhaps, it is the local networks and small communities – Burke’s ‘little platoons’, if you like – that are the tent-pegs securing our wind-blown society to the ground.

    The modern Conservative Party is heir to both the great nineteenth-century political traditions: to the Whigs, in our free market radicalism; to the Tories, in our belief in community and tradition. Unlike Socialists, we do not see the free market as a threat to communities; quite the reverse. Take a homely example. When you go to your local baker, what you expect and usually get – is a helpful, friendly service. What the baker expects – and usually gets – is a satisfied customer and a fair price. No one is demeaned by this transaction. Where there is choice, there is freedom and dignity between buyer and seller.

    Look around you. It is not where the free market pervades that ties of community are under threat, but where the State owns and controls to the greatest extent.

    Look at our suburbs and small towns and villages – where people, by and large, own their own homes. Here you will find networks of the voluntary associations which tie people into their neighbourhood, from Rotary Clubs to the active PTA to fundraising and Meals on Wheels.

    The big problem lies elsewhere. It is from the inner cities, where the state is dominant, that businesses have fled. It is in the inner cities that vandalism is rife and property uncared for. It is here that fear of violent crime makes a misery of old people’s lives.

    Socialists seek to explain the difference in terms of affluence. But that simply won’t wash. That explanation is demeaning to people of modest means who contribute much to their communities. It is insulting to those families who may face all the problems of unemployment and yet do not resort to crime.

    Socialism must face up to its failures. It must recognise the harsh truth that it is where, over many years, the State has intervened most heavily, that local communities have been most effectively destroyed. It is where people feel no pride in ownership; where they are stripped of responsibility for the conditions in which they live. And it is in the inner cities that schools – which should be beacons of opportunity – have slipped into a downward spiral of low expectations, politicisation and poor results. Socialism has been discredited by experience. Conservatism has been validated by history.

    The paradox of change

    So far, I have been speaking mainly of the continuity in our philosophy. But I need hardly remind this audience that Conservatism has been a powerful force for change in Britain, too.

    Willingness to face up to change is vital if we are to develop as a society. Each generation must make its own decision: what to preserve, and what to change. But change must run with the grain of a nation. That was true when our Party was founded; and it is true, still, today.

    But the paradox is this. On the one hand, we need to change in order to preserve: if we cling to outdated habits, rules and restrictions, we risk the collapse of our economy and society. On the other hand, change is itself destabilising. It brings its own risks. Sometimes it seems that by removing just one brick, we may risk bringing the whole house down. The careless or the ill-intentioned will always be around to give the extra push.

    There will always be those who seek to sever our links with the past. Even in Britain, we have for years been bombarded by the arrogant claims of those who believe there can be no point of contact between the present and the past. Some say that the glories of British history, the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, the works of Dickens and Trollope – even poor old Winnie the Pooh – are irrelevant to the modern child. 1984 and all that involves the obliteration of 1066 And All That.

    Others claim that the figurative tradition in art, and the lessons of classical architecture, have no relevance to the present day. The destruction they have wrought has been physical as well as emotional. We have seen the arrogance with which their disciples, up and down the country, have made their names by destroying urban villages. We see academics make their names by destroying our heroes. More recently, the institutions that embodied our nationhood have come under attack: institutions in whose name our countrymen and women have been ready to make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives.

    I sense a growing fear that we may lose so much that is precious to this country; a feeling amongst people that our deepest values as a civilised nation are being threatened. That anxiety feeds on the daily tales of selfishness and brutality that make the headlines in our newspapers. Is it the newspapers that are changing, or the world we live in? People are not certain. They feel uneasy; they feel threatened; they lose their bearings.

    So let me say a word or two tonight about the balance between change and continuity in our national life. Yes, we are changing, and in many ways for the better. The days when people could be considered somehow superior because of who they were, and not what they were, are finally fading into history. We see them pass without regret. A view of society based on deference is out of date, damaging and divisive in today’s Britain.

    The barriers are not yet all gone – nor will they be, until every child confidently believes he or she can aim high, without bumping into invisible obstacles of prejudice. Expectations are encouraged by example: by the handful of women running substantial businesses, by people from our ethnic minorities entering public life, by enterprise and achievement from all backgrounds.

    But our task in the 1990s is to widen the road to success, so that such achievers are no longer remarkable exceptions, but a natural part of the rich diversity of our nation. To achieve this, we need to break down the barriers between blue collar and white collar in industry; to raise the esteem in which vocational qualifications are held; to make them a real choice for the youngsters in our schools. The stirring examples amongst today’s National Training Awards show how we can help to make people believe in their future.

    But in burying deference, we must take care not to destroy respect. Respect for what people achieve – at school and university, in business, in sport, the arts and in public life. It is no answer to prejudice or disadvantage to drop standards, to invent exams no one can fail, to reject or deride success. If we destroy pride in achievement, we will end by destroying achievement too.

    There is a concern that respect for other people is disappearing: respect for what they achieve; respect for their property – yes, and their privacy, too. Certainly, crime has increased steadily over many decades. The standard political wisdom has been that Prime Ministers should keep off the subject, because it is so difficult to score a success in turning the tide of crime. In a more secular society, it is argued, it is harder to take up a moral stance. It is inevitable that the old assumptions about order and cohesion, which our forefathers took for granted, should be breaking down.

    Well, I don’t accept that. I believe we must tackle the problem of rising crime, openly and directly. And just because we can no longer hope to enforce good behaviour by simple threats of hell-fire, I do not think we are debarred from talking of right and wrong. The definition of what is criminal changes from generation to generation. But our attitude to crime should not change. We must make that clear, in particular, to those youngsters in danger of settling into a life of persistent crime and intermittent punishment.

    Nor do I believe that idealism, concern for others, commitment and self-sacrifice have been bred out of us. For every young thug whose brutal behaviour hits the headlines, there are thousands of young people up and down the country who commit themselves in their jobs, in their family or through voluntary work, to other people.

    There are, indeed, thousands of young British people, straight out of school, working in difficult conditions throughout the third world for the young, the old, the poor, the oppressed. There are thousands of businesses who accept, with enthusiasm, the need to involve themselves in the communities around them. And there are hundreds of thousands – no, millions – of people who quietly, generously, regularly give up their free time to help others. These are the stories that don’t – so often – hit the headlines. I believe we must do more to recognise, support and encourage the habit of volunteering, which cements together our society and is one of the great glories of our national life.

    Towards the year 2000

    We are coming up fast to the Millennium: one of those milestones that have no intrinsic importance, but yet act as a catalyst for thought and action. This will be a highly competitive decade, in which the race will go to the swift. It will bewilder many and frighten some. It will test our national confidence – a test, I believe, that we can pass with honours.

    At such a time, the cohesion of society is particularly important. When people have to find strength and direction within themselves, we need more than ever that anchor of past experience and those institutions which give continuity and a framework to our national life. The monarchy. Parliament. Our churches and voluntary organisations.

    Disraeli – and that shrewd if now much-criticised observer, Walter Bagehot – both understood how our “constitution”, in the widest sense, gave the individual stability. They understood how it gave links with the past, with locality, with others and with the nation.

    They saw much more clearly than many do today the unbroken chain of community linking the monarchy to the humblest household: linking our Parliamentary institutions to the most local parish council, linking the Union of the United Kingdom with the little unions of families and local communities.

    So as we change and modernise – and we must do both – we must have an ear for history and an eye for place. In reforming local government, we will be looking to restore cherished names, draw strength from old loyalties and nurture established communities. Not for us a technician’s blueprint, all logic and no heart. Rather a search for the genius and identity of different towns, districts and counties across our country.

    As we modernise the honours system – as, again, I believe we should – we must develop, not destroy. It is time to get rid of old, class-based distinctions; to make the system a little less automatic; to use it, in particular, to reward voluntary effort – but at the same time to maintain its historic value as a system of recognition and reward for achievement.

    As we reform the civil service, we must cherish its traditions of impartial service – while at the same time opening it up to outsiders and to private-sector competition.

    And as we work to improve our public services, we must remember one cardinal rule: change must be driven by the users, not the providers.

    Civilising the welfare state

    For too long we failed to ask the right questions. For too long we allowed the State to over-ride choice and personal responsibility. And all the time, the influence of public services was growing. At the beginning of the century, public services had only a marginal impact on people’s lives. Now they employ more than two out of every ten people in the workforce.

    Well, attitudes are changing, radically and dramatically, under our Citizen’s Charter. The Charter is about convenience and choice for the user, not an easy life for the provider. It’s about replacing the impatient shrug of bureaucracy with helpful and courteous service. It’s about changing the system to deliver simple, practical things that improve people’s lives.

    The traditional structure of public services has not provided the kind of incentives that competition in the market delivers automatically. We are creating these incentives. We are privatising choice. We are transferring power to the user of public services by providing them with real information about the performance of providers. We are opening up the old, cosy systems of inspection. We are introducing new systems of redress for the individual.

    There are those who see accountability for public services only in terms of the occasional election at the focal and national level. I want a new accountability. I prefer a much broader and deeper concept: of accountability to the individual. That is why the aims of this programme run very deep. They concern the sort of society we want to see.

    Through our reforms, we are encouraging local providers of services to run their own affairs. We are creating new vehicles for involvement, in grant-maintained schools, in TECs, in hospital trusts.

    Giving people more freedom of course means giving people the opportunity to make mistakes. No one ever climbed a mountain without facing the risk of falling off. We must expect some disagreements between teachers and governors, even in grant-maintained schools. We cannot expect every Trust hospital to manage its financial affairs without a single hiccup. What is clear, however, is that people want to take on these responsibilities, because they see the transformation in attitudes and ambitions that follows.

    We must allow people the maximum freedom to discharge these new responsibilities. Of course the State has an important role as regulator – particularly where, in public services or private enterprise, we are confronted with monopolies. But we must resist the temptation to intervene too much.

    We must resist the temptation to respond to every mistake, every tragedy, by introducing another burdensome raft of regulations. Sometimes, of course, these have emanated from Brussels. But sometimes, I am sorry to say, the guilty are closer to home. That is why the Government has launched its deregulation initiative – and why I invited ministers to join me in Downing Street for a bout of spring-cleaning this week.

    A radical programme

    I rather think that some are forgetting, a little too easily, how we are moving to put our principles into action. We have a radical programme which is transforming Britain for the better, and which is being imitated across the world.

    Take, for a start, those step-by-step changes that are already under way, but have much further to go.

    In the health service, we have seen the spectacular growth of Trusts, far more rapid than originally imagined, and the extension of GP fundholding. By the middle of this decade, we will have transformed the NHS, made it much more responsive to patients and their doctors. And we will have exposed the short-sighted folly of Labour’s obstruction of reform.

    In education, we are seeing the emancipation of governing bodies and head teachers, taking the local authority straitjacket off their back. With testing, we are giving back to parents the right to know what, and how well, their children are being taught – and what they are being taught. Another issue on which Labour is being driven into embarrassed retreat.

    Through the Citizen’s Charter, we are carrying through a revolution in choice, in information, in accountability and individual power that no other political party will ever be able to reverse. We are extending performance pay, and launching the biggest programme of market testing of central government activities ever seen.

    But that is not all. In Parliament this Session, we are creating:

    –          new powers to regenerate the schools whose poor performance has for too long trapped inner city youngsters into a cycle of failure, unemployment and poverty.

    –          new freedoms for members of trade unions, and new powers for the individual to prevent wildcat strikes.

    –          new encouragement to the arts, to charities, to sport and to celebrate our great heritage, through a National Lottery that may deliver literally billions for good causes over the years ahead.

    –          new opportunities for private-sector skills and enterprise to improve services for the railway passenger.

    These are crucial measures – but, as I have already indicated there are others, too, pressing hard behind them.

    In education, we have further to go in reforming primary schools, to sweep away the failed nostrums of the 1960s and 1970s. And we need parallel reforms in teacher training, to help good teachers do the job the country needs.

    For our teenagers, I want to create a better map of opportunity. I am determined – this year – to start opening up a wider and clearer choice of ways to study and train for a career. This has to begin with schools. We need vocational qualifications which carry esteem, are worthwhile in themselves and challenge the monopoly of the academic route to further and higher education. And we need modern and effective careers education. But this drive has to be followed through in colleges and the workplace. I believe, with close co-operation between the Departments of Employment and Education, we can evolve a system which offers our youngsters more for their time, and the taxpayers more for their money.

    In our cities – yes, and in our countryside too – we need to counter-attack the twin problems of crime and the fear of crime. The crucial test of our police forces is their ability to deliver what the citizen wants: safety on our streets and security in their homes. Change is needed, and the best of our policemen know it. But they also need co-operation from the citizen, industry, local government. And the courts must have the powers they need. In particular, I believe, we need new powers to take persistent young offenders off the streets and into secure accommodation where they can be taught and trained for a useful future. On the future of our police, and on young offenders, the Home Secretary will be announcing proposals soon.

    In housing, I want those who prefer to rent to have a choice of modern decent homes. That means we need to encourage good private landlords, so that tenants have a real choice. But most young people still want to own their own home, and Conservatives believe strongly in helping them fulfil that ambition. I want more of them to have that choice. We must step up our drive to help all those who seek to escape from the prison of bad Council provision.

    We want to give our exporters confidence they have the Government behind them. Manufacturing industry has a great opportunity to win new markets. It is not for Government to say where, or what, or how. We are not going to return to the bad old days of interventionism. But where Government can help to open doors and free up markets, it will do so.

    I have already set up a scrutiny of why European regulations seem to gain extra frills when they reach the United Kingdom. Now we will be overhauling our horrendous total of over 7,000 regulations – many of them domestic – with the aid of the businessmen who bear the brunt. We will be looking for opportunities to legislate – perhaps I should say ‘legislate’ – to ease the burden on industry’s back.

    By forcing Whitehall to publish estimates of what it will cost business to comply with every new regulation, we should both deter the busybodies and contribute to my campaign to make government more open. But I do not believe the steps we have taken towards openness go far enough. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be bringing proposals forward in the coming months.

    In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor opened the way to privately-financed schemes to improve our infrastructure. Now I want to investigate still more radical ways of financing a better road network, between our cities. I hope the Transport Secretary will be able to bring forward proposals soon.

    I increasingly wonder whether paying unemployment benefit, without offering or requiring any activity in return, serves unemployed people or society well. Of course, we have to make sure that any conditions imposed improve the job prospects of unemployed people and give good value to the country. But we have already introduced this principle, for example through Restart, in a limited sense for the long-term unemployed. I believe we should explore ways of extending it further.

    You would not expect me, so close to the Chancellor’s Budget, to say more tonight about economic affairs. But I would just say this about the longer term: that if we are to sustain sound public finance and make progress towards our goals of lower personal taxation we must keep firm control of inflation and take a rigorous approach to public spending. It is always dangerously easy for the State to settle into habits of spending which outlast their purpose and outrun their budgets. And to avoid that happening, it is necessary from time to time to re-examine long-term trends in expenditure.

    We need, through the honours system and other networks of recognition and encouragement, to give the volunteering movement extra support. I want to develop a new initiative, this year, to help local communities make the best use of the goodwill and energy of businesses and individuals in their areas.

    We must build on the faith in our United Kingdom that was demonstrated at the general election. As we have been “taking stock” in Scotland, we have been listening for ideas to reinforce a Union that has served all concerned for centuries. We are not hostile to change; but we are adamant against destruction.

    Let me draw together some of the themes of this agenda. Increasingly, I believe, we must develop policies that sound a common chord across all programmes. The Citizen’s Charter, deregulation, privatisation, private finance, market-testing, openness, all follow this approach. Others – such as the focus on 16-19 year olds – require close co-operation between Departments. Still others – such as the ‘challenge’ approach to the funding of local projects – are introduced by one Department then developed by another. I believe this breaking-down of rigid Whitehall divisions is essential to the delivery of a radical Tory agenda.

    The Conservative message

    So if people suppose – or even, perhaps, hope! – we have come to the end of our reforming energies, I am afraid they had better think again. I do not underestimate the difficulties. Of course, there are challenges ahead. But that is an invitation to press on with more vigour, not to step aside. We will carry forward the pursuit of economic liberalism, and the reinforcement of the social cement that binds us together.

    These are beliefs that would, in the different language of their time, have been familiar to Burke, Disraeli, Salisbury. They link the ambitions of the child to be born in the year 2000 with the aspirations of previous centuries, it is the genius of our party that we fashion change in the image of our long traditions.

    I have tried to show how I believe these aims are served today by fostering a national life in which merit is rewarded, achievement respected, opportunity opened up and the individual given power and choice. That is what I mean by “a classless society”.

    I have tried to show how I believe we can rebuild confidence and nurture the best instincts of the British people. That is what I understand by a decent society; by “a nation at ease with itself”.

    And I have tried to show how I believe the need for change can be reconciled with the deep need for continuity, for calm, for commonsense and steadiness in our affairs. In the words of the newest addition to that distinguished list of Conservatism’s historians and philosophers, our party ‘has long been the party of the silent majority’. And I am indebted to that author – David Willetts – for my final quotation from Burke, which perhaps has some relevance today:

    ‘Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine, that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field, that of course, they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour.’

  • John Major – 1992 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    johnmajor

    Well it hasn’t exactly been a dull week has it? What we have seen has been democracy in action. And this Party is stronger and healthier for it.

    Mr President, someone – I forget who it was – said that nothing that’s good is ever easy. I’m beginning to know what they meant. Politics is a rough, tough, unpredictable business – and troubles come in bunches. But you have to keep your nerve. And remember that when you come out of the teeth of the gale you’re tougher, more battle hardened and the weather is better.

    Mr President, in this stormy period, some people seem to have forgotten something rather important. Just six months ago this very day this Conservative Party won the General Election. We did so against all the odds. Everyone said we didn’t have a chance. The opinion polls – and in those days people actually believed them! – they were against us. The pundits were against us. They said history was against us. They all got even more egg on their faces than I did. Because they left something out of their calculations. 14 and a half million British people were with us. We got more votes than ever before in any election in the whole of British history.

    So why was it that those television exit polls were so wrong? Why didn’t the commentators see? Why didn’t the experts see? For that matter, why didn’t the BBC?

    There were two reasons why we won that record level of support. First, it was the principles we all stood for – the principles we stand for still. And second, it was the people who worked for that victory. You. And thousands like you. Who did so much, gave so much, campaigned so hard together. Mr President, there is one lesson we should never forget. When the Conservative Party is united, it is an irresistible political force.

    We Conservatives have great hopes and dreams for our country. But to make them reality we must win the battles we care about. Lift our country back into growth. And, in all we do, create the society we want for our children and the future.

    But before I turn directly to the great decisions that face us, I’d like to say something about someone not with us today – Chris Patten. We planned the Election in the early days of January. We knew we would go into it behind in the polls – and we were confident we’d come out of it ahead. But we knew, too, that for Chris to run the Election and hold Bath would be desperately difficult.

    So it proved. He’s a huge loss, not just to us, but to British politics. It was typical of him to decline a by-election, turn down a peerage, and take one of the toughest jobs in the world – as Governor of Hong Kong.

    Chris, win for Hong Kong, just as you won for us. And when you come back, come and join us. In Government. Because you’ll still be welcome and we’ll still be there.

    Someone else was a tower of strength through that Election. Norman Fowler. He was always at my side. Always there – with everything from beef burgers to wise advice.

    But every time I went out with Norman, something very curious happened. People threw eggs at him. But they kept missing him and hitting me.

    There are moments when great truths become evident. And this was one. A man who could duck so fast so often was clearly the right man for Central Office. Norman – it’s good to have you back.

    But, above all, I must thank someone who is not a politician. Someone to whom my debt is too personal to express fully. She is here today – just as she was on every day of the Election Campaign. I mean of course, Norma.

    Her role was even bigger than you may think. If I hadn’t met her on April 9th 1970, I might never have picked April 9th 1992. All those oceans of ink guessing the election date! Wasted! If only they’d asked Norma!

    Mr President, in all our Conferences there is theatre. You expect to hear us expose our opponent’s policies. Expect none of that today. For Labour and the Liberal Democrats are utterly irrelevant. let us leave them on the sidelines – where they are and where they deserve to be. I intend to address myself to the country, the Conference and the Conservative Party.

    Mr President, debates over our place in Europe have always touched raw nerves – in our Party and in our country. I don’t find that surprising. There are gut issues at stake. Opinions are passionately held. It is right to speak plainly and directly, even if for some it is uncomfortable. People must know exactly what’s at stake. The great dangers for our country and – as Douglas Hurd pointed out so graphically on Tuesday – for our Party if we make the wrong choices. And the right choices can only be based on facts. They can never be built on fears.

    Of course, emotions run high. We saw that from both sides in the great Conference debate earlier this week.

    For many of you, I know, the heart pulls in one direction and the head in another. There is nothing that can stir the heart like the history of this country. It is part of us. Nothing can change that. But it’s a different world now.

    Our families are growing up in a different age. They know we can’t pull up the drawbridge and live in our own private yesterday. They know we live in a world of competition – and we can’t just wish it away. Change isn’t just coming, it’s here. I want Britain to mould that change, to lead that change in our own national interest.

    That’s what I mean by being at the heart of Europe. Not turning a deaf ear to the heartbeat of Britain. But having the courage to stand up and do what we believe to be right.

    Right for British industry, right for British jobs, right for British prosperity.

    During the summer, when I was in Cornwall, a lady came up to speak to me. “Mr Major” she said, “please, please don’t let Britain’s identity be lost in Europe”. She didn’t tell me her name. But she spoke for the anxieties of millions. She spoke for this country. She spoke for me.

    So let me tell this Conference what I told that lady in Cornwall. I will never – come hell or high water – let our distinctive British identity be lost in a federal Europe.

    Let no-one in this Conference be in any doubt, this Government will not accept a centralised Europe.

    And if there are those who have in mind to haul down the Union Jack and fly high the star-spangled banner of a United States of Europe, I say to them; you misjudge the temper of the British people. And you do not begin to understand the determination of this Prime Minister to put the interests of this country first, now and always.

    Mr President, it’s true, the European Community has centralised too much. It has talked too much about European directives, and thought too little about Europe’s direction.

    But at Maastricht we began to reverse that trend. And at Birmingham and Edinburgh we will carry that further.

    So let me say to the European politicians; if you don’t heed that, you will never build the European Community you want. You will break up the European Community you have.

    You cannot go forward by browbeating Denmark.

    And to those who offer us gratuitous advice, I remind them of what a thousand years of history should tell them, you cannot bully Britain.

    Mr President, I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe. But, when I hear assertions from others in Europe, that we or the Danes should sign up on their terms. I’ll tell you what I think. I think they should keep their advice to themselves. Sign up on their terms? Before I was born, if this country hadn’t fought on our terms there’d be no free Europe to sign up to.

    All these are frustrations. They cause great anger. But emotion must not govern policy. At the heart of our policy lies one objective and one only – a cold, clear-eyed calculation of the British national interest. What is right for Britain. What is right for our future. And from that calculation I will not be budged.

    Let me come directly to the issue that has caused such controversy. The Treaty of Maastricht seems to have become enshrouded in myth and legend. Certainly, the Treaty I hear about is not the one I negotiated.

    What are the fears people have about Maastricht? We heard many of them in our debate this week.

    A Single Currency! Under the Maastricht Treaty, Britain is not committed to a single currency.

    Immigration? Immigration policy is specifically excluded under the Maastricht Treaty.

    Jobs and working conditions? I refused to sign up for the Social Chapter.

    Education? The Treaty explicitly rules out any Community interference in what is taught in schools or the way education is run.

    Defence? Defence is kept out of the control of the Community.

    Citizenship? We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens.

    Conference, if I believed what some people said about the Treaty, I would vote against it. But I don’t. So I’m going to put the real Treaty, the one I negotiated, back to the House of Commons.

    There is one great prize in the Treaty. For the first time we have reached agreement on developing the community in voluntary cooperation between independent nation states. That means outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court, outside the competence of the European Commission. We have wanted this principle established for years. And we now have it in the Treaty I signed.

    It is time the distortions were put to one side. It is time to return the debate to reality and away from myth.

    In the Treaty, there was give and take – there has to be in any partnership. But in the end we got what we wanted. Not the agreement our partners signed up to: a better agreement. We obtained for Britain the flexibility and freedom which others signed away.

    When I hear some of the criticisms of the Treaty I think of Don Quixote – you may remember him. He read too many old books and got carried away, fighting imaginary battles. He tilted at windmills in the belief they were giants. He saw things that weren’t there. There has been a lot of that in the current debate on Maastricht.

    Yes, we made concession. But so did our partners. What would they now think of a British Prime Minister who fights a tough negotiation, gives firm undertakings, and then comes back and breaks his word? What would we think of someone who did that to us?

    Who would ever trust Britain again? We would have broken faith. A demeaning position in which no British Government should ever be placed.

    But, far more than that, what is at stake is something practical and hard-headed.

    We wouldn’t just be breaking our word. We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending our hopes of ever building the kind of Europe that we want.

    And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans. That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government will make.

    Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60% of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores. It is absolutely vital for businesses, big and small – and for our prospects of economic growth.

    There isn’t a single business leader who believes Britain’s interests lie outside. And I hope they will make their views clear – and public.

    But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century. Today images of violence and exile are being acted out on the shores of the Adriatic. Where only two years ago the children of a million tourists laughed and played, young men of Europe are locked in a bloody civil war.

    That’s why I want Britain to work in the ’90s for a wider and wiser Community, embracing the new democracies of the East. That is the vision we have for the next generation. And it’s vital for our own security. But it is a vision we will only make real if we’re in there arguing for it, not scowling in the wings.

    Mr President, I’m not starry-eyed about Europe. If I’m starry-eyed, it’s about this country. Britain has always grown and prospered when it has looked outwards – from the time of the First Elizabeth, right through to the Second. Let us then not turn away and put up the shutters – but do what we believe – with faith, and courage and conviction. In the name of the present, and in the name of the future, we cannot sit this one out.

    Some take the view that we must choose between Europe and our friendship with the United States. What total nonsense. Britain is the indissoluble link between the United States and the continent of Europe. We have growing ties of commerce and trade with Europe, but we have blood ties over many generations with our friends in America.

    We in this party will preserve and strengthen our special relationship with America. It is longstanding. Tested in many battles. Reinforced by ties of kinship, language and shared values. Britain and America have stood side by side many times in many theatres of war against tyranny and oppression. On that line we must always take our stand and will, together.

    Eight weeks ago, we decided to send some 2,000 troops to Yugoslavia under the flag of the United Nations. They will bring aid to the victims of that terrible civil war. Without this common effect, we would be seeing in a few months time hundreds of thousands of people – men, women and children in Bosnia – in Europe – dying of starvation, of cold and lack of medicine.

    Britain is already the largest supplier of medicines. And, amidst all the dangers, our RAF Hercules have played a leading part in the airlift into Sarajevo. Those young men know the risks; but they have met them, just as the young men who will keep open the land corridors know the risks and will meet them. We can be proud of them – and we are.

    The safety of these troops will always be first in our minds. They are there for humanitarian reasons. They are not there to hold the combatants apart – and they will not be asked to do so. They are there to fight only in self-defence and then they have authority to use all the force they need.

    We are asking a lot of them. But they know what we know – and what our soldiers in Northern Ireland who stand in the front-line against terrorism also know. There is a duty to be done. I believe it is a duty that this Conference, gathered here in Brighton, would not want Britain, of all nations, to shirk. In these difficult and dangerous tasks they deserve, and will get, this Party’s full support.

    Mr President, I have spoken of our plans for Europe, and our beliefs about Britain’s place in the world. We now have to lead Britain through difficult times at home, as we have done so often in our history.

    You know the things I care about – we all care about – the things I dreamt about as a boy. The chance to get on in life. To acquire knowledge, security, the prospect of a better future – and a life fulfilled. A corner of life that you can call your own. That’s what people struggle for and sacrifice for when they watch their children grow.

    If we’re going to meet those hopes, fulfil those dreams – then we must build a strong economy.

    And looking around the world, we can see even more clearly what makes an economy strong. A Government that secures two things; low inflation and the right climate for business to succeed.

    It is people who create wealth.

    People, not Government. Business, not bureaucracy. Enterprise, not interference.

    But business can’t succeed if Government doesn’t play its part.

    Low taxes – low inflation. Leaving people more of their own money to spend and save. Protecting them from those robber barons of the twentieth century. Inflation and the state.

    I believe – I know – that it was for those tasks that the British people elected us to govern again.

    They didn’t trust anyone else to control inflation. They didn’t trust anyone else with their taxes. They didn’t trust anyone else to keep the state of industry’s back.

    Mr President, we must – and we will – deliver upon that trust.

    But today even the world’s most successful economies face difficulties. In the United States. In Japan. Throughout Europe – yes, and in Germany, too.

    And here in Britain I know how great is the personal hardship that many people are facing. Some have lost their jobs; some their businesses; some their homes. We must pursue policies that will bring hope back into their lives.

    I know how hard people are hit by the misfortune that befalls home after home, family after family, in a recession. Unemployment is a bitter experience. I don’t want a temporary cure. I want a lasting recovery. To come out of this recession safe from the threat of its repetition. If there is one thought that goes through my mind wherever I see this recession Mr President, never again! That’s why we’re looking for long-term solutions. That’s why we’ll take no risks with inflation. And that’s why we will continue to do everything possible to create the prosperity that is the hallmark of a Conservative Government.

    But we must not forget what has been achieved and is essential for lasting recovery.

    Inflation – down from nearly 11% to just over 3.5% in the past two years. And today I can tell you that even the underlying rate – that hard core we have found so difficult to reduce – has come down to 4%.

    Interest rates – down from 15% to 9%. The starting rate of income tax – down from 25% to 20%. Mortgage payments down, on average, 80 pounds a month. All putting more of people’s own money back in their own pockets.

    And, yet, despite that progress, it’s been taking such a long time for things to get going. I know hos frustrating that is. Here as abroad, debt has made people cautious. Slow to spend. That’s made things tough for small businesses. Tough for industry, too.

    That’s what makes British industry’s successes all the more remarkable. Exports – close to record levels. Manufacturing output rising – and productivity at record levels. Investment began to rise in the spring. And even in the High Street, sales have been picking up again.

    It is not enough. It is only a beginning. But now, I believe, we can aim for more.

    With a low inflation rate, we can compete with the best in Europe.

    Let’s not forget how we managed to bring inflation down and the man who did it – Norman Lamont. As he reminded us yesterday, for nearly two years it was the discipline of the ERM that helped us do so. But last month, we faced turmoil in the markets and rising interest rates across Europe. Germany’s troubles had driven European interest rates so high that the mechanism was no longer the servant of Europe’s prosperity.

    But let us not waste time looking back. We have to deal with the world as it is. Let’s take advantage of our circumstances to win new success for Britain.

    With a lower exchange rate, we have a new competitive edge in Europe. And provided we don’t blunt it with inflation, it gives us a real opportunity, in a single European market of 330 million people.

    A market for British computers. British cars. British televisions. British textiles. British services. British skills. The biggest free trade area in the world.

    That’s the market in which British enterprise must succeed. And the Government will back British business all the way.

    Let us return to that old and vivid slogan: British means business. And let me say a little more about what I believe Government can do to make it true.

    First, low inflation. Down to the point where it no longer interferes with the decisions people and businesses have to make in their daily lives.

    Second, we must create an economic environment in which more people are willing to invest their effort, their savings, their skills in new businesses because of the rewards that exist.

    Those who risk their savings should know that if they build up wealth by their efforts, they will be able to keep more of it. What families have worked a lifetime to create, the taxman should never be allowed to destroy.

    Those who build up new businesses must be confident they won’t be stifled by taxation. And we know what that means for Government – it means standing firm against all those pleas for extra public spending. All so attractive to someone – so disastrous in combination.

    Where more is really needed we will spend more. Our plans allow for that. But more for some programmes may have to mean less – for others. Because we have set our limits – and we will stick to them.

    Mr. President, it’s going to be a tough spending round. All my colleagues know it. But they also know they’ve got to do what business does. Protect the quality – cut the cost. We can keep improving our public services – if the public sector doesn’t pay itself what the taxpayer can’t afford.

    It’s too easy – when spending is under pressure – to forget the long term. To let the burden fall on private industry alone.

    We must work with industry, to see whether the public and private sectors working together can do more to invest in our future. More to improve the infrastructure of this country. I know the problems. But it is time to look afresh at whether we can find new solutions.

    But that’s not enough. We must also see what more we can do to help our exporters win for Britain. In the single market – and in the world trading system.

    We are battling for free trade – and to make sure we take the best advantage of it. I want to see British enterprise succeeding across the globe. Winning contracts. Creating British jobs. Generating our future prosperity.

    And as part of this we must do more to lighten the burden of government regulation. Government should stand behind business – not in its way.

    Mr President, this is a battle we’ve been fighting since 1979. But it’s a battle that is never won. And now is the time to mount a new offensive.

    We’re already on the march against the Eurocrat and his sheaf of directives. But you know, it isn’t just Brussels that rolls out the red tape.

    It’s Whitehall. And town hall. Everyone likes to tie another knot. Admirable intentions – disastrous combinations. Piling costs on industry. Mr President, that must stop.

    It’s not just big business that suffers. Far too often, it is the small firms who really suffer. Small firms – fed up with filling in the forms – who feel that it is just not worth being in business at all.

    Of course, we want to have confidence in the safety of the food we eat, the homes we buy, the place we work in, the people who take charge of our children. But when this reaches the point where you may need 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations just to start a business, then I say again, this sort of thing must stop.

    I have asked Michael Heseltine to take responsibility for cutting through this burgeoning maze of regulations. Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into them!

    You know, deregulation isn’t just about making life better for business. It’s about making life easier for everybody. Take the bureaucratic controls which mean Whitehall decides whether you have the chance to stop off the motorway. Every parent knows what I mean. Next services, 54 miles – when your children can’t make 10!

    They’ve got to go. And so those rules have got to go!

    Or take the system that keeps air fares far too high. It’s absurd that international air travel is regulated under rules set out before the jet airliner was even invented.

    And why should so many people, from all over Britain, have to come to London when they want to fly abroad? I want to see more flights directly out of Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham and all our regional airports. That’s better for the people who live there – and better for London too.

    Mr President, it is vital that we get the economy back into strong – and sustainable – growth. We can do it. We must do it. But that is only the first of our ambitions for the course of this Parliament. The manifesto that won the Election set out a full programme for five years. Now we’re going to put it into action.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the year 2000 is less than a hundred months away. That, at any rate, is the latest Treasury forecast. I want Britain’s example, its ingenuity, its decency and principle to be in the forefront as we cross that threshold.

    In all we do we must speak to the instincts of the British people. For 300 years, the Conservative Party has reflected those instincts in a way that no other political party has ever been able to match.

    So let’s go out and tell the people about the things we’ll be working for, and fighting for, in the next four years of Conservative Government.

    We’ll be fighting for better public service.

    For services that put the parents, the patients, and the passengers first. Fighting bloody-minded and petty bureaucracy wherever we find it. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is about.

    We’ll be fighting for good local Government, closer to local people. That’s why in Wales it’s set to be goodbye to the likes of Clwyd and Gwent and back to Pembrokeshire and Anglesey. In Scotland, the Scottish Secretary will be consulting the public on change – but I rather suspect it could be an Ian Lang farewell to monstrosities like Strathclyde.

    In England we will give everyone the chance to put their views on the future of councils like Cleveland or Avon. I can’t predict the outcome. But can you imagine Len Hutton walking out to bat for Humberside?

    We’ll be fighting for better health and social services.

    For a Health Service run by local people in patients’ interests. For more GP fundholders and more of our successful hospital trusts. We want better care for the elderly and vulnerable in the home and the community – wherever they choose to be. And we must make sure local councils respect the wishes of those who do go into homes. People in their last years are entitled to as much choice and dignity as anyone else. Not less choice and no dignity.

    And Mr President, we have all been deeply shocked at the reports of scandals in some social security departments. It’s terrible when children are involved. That’s why we are going to set up regular independent inspection of social work in every council. We will not let vulnerable people and children be put at risk.

    We’ll be fighting to strengthen the rights of ordinary trade union members.

    They must have freedom to join the union of their choice – and fairness in union ballots and finances.

    And, under the Citizen’s Charter, we’re going to give you – all of you – a new right. To take direct action in the courts against those who disrupt public services through unlawful strikes, and hold the country to ransom.

    And we’ve already blown the whistle on one of the last bastions of the closed shop – student unions. The days in which they march and demonstrate at the taxpayer’s expense and numbered.

    When it comes to education, my critics say I’m old-fashioned. Old-fashioned? Reading and writing? Spelling and sums? Great literature – and standard English grammar? Old fashioned?

    Well, if I’m old-fashioned, well, so be it. So are the vast majority of Britain’s parents. And I have this message for the progressives who are trying to change the exams. English exams should be about literature, not soap opera. And I promise you this. There’ll be no GCSEs in Eldorado – even assuming anyone is still watching it!

    I also want reform of teacher training. Let us return to basic subject teaching, not courses in the theory of education. Primary teachers should learn how to teach children to read, not waste their time on the politics of gender, race and class,

    I don’t know if you feel as I do, but I think it is intolerable that children should spend years in school and then leave them unable to read or add up. It’s a terrible waste of young lives.

    We want high standards, sound learning, diversity and choice in all our schools. But, in some – particularly in those inner cities – Isaac Newton would not have learned to count and Anthony Trollope would never have learned to write.

    We cannot abandon the children in schools like these. And we will not. So if local authorities cannot do the job, then we will give the job to others.

    In the place of the local authority which has failed, new Education Associations will be set up to run and revive these schools. Governments have always shied away from it. But I am not prepared to any longer.

    Yes, it will mean another colossal row with the educational establishment. I look forward to that. It’s a row worth having. A row where we will have the vast majority of parents – and the vast majority of good, committed teachers – squarely on our side. They believe what we believe – that children must come first.

    Mr President, there was a time when Britain was a watchword for good behaviour across the world. I want to restore that good name. People are horrified when they see mindless vandalism; old people attacked by young thugs; drunken louts on the rampage, blackening Britain’s reputation abroad. Not only horrified, they’re ashamed.

    Mr President, to excuse crime may seem understanding. But it’s wrong. Sympathy doesn’t curb crime. If society wants to protect itself it must condemn crime, not condone it. We must create a climate in which people know the difference between right and wrong and yours and mine. We must spell out the truth. Crime wrecks lives, spreads fear, corrupts society. It is the fault of the individual, and no one else.

    We are cracking down hard on crime – particularly violence. And that includes – as I promised last year – tough sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving or drunken driving. Nothing can excuse those who kill in this way. We are taking action. And I hope the courts will respond.

    There’s another problem we are dealing with – the illegal occupation of land by so called “new-age travellers”.

    You will have seen the pictures on television or in the newspapers; if you live in the West Country and Wales you may have seen it on your doorstep. Farmers powerless. Crops ruined and livestock killed by people who say they commune with nature, but have no respect for it when it belongs to others.

    New age travellers? Not in this age. Not in any age.

    They say that we don’t understand them. Well, I’m sorry – but if rejecting materialism means destroying the property of others; then I don’t understand. If doing your own things means exploiting the social security system and sponging off others, then I don’t want to understand. If alternative values mean a selfish and lawless disregard for others, then I won’t understand. Let others speak for these new age travellers. We will speak for their victims.

    Mr President, the things I care most about are the long term things – stability and security at home and in Europe; rebuilding standards in education; the long-term strength – economic and moral – of our nation. Preserving Britain’s pride and purpose and belief in itself. That’s what I care about. That’s what I stand for.

    Isn’t that what we’re all about together in this Party? That’s what our forebears worked for when they built it, when they sent its roots down deep – right into the very heart and marrow of Britain. That’s why we are all in this Party together – you and I.

    That’s why I fought so hard in the Election to keep our country one. For me that is the highest and greatest of our causes – to defend the unity of the United Kingdom, and all that binds our nation together. For unless we stay united, unless we stand together, as a Party and as a nation, this country will never prevail. There is not a man or a woman in this hall, or listening outside, who doesn’t know in their heart that is true.

    So let’s be confident at home and in Europe. Let’s not turn away and say “It’s all too difficult”. Let’s not hang back because we don’t believe our voice will be heard. Right across Europe, now, in this critical hour, people are looking and listening to us and to what we have to say.

    It won’t always be easy. It won’t always be comfortable. But in all we do, there is one thing I will never forget. This is our country.

    What we do, we do for Britain. What we do, we do for the future of our children and for generation yet unborn. For their prosperity and their security, and never for short term political advantage.

    Let us have faith, and courage, and pride. Britain’s interests will come first – for me, and this Party. First. Last. Always.

  • John Major – 1992 Speech on Citizen's Charter

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to The Economist Conference on the Streamlining of the Public Sector on Monday 27th January 1992.

    Public Services on the Move: The Citizen’s Charter

    Mr Chairman, four years ago, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was the guardian of the public purse. I spoke then about the importance of high quality public services. Some people were surprised at such a speech from a Minister with responsibility for public expenditure. But it was right. And the fact that so many people running great enterprises, public and private, are here this morning shows that we are right to insist that people deserve better value for money and more accountable management standards in our public services.

    The Citizen’s Charter is a blueprint to deliver higher standards. Some services – like the National Health Service and social security  –  cross the nation. Others are the prerogative of Town Halls and local authorities.

    But wherever they may be, there is excuse for accepting second-rate performance. It’s economically wasteful. It’s socially unacceptable. And it’s a poor use of the many talented people who work in the public sector.

    The Citizen’s Charter reflects a determination to improve public service. For me, that was not a new concept. It arose from experience  –  as a user of public services, as a provider of them in local Government, and, finally, as a Minister.

    My views have not changed on substance over the years. Nor have my convictions. I believed then and I believe now that too often providers of public service fail to understand, or ignore, the interests and concerns of the public they are there to serve.

    Let me give you an example. Too often the public are treated as if they were the lucky recipients of a free service. But they are not. They’re paying for it with their own money compulsorily taken from them in taxes. They are entitled to be treated as credit-worthy customers who’ve paid in advance.

    Mr Chairman, the Citizen’s Charter came about because I was consistently receiving the same strong message. That it was high time to raise standards of performance in our public services. That was the demand of the consumer. And it was also the wish of those who work in the public sector themselves. They had the skills, the dedication, and the enthusiasm to do it. All they needed was the freedom and the encouragement to try out new ideas. The Citizen’s Charter gives them the chance.

    Citizen’s Charter Principles

    What the Charter does is to underline the need for:

    – published standards

    – consulting users and customers

    – increased openness

    – more and better information

    – more and better choice

    – greater accessibility and

    – greater responsiveness when things go wrong.

    These are things we want to see underpinning not some  –  but all of our public services.

    The Charter’s Policy Measures

    But our White Paper is more than a set of principles. It is an ambitious programme of action to raise the standard of service right across the public sector. It includes some huge commitments:

    The privatisation of British Rail and British Coal. The deregulation and privatisation of London Buses. These will be priorities in the next Parliament. But the main thrust of the Charter is to empower the individual.

    – So it includes also laws to let the public see league tables comparing the standards of service of their local authority with that of others.

    – And, for the first time ever, reforms that will bring about the regular independent inspection of all Britain’s schools.

    – It contains radical reforms which will limit the monopoly of the Post Office.

    – It proposes new powers for citizens to challenge unlawful strikes in the public sector. When the next Parliament is formed, they, too will become law.

    Last July I made it clear that a programme on this scale would take time to deliver. But we must deliver it – and we will. The Citizen’s Charter will be at the heart of this Government’s policy making throughout the 1990s.

    Sometimes people find it hard to relate great policy ideas to everyday life. There is a tendency to be shy of new concepts. People were shy of privatisation. Yet they should remember privatisation has created a nation of shareholders and put telephone kiosks that work in every high street in Britain. Deregulation has opened up the motorways to long-distance coach travel.

    But those benefits were not always seen at first. Indeed, they were bitterly resisted. It is always less trouble to stick to the status quo. But today those ideas are not only accepted, they are imitated right across the world. It will be the same with the Citizen’s Charter. There’s always resistance to good ideas. Wherever we find it, we will beat it. And I have no doubt that the ideas in the Charter will be imitated in other countries too. They are already catching the fancy of policy makers not least in the United States.

    The Charter builds on and takes forward our privatisation and contracting out plans. The White Paper on Competing for Quality, will lead to more buying in of outside skills and a bigger role for the private sector. I want to see much more market testing in the years ahead. In central Government as well as in services outside. And. we are making the way easier for private firms to bid for business. Whitehall has been told to be open to their ideas.

    But the Charter is not only about big policy developments. It also addresses directly some of the smaller things that cause so much irritation in everyday life. Again, an example makes the point. Take fixed appointment times for the man from the gas board or the electricity board. When we were working on the Charter we were told these were unthinkable. Fixed appointment times? Over the years consumers have learned to be grateful if they ever came? Were we mad? The public didn’t want them, they said. The unions wouldn’t like it. These latter day Mr Bumbles were shocked at the consumer demanding more. Whatever next Oliver? A proper service? Now, East Midlands Electricity has shown that it is perfectly possible to get the electricity man to call at a specific time of day, if that’s what the customer wants.

    And take another frustration of everyday life: motorway cones. Sometimes one could be forgiven for believing they had taken over the roads and were marching on the towns.

    So we listened and acted. As a result, £70 million worth of motorists’ time has already been saved by using lane rental. So we must do more of it. And there are other things we can do. A recent piece of work on the M1, with traditional methods, would have taken over 5 days to complete, and cost £25,000. Using rolling lane closure, the work was done in 3 hours and cost just £5,000. We are looking to the Department of Transport to press on fast with all the Citizen’s Charter’s new ideas for handling roadworks better.

    Progress: Health

    Then there’s the Charter’s influence on the Health Service: From this April, all hospitals will have to display publicly their local charter standards. From this April people will be given individual appointment times for out patient visits. No more turning up at 9 am and finding twenty other people there with the same appointment time. And from this April, there will be guaranteed maximum waiting times for hospital treatments. In Scotland there will be maximum waiting times for a number of specified operations. All this is spelt out in the Patient’s Charter which has gone to every home in the land. A better service. A more personal service. And more dignity, too.

    The Health Service must hit the targets that the White Paper set. And then we must go further. I can tell you today that we are launching a new research study into why patients have to wait so long between referral by their GP and seeing a consultant. The time varies considerably. Why? I want to know. And when we know we must put it right. I want to see improvements made.

    Changes like these take effort, commitment, skill, organisation. They mean a shift in approach on the part of a great many people up and down the NHS. Well, it’s happening. There’s a new mood of confidence in a Health Service that is responding to the challenges that the Citizen’s Charter has set. And there will be many more to come.

    Education

    Then consider education. In no area have the Charter’s proposals received wider public support. Parents now have a right to see governors’ annual reports, which include the exam results in their school. From July all parents will have the right to an annual report on their child’s progress; and, from this autumn, tables comparing the exam results of different schools will be published every year in the local paper. Next year, the comparative tables will include truancy figures and information on where pupils go when they leave school. National Curriculum test results will be published as soon as they become available.

    You may be surprised that it was ever thought unsafe for parents and public to know this sort of thing. Well, I think I can tell you why. It was inconvenient to some of the providers. It might expose poor performance to the criticism it deserved. But poor performance should be exposed if we are to correct it.

    It is those attitudes that the Citizen’s Charter is challenging. We are giving parents a greatly increased voice in their children’s education – a voice they should never have lost. And at the same time we are also letting employers, local business people and so on – see how effective their schools are.

    Other Measures

    There are other simple but necessary things we’re doing.

    Public services are much more human if they come with a name to them. Anonymity can be intimidating. Very shortly 35,000 Employment service local office staff will be wearing name badges. And all other parts of the public service are doing the same.

    We are going to provide more flexible opening hours in tax offices, Jobcentres, benefit offices and driving test centres. Flexible hours to provide a better service.

    We are seeing standards set in areas where people said it couldn’t be done. For example, the Kent Police will answer all 999 calls within 10 seconds and will attend all incidents that require a rapid response in no more than 20 minutes – 10 minutes in towns.

    We’re making radical changes in inspection. Not just by making sure that the standards are checked in every British school. But also by introducing outsiders – professionals, users, commonsense citizens – into other inspectorates as well. I believe it is quite wrong that professions – like police, social work, or probation – should be inspected only by the providers themselves. They must be subject to independent inspection – to reassure the public and encourage the best performance.

    Other tough targets are being bettered. In 1989 it took some 3 1/2 weeks to get a passport. Now it takes just 7 days. Document processing used to take Companies House a month on average. Last financial year this figure was cut to just one week. Huge improvements in service, not dependent on extra resources. Just good management and a willing response from staff.

    The list could go on.

    Where Next

    Mr Chairman, ten days ago, I brought a number of my colleagues together with senior officials to assess progress on the Charter. We agreed that we must develop some of the many new ideas that they put forward. And we decided to hold these top-level meetings regularly so that progress would be maintained.

    Last Friday Michael Heseltine unveiled the Tenant’s Charter. This tells council tenants what they have a right to expect from their housing authorities. That they must be kept informed of any major changes that landlords propose to make to their homes or their estates; that they have a right to carry out improvements to their homes, or to swap their homes if they wish to move house to another area.

    Today sees the launch of the Benefits Agency Charter. It lays out clearly the service that benefit claimants are entitled to expect. And it sets specific service standards for speed and accuracy of benefit delivery.

    Other initiatives will follow, including, on Wednesday publication by the Customs of a charter for travellers.

    People are being given information about services that no one has bothered to tell them before. For the future:

    We want even more, and better information. There will be:

    – a video which explains how the tax system works, so that those running small businesses can more easily manage their tax affairs;

    – and a video about the way the courts work, to help those who come once in a lifetime as jurors or witnesses to understand what goes on and to find their way around.

    – In Wales there is to be a code of good practice in planning cases for local authorities. League tables will be published so that, once more, we can put pressure on the worst authorities to catch up with the best.

    – We will soon see a new Passenger’s Charter published. This will set out clearly the standards that British Rail’s passengers are entitled to expect, and make BR account for its performance against them. And it will also improve significantly the terms of compensation they should make available to passengers who suffer worst from train delays.

    – And Charter’s principles should also help the businessman as citizen. He has to deal with many rules and regulations administered by local authorities. In some areas systems are being developed so that a business getting approval from one authority will know that it is valid for others. I want to see such systems, which are currently voluntary, extended more and more widely. Businesses simply cannot understand it when different authorities apply the same laws in different ways. It adds to business costs and detracts from competitiveness. Local authorities need to work with business in smoothing out difficulties that stop firms getting on with their main job – trading.

    – Finally, we are going to make sure that rewards in the public sector are related to performance. Increasingly, peoples’ pay must be linked to giving high quality service. Doing a job of quality must be seen to matter more than doing a job. There will be strict, but fair criteria. But those who work well should earn more than those who don’t. I intend that performance pay should apply more widely in public service  –  not just in Whitehall, but on the underground and the railways as well.

    The Charter Mark Award

    I can also announce today a reward for excellence. It will be known as the Charter Mark award. It will be open to all public services that serve their customers direct. It will be challenging to achieve. In the first year some 50 Charter Marks will be awarded. Only the highest standards of performance will be considered. The winners will have to improve even more. Year on year improvement in the quality of their services. Customer satisfaction.

    And they will have to submit plans for future improvements without cost to the taxpayer.

    I hope many public sector services will apply for the Charter Mark. Not just the big ones. And not just the obvious ones. There are individual schools, hospitals, Agencies, and local authority services, which may not be well known nationally but which provide a service of which they can be proud. I want their efforts to be recognised. To be examples for others to follow.

    Resources

    Mr Chairman, it is the taxpayer who meets the cost of public service – good or bad. Poor public services do not come free, any more than good ones do. And they will cost more. They mean too much time wasted, too many complaints, paying twice over to put right the mistakes made first time round.

    The best effective way to operate is to get things right first time. So let us hear no more of the phoney argument that you can only make things better by spending more money. Politeness. Keeping promises. Giving the right information. Answering letters promptly. These things don’t cost money. They are the everyday currency of decent services. And they must become universal.

    Nor do I believe that people take a proper pride in their work if they are no more than a nameless face or an illegible squiggle at the foot of the letter. With the Citizen’s Charter, public service is taking pride in its work. It now showing it is ready to take responsibility. Ready to trust the public. It’s the beginning of the end of the faceless bureaucrat.

    Charterline

    I know all too well the frustration that ordinary people feel when they find themselves up against a blank wall of bureaucracy. Passed from pillar to post when they try to get an answer to a simple question, or a problem solved. So we will soon be publishing a paper setting out some ideas for helping people in a quick and simple way, when they get caught in the system. We will also introduce, at first on a pilot basis, a new telephone helpline – the “Charterline”. It will tell people about the Citizen’s Charter, the many different measures it contains and how they can pursue questions that they have in mind.

    Conclusion

    The Citizen’s Charter is only six months old. It is still in its infancy. But its effects are building up fast. And people in the public sector know that it is here to stay.

    We will see to it that it works. Where we need to we will legislate. We will contract out when appropriate. We’ll toughen up inspection and further empower the regulators of public utilities where public choice is limited. We’ll set standards and publish results so that the success of every service can be measured and improved.

    And will this all make it work? Yes, certainly it will. Because the Charter ideas are right. Because the public know they are right. Because people want to make it happen. Because hundreds of thousands of people in public service have a commitment to make it happen.

    Already the Citizen’s Charter is changing public service. Step by step. But surely and certainly. More ideas will follow. With political impetus the process of change is now unstoppable.

    And I promise – the impetus will be there.

  • John Major – 1992 Speech to the Institute of Directors

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Prime Minister, John Major, to the Institute of Directors on 28th April 1992 at the Royal Albert Hall in London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major – 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    johnmajor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We have cut interests rates – eight times.

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

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

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

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

    I have not forgotten – and I never will.

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

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

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

    Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

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

    – Impose new levies

    – Pile on new costs

    – Bring back union power.

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

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

    Remember who suffers from inflation.

    – Infant businesses

    – People on fixed incomes

    – Pensioners

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

    They have eight new taxes lined up already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • John Major – 1991 Speech to Conservative Central Council

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Central Council meeting, held in Southport on 23rd March 1991.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I must begin by telling you how proud I am to be here today. Proud to be your Leader. Very proud to have been chosen to lead your Conservative Party in the 1990s. Proud to follow Margaret Thatcher and proud to build on her policies in the years to come.

    And what I want to do today is to set out our agenda for the decade. A full agenda for a Conservative Government as we plan for the century that lies ahead.

    It’s a good moment for us to be taking stock together. My first weeks at Number 10 were dominated by international tension and the demands placed on this country by a dangerous war. Now – together -we are resolving the great domestic issues facing this country. And it has been a remarkable week.

    Seven days ago, Mr Kinnock accused us of not doing anything. Now he says we are doing too much. Just a week ago, he accused me of refusing to change our policies. Now he says I’m changing them all. He can’t seem to make his mind up. He’s very indecisive. I think the word is dithering.

    But then – poor man – he doesn’t have the experience of the Conservative Party.

    The Conservative Achievement

    Ours is the oldest political party in the world. But in many ways it is also the freshest. We have never rested on success. Never clung to past positions when the time called for fresh ideas. We have always been the first to look ahead to find ways to meet the challenges that face our country.

    That is why our party has lasted and grown. Our duty now is to press on with reform and to carry through the long-term changes this country wants and needs.

    Whenever the British people have looked for a new lead it is to the Conservative Party that they have turned.

    Rallying the country in the dark days of the last world war. Lifting post-war controls and creating wealth for the social improvements of the 1950s and 1960s. Leading Britain into the opportunities of Europe in the 1970s. And rolling back the tide of Socialism and opening up choice and freedom throughout the 1980s. All under Conservative leadership.

    What then is our task for the 1990s? It is to prepare to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And it is to dedicate ourselves to the service of the British people. Of all the people – however they vote, wherever they live, whoever they are. There must be no barriers, no boundaries, no doors bolted in the Britain that we strive to create.

    Guiding Principles for the 1990s

    Governments have three fundamental responsibilities:

    – to defend the security of the realm;

    – to protect the value of the currency;

    – and to raise the living standards of the people.

    We will discharge those duties as no other party would or could.

    And as we pursue them, five great principles will guide us;

    1. That we are a national party.

    2. That we give opportunity and power to the people.

    3. That we need a strong and stable economy in which the wealth that is created is owned more widely.

    4. That we want a citizen’s charter to deliver quality in every part of public service.

    5. And that we work, not for short-term gain, but for the long-term good of the nation as a whole.

    The National Party : uniting and leading the nation

    When I say that we are a national party, I mean two things. Firstly, that we are a party that works for all the people. But secondly, that we will stand four-square for the union. There is something unique about the United Kingdom, a country which draws together in partnership the rich traditions of four great nations.

    We have much to learn from each other and much to give. We must respect the particular needs of each of those nations. We must cherish the diversity that gives each of them its character. But above all we must stand together.

    There is far more that binds us than divides. And the things that bind us are the deepest of all. Common principles. Centuries of partnership. The very interweaving of families. When young men and women from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales stood together in the Gulf, they were rightly proud of their roots. But no-one doubted that all fought together in the name of Britain. This Party must never let that spirit of union be lost.

    I want to take our policies to every corner of our country. Our ambitions should not be limited. In the 1990s I want to see us once more the leading Party in Scotland and in Wales. And I want to see the spread of Conservative values in Northern Ireland as well. There must never be no-go areas for Conservatism and for the hope our policies bring.

    Power to the people

    In the 1990s Britain faces an historic choice. To retreat into Socialism, or to move forward again to spread independence and opportunity to all.

    What is the difference between us and Labour?

    Power over the people is Labour’s dream. Power to the people is ours. Giving power to the people will be our second guiding principle for the 1990s.

    When we came to office, they said the people could not be trusted. We trusted them.

    They said that big industries were best in state hands. We sold them to the people. And their performance was transformed.

    They said public sector homes must not be sold. We sold them to the people. And one and a half million families have a security they only dreamed of before.

    They said lower income tax meant more greed. We cut tax for the people. And what resulted was not greed but opportunity, personal choice, and record charitable giving. The people gave Labour the right answer to that.

    So how right we were. Where Labour lectured the people, we listened. We understood their hopes. And we acted to make them reality.

    Labour’s legacy

    Perhaps some of you remember what used to happen under Socialism. How it used to feel for the ordinary man and woman. I do.

    When if you didn’t join a union you could be shut out of a job.

    When if you were a council tenant you had to beg to paint your own front door – and were lucky if you could.

    When you had to ask permission to take money on holiday abroad. Do you remember? £50. And Britons abroad were the humiliated paupers of Europe.

    When if you were a pensioner and put some savings aside for a rainy day, you saw their value halved in just five years.

    Now Labour talk to us about “quality” and “freedom”. “Quality and Freedom”. The Party that gave us the closed shop, the shoddy estate, and the shattered pound. What right have they to talk of freedom? They don’t understand it. They don’t trust it. And they would never deliver it.

    We are wholly different. Our aim is opportunity for all. And so long as I am privileged to lead this Party our Conservative revolution for the people will continue.

    Extending Choice

    I want no complacency in any quarter.

    I want to see more privatisation. The sale of the rest of British Telecom, and the new plans for British Rail and British Coal. For privatisation means personal ownership and better services. It has been an outstanding success.

    I want to see more competition, more contracting-out, less regulation and less government intervention. All that has been proved to be right. We will not change that winning formula.

    And I want to see more choice. You know, whenever we have extended choice for the people, the Left have fought us all the way. But time and again we have won. And through us, the public have won.

    Choice has improved the standard of services for all. It is a strange but telling truth. But if it’s bad for Labour it is almost certainly good for the people. And it is a safe, safe bet that if it’s good for Labour it is bound to be bad for the people.

    We opened up the market in television. Labour opposed us. But every night millions of people have wider choice – not only Channel 4, but satellite channels as well.

    We deregulated the sale of spectacles. I claim no special interest in that. Labour fought it tooth and nail. But the range of glasses was widened and better value ensued.

    A fortnight ago we opened up air routes to new airlines. Labour criticised us. But within hours of our decision fares across the Atlantic were cut by 15%.

    Last week we announced more competition in telephone services. Labour attacked us again. But as a result domestic and international call charges will be coming down.

    Watching television. Seeing properly. Travelling abroad. Just chatting on the phone. Some of the basic building blocks of a satisfying life. All improved by Conservative policies. All opposed by Labour.

    And, you know, when you look at Neil Kinnock’s so-called new policies, they don’t amount to much, do they? Yesterday’s mashed potatoes. Just contemplate them. Turn them round in your mind. And the more you think, the more he’ll shrink.

    More choice in the 1990s

    In the 1990s we will extend public choice yet wider. And the reason we do it will be to extend opportunity and improve family life for all.

    We are giving parents more say in the running of schools and making more schools independent of council direction.

    We will give those hospitals and those doctors who want it more control over the decisions that affect their patients.

    We will extend bus deregulation, bringing to the cities the long-distance coach revolution that has seen more people travelling more cheaply than ever before.

    And we will reform the market in housing bringing new opportunities to those now remaining under council control. Rents into mortgages. Giving life to empty council property. More use of homesteading. The aim is a new and better deal for those who are not yet home owners. They, too, deserve the opportunities that Conservative housing policies have given to millions. And they must not be locked out of receiving them.

    Personal independence in a strong economy

    This Government’s strongest commitment is to the long-term success of the economy. And to put more of the wealth that is created into the hands of the people. That is our third guiding principle for the 1990s.

    Last Tuesday, Norman Lamont demonstrated our intentions. Circumstances were not easy. Every tax cut had to be paid for. But our guiding principles shone through.

    To cut and simplify the burden of direct taxation on people and business.

    To support families.

    To nourish enterprise.

    To create a tax system which is fair, restrained and free from distortion. A system which leaves as much as possible of your income in your hands.

    That’s why we shifted more of the load of local taxation from people to spending – and why we will keep that local burden down under the new system that will replace the Community Charge.

    That’s why we made the shift in tax in such a way that the money goes to people directly, through lower charges – not to the councils who have driven the Community Charge so high.

    That’s why we used the Budget to strike more distortions out of the tax system.

    And that’s why we cut the rate of tax on businesses and increased child benefit for all families.

    Just compare our principles with Labour’s.

    They believe that all the fruits of economic growth – growth created by your efforts – should be spent by them.

    They believe none of it should be used to cut the burden of your tax.

    They are against a simpler tax system. They want to introduce ever more distortions into the system to confuse and bemuse the taxpayer.

    And they have one answer to every problem: spend more money. Taxpayers’ money. Your money.

    But Labour has one big problem. But apart from him. One or two of its politicians – just one or two – are uneasily aware that people don’t want more taxes and less wealth. So they are shamelessly trying to con the British people.

    Out of one side of their mouths, Labour tell you they would spend more on everything. Out of the other, they try to pretend they would spend almost nothing.

    Which is it? Will they tell us?

    Do they think the British people can’t add up?

    Don’t they know that the British people can? And they will see that Labour doesn’t add up.

    Local Government Reform

    Now Labour have made another miscalculation. They’ve asked for a confidence debate on our policies.

    And do you know what that means?

    They’ll have to tell us what their policies are.

    Take local government, just for a start. First, Norman Lamont dramatically reduced the burden of local taxation in the Budget. Then, on Thursday, Michael Heseltine revealed our plans to find the right role for local government in the future, so that we can work with it, not fight against it.

    By making it more accountable to voters. By simplifying its structure. By clarifying its functions. By testing its efficiency. And by reforming its finance.

    He set out the principles on which local taxation will be based in the future.

    First, on the number of people in each household. For I believe it is right that contributions should reflect the numbers using local services.

    Secondly, in part on the value of the property people live in. We will not allow high property prices in some parts of the country to feed through into excessive local taxes.

    We understand those fears. A fair local tax is one which does not fall too heavily on any single group. Let me be clear.

    We will not permit local authorities to impose penal taxes on the few -as they could and did under the old rating system – while the many bear no share of the costs of local government. And we will not allow the reform of local taxation to trigger a new spiral in local spending.

    We have made these clear pledges. And we have demonstrated our commitment to them by reducing the burden of local tax immediately.

    By contrast, what does Labour offer? A rag-bag of confused ideas dressed up as “fair rates”. How could rates ever be fair?

    Labour will not answer even the most basic question: at what level  should local taxation be set? How much should be raised? They can’t say. They won’t say. Because they don’t know. Dithering again. But don’t worry. If they won’t answer these questions, we will. We will do the sums for Labour and publish them.

    Beating inflation

    The key message from this Budget was that the battle against inflation is being won. This year inflation will be down to just 4% and falling still further.

    And as it falls, we will bring interest rates down as well. As we did yesterday – the fourth cut since we entered ERM. I disagree strongly with those who criticise our entry into the ERM. Does anyone seriously imagine that, against the background of the dramatic events of the last few months – a recession at home and abroad, a change of Prime Minister and even the fighting of a war – that interest rates could have been cut and the pound stayed strong outside the ERM? Of course not. And it is sheer folly to say so.

    We took tough action when it was needed to bring inflation under control. Now we are seeing the results. Inflation is coming down in Britain, when others are seeing it rise. Interest rates are falling, when elsewhere they are rising. And when across the world the impact of the recession is being felt, Britain is coming through the worst and will soon be growing again.

    And never forget how this country has progressed since 1979. In the 1980s our economy grew faster than Italy or France, faster even than Germany. The purchasing power of the average family is up by almost a third. Personal wealth has been spread wider than ever before.

    We can beat our competitors. And, yes, we can even beat our competitors in Germany. There is no reason to be defeatist about our prospects. I believe in Britain and in the ability of the British people to win. And win we will.

    Growing personal wealth; widening personal ownership

    Over the decades ahead we shall see the fruits of our free market policies. The widening of ownership isn’t an index of greed, as Labour so shallowly claim.

    Indeed, it is the very foundation of personal security, the keystone of independence, the gateway to opportunity and prosperity for generations to come.

    People who own homes; people who own shares; people who have savings. That security adds to a sense of dignity and pride. And they have an independence of action denied to those without homes or shares or savings. We want more of such people. Our Right-to-Buy policies have achieved a property-owning democracy. We now want to extend and deepen the Right to Own.

    Already – each year – some 10 billion pounds is inherited through home ownership. In a Conservative Britain, inheritance is no longer the privilege of the rich. It is already the prospect of the majority. And we must make it the birthright of all. We wish to see that money held by future generations for their own use.

    How different it is with Labour. Clause Four Socialism they say is dead. I wish it was. It’s still there in the small print. And tax demand Socialism lives on. The single unifying principle of every Labour government is higher personal taxation. They can always agree on that. Not much else. But always that.

    How characteristic that they now see family savings as a target for tax. You inherit, they take. You save, they tax. And this from the Party that says it wants investment. The only thing you can be sure of is that a Labour Chancellor will have his hands in your pockets, even more often than you do.

    Labour’s threat to savings

    Under Labour anyone inheriting a house or flat worth more than £30,000 and investing that money in savings would face a tax surcharge. That is their response to millions of people’s efforts to build their family’s security.

    Labour fought to stop those people buying their homes. While we helped them. But now they are back again. When those hard-earned savings in bricks and mortar come down to children Labour’s plan is to tax them away. A tax surcharge on savings. Nothing could more clearly show the hostility of Labour to personal independence. And the ignorance of Labour of the opportunities the next century will bring.

    And take pensions, too. Under Labour the opportunities to save for retirement independently of the state would be dashed away. Early next century there will be some three million more pensioners than there are today. Those working now want opportunities now to save money for old age in the way they want. Our Government has helped them to do just that. Some 4 1/2 million people now have personal pensions of their own.

    But what is Labour’s response to this social revolution? Again hostile, ignorant, vindictive. Their spokesman boasts he will “turn the pensions market on its head”. Only last week they announced the latest step in their vendetta against personal choice. They warned they would act immediately to grab over £600 million a year from investors in personal pensions and strip them of the help a Conservative government has given them. So, if you’re young today, remember today. Labour are planning to destroy your prosperity tomorrow.

    Safe in Labour’s hands?

    You know, as over the years we debated the National Health Service, one phrase became famous. ‘Safe in our hands’. Margaret Thatcher said it. And how right she was. Under her Government the Health Service had more resources, took on more doctors and nurses, and provided more treatment than ever before.

    Safe in our hands the Health Service was, is, and will be. It has served me and my family well over the years. And I can promise you this. It will be there in the future to serve every family well so long as a Conservative Government continues.

    But can Mr Kinnock say the same to the families working to build their independence?

    4 1/2 million personal pensions. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The shares that over 5 million people have in privatised companies. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The lower taxation that has raised living standards to record levels. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The right to go to work free from union interference. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The battle against inflation that means security for all. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    Five questions which Mr Kinnock will never answer. He dare not. But we know the answer. Not safe. Not secure. In fact, doomed – under Labour. The Conservative Party has fought for those rights and given them to the people of this country. We must never allow Labour to steal them away.

    And when we speak of safety there is one area above all that counts -the defence of the realm. Is that safe in Labour’s hands?

    Where would our defence have been if Labour had been in power this last ten years?

    Defence spending cut to ribbons. Our forces slashed.

    Our nuclear capability going or gone. Going or gone. Just as Saddam Hussein was building his own.

    We have seen this last two months how right we were to keep our forces strong and ready. And how superbly we were served.

    It was all possible because Margaret Thatcher’s Government prepared for the unexpected.

    Unlike Labour. Unprepared. Even for the expected.

    Of course, we welcome the changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But great uncertainties remain. And secure defence is still our foremost duty.

    For Labour defence is an embarrassment. Some of them hate it. Some resent it. Some just wish the need for it would go away. Those attitudes spell disaster.

    In our Party we know that the unexpected does occur, and that when it comes to defence you err on the side of safety. You don’t take risks with defence.

    The British people will never trust with office a Labour party they do not trust on defence.

    Quality in public service

    Mr Chairman; the fourth great challenge for us in the 1990s will be to take our Conservative revolution into the dustiest and darkest corners of public service. Too many people still have to feel the benefits of the changes we have made.

    Education

    Getting it right in education is crucial.

    Some people seem to think we have no right to insist on higher standards for our children. That it is a matter to be left to the “experts”. Well, people like that have some learning to do themselves. We do have that right. Every child in every classroom has a right to higher standards. And we intend to ensure that they receive them.

    Ken Clarke has insisted that children should be taught to spell. What a revolutionary thought. I agree with him on that. So do parents. So do employers. But it seems not everyone does. There are those who defend something called “real books” – where young children are given books and expected to pick up reading, as the Schools’ Inspectors put it, by a “process of osmosis”. It sounds pretty odd to me.

    It did occur to me that this “real books” method might explain Mr Kinnock’s grasp of economics. Because do you know what the Inspectors say about people taught by the “real books” method? I looked it up.

    “They were able”, the Inspectors said, “to tell stories, but relied heavily on pictures…”

    “They were ill-equipped to move on to unfamiliar material, for example non-fiction…” (They mean facts – unfamiliar indeed to him.)

    “They were weak readers of instructions and questions in subjects such as maths.”

    Adding up was never his strong point.

    Yes, it does sound familiar, doesn’t it? I think it explains a lot.

    But I have to say also that I have a suspicion, which I share with Ken Clarke, and millions of parents in this country today. And that is that there has been too much experimentation, too much theory, too little attention to the basics. Theories come and go. But children have just one opportunity to be taught. And that must not be lost.

    That is why reform in education is top of our list.

    – Pushing through the changes in our schools that give more say to parents and more freedom for schools themselves.

    – Tackling the truanting that if unchecked allows vulnerable children to lose out on opportunity and which is a seedcorn for crime.

    – Setting clear standards of what should be taught.

    – And, yes, I say it to those who still seem to be fighting it, testing to see how children are doing.

    Of course testing is right. How can you find out where teaching is going wrong unless you know whether it is going wrong?

    The key people behind a good education are good teachers. That is why I am determined to see their status properly recognised and quality rewarded. Good schools. Good teachers. Good discipline. And good results. That is what parents demand and pupils deserve. And what this Government will deliver.

    Ensuring quality : a citizen’s charter

    Our changes in education are about raising quality. But quality applies elsewhere as well.

    What we now aim to do is to put in place a comprehensive citizen’s charter. It will work for quality across the whole range of public services. It will give support to those who use the services in seeking better standards.

    People who depend on public services – patients, passengers, parents, pupils, benefit claimants – all must know where they stand and what service they have a right to expect. All too often today the individual is unable to enforce better service from those who provide it. I know how powerless an individual can feel against the stone-walling of a town hall. How hopeless when he is bounced from phone to phone by some impersonal voice. How frustrated to be told yet again: “we regret the inconvenience this may cause”. And I see no reason why the public should have to tolerate that. Not just inconvenience. But often hardship. And all too often personal loss.

    Most of those who work so hard and so well in our public services will agree with me when I say this situation must be brought to an end. And end it we will. By injecting competition, extending privatisation and widening competitive tendering. And alongside this by measures under a citizen’s charter to enforce accountability and achieve quality control. This will look systematically at every part of public service to see how higher standards can be achieved.

    Some mechanisms are already in place. The Audit Commission, for example, does superb work on behalf of the citizen. How typical that it is lined up in Labour’s programme for the axe.

    But we will define clear and appropriate mechanisms for enforcing standards right across the public service. Sometimes an audit function. Sometimes an ombudsman. Sometimes simply the separation of powers between those who provide services and those who check on them. Some other ideas, too.

    We will enforce publication of results by public services, make inspectorates truly independent, and make properly accountable those in control. We will seek to extend the principle of performance-related pay. And, where necessary, look for ways of introducing financial sanctions, involving direct compensation to the public or direct loss to the budgets of those that fall down on the job.

    We will also look to public bodies to publish clear contracts of service -contracts that mean something – against which performance can be judged. Our programme will mean that for the first time all those people who depend on public service will have strong support from within the public sector itself in enforcing quality control.

    Quality in service is our aim for the 1990s. Second-class services cannot be excused by handing out third-class treatment to those who complain.

    Building for the Long-term

    The principles I have set out for the 1990s – building the unity of the nation, giving opportunity and power to the people, sustaining a stable economy and spreading wealth, striving for quality in public services -all these are essential to Britain’s future. Together they flow from our fifth guiding principle – to consider the interests not only of this generation but of those to come.

    And as we build for the long-term, unlike our opponents, we will build on ideals, and on principle. Labour wouldn’t recognise principle if it gripped them by the windpipe. And the Liberal party is riddled with self-interest. We needn’t detain ourselves with Liberal policy. They would sign up to anything, so long as it means a seat at the table. That is Liberal policy. They say they want proportional representation. Note that. Their first and only policy objective. A policy that is in their own self-interest. Not on health. Not on the economy. Not on defence. On Liberal self-interest. And they will give anything for it. Defence cuts. Higher taxes. Even Labour Government. What they really want is not proportional representation but permanent  representation for the Liberal Party in Government whatever the policies. Well, there is a simple answer to Mr Ashdown. He can’t have it from us. And he won’t get it.

    It is because we care for lasting principles that I want to place Britain at the heart of Europe.

    But partnership in Europe will never mean passive acceptance of all that is put to us. No-one should fear we will lose our national identity. We will fight for Britain’s interest as hard as any Government that has gone before. I want Britain to inspire and to shape Europe as decisively as we have over the Single Market programme. Then we will fight for Europe’s interests, too. But not from the outside where we would lose. From the inside where we will win.

    We are rightly proud of our national traditions, all of them, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. We are proud of Britain, of what it has meant and will mean to the world. I wish that all who wrote and taught and spoke in our country could share that pride. I wish that they could help to open the eyes of the whole nation to what that means. For in the history of our nation and in the towns and villages that form it lies a great part of our identity.

    But that identity comes too from the values we share. And they are values that are shared by our friends abroad – personal freedom, opportunity, respect for one’s fellow citizens and their views, a fundamental belief that power should be with the people and not the state.

    Idealism, yes. But practical idealism. Democracy. Plain common or garden decency. It is those values I believe in. And it is those values that Britain stands for. The world needs those values more than ever before. And it needs us to work with those who share them. They are values that spring from the very fibre of ordinary men and women. Lasting values. Commonsense values. Conservative values. The values which I and all of us in our Party will fight to uphold.

  • Greg Clark – 2015 Speech to National House Building Council

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the NHBC at Church House in London on 26 November 2015.

    A turnaround decade for housing

    Thank you, it’s an honour to speak to so many of you today – in a momentous week for housing, especially at an event hosted by the NHBC. Your timing couldn’t be better after the Spending Review, so that I couldn’t possibly come empty handed.

    The NHBC is a credit to the industry – an example of how standards can be raised and maintained independently of government.

    Not only does the NHBC certify houses, it also helps insure them – providing warranties on around 80 per cent of all the new homes built in this country:

    A model of taking direct responsibility that ought to be applied more widely.

    We can be proud that as other countries seek to establish similar organisations, it is to this country that they look for inspiration.

    The same cannot be said for every aspect of our country’s record on housing.

    The first decade of the 21st century was not our finest hour:

    • housing bubble that burst with devastating consequences
    • industry in debt
    • sites mothballed
    • workers laid off
    • skills lost
    • the lowest level of peacetime house building since the 1920s
    • post-war low in house building by the private sector – and by councils
    • shrinkage in the stock of affordable housing
    • sustained fall in home ownership
    • chaos in the regulation of lending
    • and a planning system grinding to a halt

    The roots of this failure run deep.

    Through decades of a complacency about different components of the housing market.

    Decades of political inertia.

    And decades in which this country consistently failed to build enough homes.

    The Prime Minister has spoken of his determination to make this our turnaround decade.

    A decade in which we eliminate the budget deficit. But also the housing deficit.

    This may not be a familiar term, but if the level of house building falls below the level of household formation then a housing deficit is exactly what we have.

    And, furthermore, a housing deficit that builds up into a housing debt – one that cashes out not just in house price inflation and falling ownership, but contributes to economic instability, social inequality and stunted opportunities.

    For the good of us all – and especially of the younger generation – we must, and will, put this right.

    Progress to date

    So, five years into this turnaround decade, what progress have we made?

    Most importantly, there’s been a significant recovery in the level of house building.

    This can be seen across of a variety of measures, there’s no shortage of competition for housing statistics on any given week, but on this occasion let me refer to NHBC figures.

    In 2009, they registered 81,000 new homes; this year they expect to register 160,000.

    This is based on a pretty consistent 80 per cent share of the market and approximates to a doubling of building levels during this period.

    And good progress continues to be made. The most recent year of figures shows a ten per cent increase in registrations.

    In fact, the net supply of housing has shown the biggest annual increase in almost three decades.

    This hasn’t happened by accident. From the start, we did what was needed to get the house building industry back on its feet:

    • by stabilising the banking system
    • through financial guarantees for development; and in helping first time buyers
    • over 230,000 households have been helped into home ownership through government schemes
    • over 100,000 through the various strands of Help to Buy
    • the number of first time buyers is at a seven-year high – and now stands at double the low established in the previous decade
    • crucially, we’ve increased the stock of affordable homes. Over 263,000 affordable homes have been provided in England since April 2010 – nearly one third of them in London.

    I might also add that twice as many council homes were built in these five years than during the previous 13 years.

    We reformed the planning system. I want to express my gratitude to many people in this room who supported us in this reform.

    They said it couldn’t be done, but the National Planning Policy Framework is now four years old – and bearing fruit.

    In 2010, most local authorities didn’t even have a Local Plan. Instead they had 1,300 pages of central planning guidance. And thousands more from the Regional Spatial Strategies.

    We removed this smothering blanket of verbiage and replaced it with the NPPF – a clear and accessible document of just 52 pages.

    Now, the great majority of local authorities do have a Local Plan – and we will ensure that the rest are in place by 2017. Moreover, these are better Local Plans.

    Those adopted since the NPPF set targets equivalent to 109 per cent of national household projections – versus 86 per cent for pre-NPPF plans.

    Planning permissions in the year to the 31 March 2015 were up 13 per cent on the previous year and 64 per cent on the year to March 2010.

    Overall, we now permit around a quarter of a million new homes every year; which, if built out, would be enough to close the housing deficit.

    The ongoing challenge

    But there’s more to do.

    Of course, planning for all the homes we need isn’t enough. We have to build them too.

    We must therefore go further and faster to ensure that this happens.

    Since the election this year, my department has continued with the most effective measures of the previous parliament.

    We’ve pressed ahead with the release of publicly-owned land for development.

    And we’ve introduced the Housing and Planning Bill, which is in committee stage as we speak.

    This Bill includes:

    • provision for 200,000 Starter Homes by 2020
    • an automatic register of brownfield land
    • and measures to speed up the CPO process
    • measures to support the extension of the Right to Buy from council tenants to housing association tenants

    Instead, we’ve agreed a deal with the housing associations to get on with the job without delay. In return, the government will ensure that the proceeds of Right to Buy sales are used to build new affordable homes for rent and purchase.

    The housing associations have set an example here for the whole industry:

    • a willingness to move forward in order to build the homes we need; a readiness to be part of the progress we all hope to benefit from
    • to get to where we need to be, we must give something in return
    • and all parts of the industry do have something to give

    We need to see a re-diversification of the sector. A big role not only for the housing associations, but also for councils, self builders, custom builders, small-and-medium-sized enterprises and overseas companies in that sector.

    This doesn’t mean a smaller role for the biggest players in the industry.

    Quite the opposite.

    To house a growing population we need more houses from everyone.

    This is not a zero-sum game.

    If we tried to play it that way, zero would be the sum of the progress made.

    The Spending Review

    Of course, a government shouldn’t ask others to move out of their comfort zones if it isn’t willing to do the same.

    For any Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or Conservative government, intervening in the market and committing public money is not something done lightly.

    Yet we are determined to invest in what matters most to Britain’s future.

    As the Chancellor said yesterday in the Commons: “in this Spending Review we choose housing.”

    Specifically, we have secured over £20 billion from the Spending Review to support our wider ambitions to deliver one million new homes and to double the number of first time buyers.

    Individual measures include:

    • extend the Help to Buy: equity loan scheme to 2021 – supporting the purchase of more homes
    • in London, a doubling of equity loans to 40%, providing the capital’s aspiring home owners with a better chance to buy
    • and a £1 billion Housing Delivery Fund to support small and custom builders
    • there will be £8 billion for a total of over 400,000 affordable homes – the largest affordable housebuilding programme for many decades
    • and we’re making major investments in large-scale projects – including Ebbsfleet Garden City, Bicester, Barking Riverside and Northstowe

    So, while the Chancellor has made clear his determination to close the budgetary deficit, he was equally clear that this will go hand in hand with action on the housing deficit.

    Both are required to make this the turnaround decade.

    Both more and better

    Ladies and gentlemen, in the last five years both we and you have pulled house building up from the record lows of the previous decade.

    In the next five years we intend to push it up further, to levels not sustained for many decades.

    But this is not the limit of our ambitions.

    The challenges that I’ve described in this speech were many decades in the making.

    And so, as our focus moves from rescue to reform, we must address the deep structural weaknesses in the way that this country plans and builds for the future.

    This work is already underway through reforms like the NPPF, and the work must go on.

    Though the investment announced in the spending review is vital and necessary – we must also move to a future in which we which we can provide new homes without constant intervention from the centre.

    In which demand for housing can be met as readily as demand for other goods in our society.

    This goes beyond numbers alone.

    As well as building more homes, we must build better homes.

    Indeed, better streets and neighbourhoods too.

    I am proud that we have made – and will continue to make – such progress together on quantity.

    But let’s not waste the chance to also make progress together on quality.

    We must redouble our efforts.

    To achieve our objectives we don’t just need the commitment of the government and the industry, but of the nation as a whole.

    Ultimately that means convincing people that development is a force for making places better not worse.

    Therefore, the task before us is build both more and better.

    And, together, we will.

    Thank you.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2015 Speech on the Midlands

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at Derbyshire County Cricket Club on 27 November 2015.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    It’s good to be back with you at this ground.

    This visit has become an annual highlight for me.

    It’s the third year in a row I’ve addressed the forum.

    A run like that is rare for a Transport Secretary.

    Before my appointment in 2012, there had been 7 Transport Secretaries in 7 years.

    When you are in charge of long-term infrastructure projects, change like that doesn’t always help.

    Rail, in particular, needs the perspective that comes with experience.

    So I am delighted to be back.

    Yet there has been one change since I was last here.

    And that’s to the forum itself.

    No longer the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum.

    But now the East Midlands Rail Forum.

    To me, that’s a statement of intent.

    Since the forum was established in 1993 it has grown in numbers, stature and influence.

    Now it’s the largest cluster of rail firms in the world

    And the new name reflects the forum’s ambition as it increasingly represents firms across our whole region.

    Growth in the East Midlands

    In June, the Chancellor visited the premises of a member of this forum.

    Garrandale – a great rail engineering firm.

    In his speech then, he said that five years ago our country was on the brink.

    We were borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spent.

    Midlands businesses were going under at a rate of over a hundred every day.

    And nearly half a million people in the Midlands were looking for work.

    If we were to save our economy, we had to act.

    And so we took some tough decisions.

    We cut spending.

    Cut corporation tax.

    And cut red tape.

    Five years on, our economy is growing strongly again, nationally and locally.

    The East Midlands is now home to 20,000 more businesses than in 2010.

    There are more people in work here than at any time since 1992.

    And on Wednesday the Chancellor reported that the Midlands is creating jobs at a rate three times faster than London and the south east.

    So our region is making great progress.

    Rail investment

    And one of the things giving this region its edge is its great concentration of rail expertise.

    Rail supply firms in this region are benefiting as we put more money into our rail sector than at any time since the Victorian era.

    Since the forum was established in 1993, passenger numbers have more than doubled.

    Rail freight is up 75%.

    The government is investing more than £38 billion in the rail network.

    And following Wednesday’s spending review transport capital spending in this Parliament will increase by 50% to a total of £61 billion; the biggest increase in a generation.

    That’s a great settlement for transport.

    And it’s a great opportunity for the rail supply chain.

    Hendy report

    But after so many years in which rail was underfunded, investment on this scale was never going to be easy.

    In June, I announced that Network Rail’s performance on the electrification of the TransPennine and Midland Main Lines had not been good enough.

    I asked Sir Peter Hendy to review Network Rail’s programme of works.

    And alongside the spending review, Sir Peter set out his plans to put its programme back on track.

    I can say today that I have accepted Sir Peter’s plan.

    It reaffirms our commitment to our railways.

    And shows how we will achieve our aim of transforming rail journeys for passengers.

    So we are pressing ahead with Crossrail.

    HS2.

    Thameslink.

    New InterCity Express trains on the East Coast and Great Western mainlines.

    North West and Yorkshire train lengthening.

    East-West Rail.

    Cornwall re-signalling.

    Wessex and Waterloo capacity enhancements.

    West Anglia main line capacity improvements.

    And the electrification and enhancement of the Great Western, Northern Hub, TransPennine, and Midland main lines.

    No infrastructure projects have been cancelled.

    But the report shows that the need for tough decisions is not yet over.

    Some projects will take longer and cost more than originally planned.

    As we put Network Rail’s focus firmly on its core task of delivery, some of that extra cost will be covered by Network Rail asset sales and new efficiencies.

    Skills

    But innovation and efficiency isn’t the only challenge for the rail supply chain.

    We are also facing a shortage of skills.

    Our country needs more rail workers of all kinds.

    More civil engineers.

    Mechanical engineers.

    Construction workers.

    Surveyors.

    Signallers.

    And even drivers.

    In all, we need 10,000 new engineers to improve the existing network, while HS2 alone will create 25,000 jobs during construction and 3000 jobs in operation.

    Yet as things stand today, parts of the industry will lose half their staff to retirement within 15 years.

    With our plans for investment, that’s unsustainable.

    So the government is addressing this skills challenge through new training institutions, such as the flagship National Training Academy for Rail in Northampton.

    Through creating 3 million new apprentices in this Parliament.

    And through the appointment of Terry Morgan, the Chairman of Crossrail, to develop a transport skills strategy.

    But, ultimately, we need the rail industry to invest in skills in new staff and new training.

    Because although government can make plans and provide some of the funding, it will be the rail industry who will deliver for the country.

    Midlands Engine for Growth

    But while we are working to secure our economy and to transform our transport we have a clear principle.

    Wherever possible, decisions about planning, spending and services should be taken by the people who will be most affected by those decisions.

    For that, we need to devolve power from London and out to the regions.

    So last month I was pleased by the launch of the newly-strengthened Midlands Connect Partnership

    Midlands Connect is a collaboration between the Midlands’ Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities.

    Over the months ahead Midlands Connect will work with HS2 Ltd, with Network Rail, and with Highways England to develop investment plans for the Midlands.

    They will look at maximising the economic growth from HS2, reducing journey times between our towns and cities, and making better connections to international gateways.

    There’s no better way to make the case for investment than for it to be informed by local people.

    Local businesses.

    Local representatives.

    And that is how we will make the Midlands an engine for growth.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, it’s great to be back.

    As Transport Secretary.

    At this event.

    And on home turf.

    For our nation’s railways, these are rare days.

    Customer numbers have never been higher.

    Investment has never been higher.

    Expectations have never been higher.

    And so it’s an opportunity.

    But also a challenge.

    I said at the beginning that rail needs the perspective that comes with experience.

    Looking around this room I can see 176 years of rail experience and the expertise to match.

    So I’m confident that we will succeed as we build the rail network our country deserves.

    Thank you.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2015 Speech on London Schools

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of a speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, made at City Hall in London on 27 November 2015.

    Thank you, Munira [Mirza, Deputy Mayor of London] for that introduction. And thank you, Boris [Johnson, Mayor of London], for organising and hosting this fantastic conference.

    It really is a pleasure to be here at a conference with such a sense of energy and purpose – and such a sense of pride in the work you do and the difference you make.

    I want to talk about educational excellence. About how London schools are already giving thousands of children an excellent education.

    About what we need to do if we’re serious about excellence everywhere. And I want to speak directly to you – the current and future leaders of education in London and beyond – about the opportunity for, and the importance of, leadership.

    I want to make a reality of educational excellence everywhere. This is more than an easy phrase. We spent a lot of the last 5 years talking about what we mean by and how we realise educational excellence. For the next 5 years, my focus is on what it takes to make this happen everywhere, across the country from Barking to Blackburn, and from Westminster to Wiltshire.

    The reforms of the last Parliament re-introduced rigour to our education system and placed high expectations back at the heart of our all schools.

    We removed qualifications from the performance tables that weren’t respected by employers and universities and instead began the process of introducing gold-standard qualifications that would equip young people to succeed in the modern world, and on the world stage.

    We introduced the EBacc to encourage more schools to offer pupils a rigorous academic core – and I’m struck and impressed that London secondary schools are leading the way.

    Because as your pupils grow up, they will need to stand their own with their peers from Shenzen and Chennai. And from Kraków, and from Frankfurt. And more.

    For some people, this is a scary prospect – but it’s also an exciting one, and I have confidence and pride in the talent and potential of our young people.

    And education is just as much about instilling those virtues and values, and allowing young people to develop their own unique talents, as it is about the grades they receive at the end of school.

    A well-educated child or young person should be well rounded, with a range of interests, a real sense of character and grit, equipped for adult life.

    Since I took up this role, I’ve visited almost 80 schools and met over 1,000 teachers – and I know that this is something we all agree on.

    Sally [Coates] dedicates a whole chapter of her book [‘Headstrong: 11 lessons of school leadership’ (2015)] to the importance of developing the whole child. She describes how “our pursuit of academic excellence can never be extricated from the challenge of developing responsible, mature, compassionate citizens who are able to channel their talents towards healthy, productive ends”. I entirely agree with her.

    So I’ve taken every opportunity to champion this broader education, through awards and grants for schools and projects that help to develop character; by promoting cadets in schools and the National Citizen Service.

    And I’m pleased and proud to make a point of celebrating and backing the work that schools do – such as at Goldbeaters Primary School, School 21 or Mulberry School for Girls and many other schools I’ve visited. These schools debunk completely the notion that there is somehow any tension between academic success and character education – in fact they demonstrate that the 2 are mutually dependent and inextricably intertwined.

    So, after 5 years of reform and challenge, we know what educational excellence looks like and how it can be unlocked. Our challenge is to make a reality of excellent education everywhere. And London schools show what can be done – including in some of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and communities in the country.

    Schools across London prove that there is no place for the old excuses about ‘kids like these’. And you make that point more powerfully than any politician could. We all know about schools like King Solomon Academy and Mossbourne – they’re famous nationally for the quality of the education they offer.

    But I’m sure that each of you will know other schools that achieve just as much. You show working hard not only gives children from every background the best possible start in life, but also power to transform whole communities, leading the way in instilling a culture of aspiration, ambition and refusing to settle for second best.

    London’s academies and chains of schools demonstrate this transformative power of this approach in everything they do.

    Groups of schools like the Ark and Harris academies are spreading excellence, and at the same time providing the structures so that teachers and heads can focus on the core of their jobs, allowing us to open new career paths and opportunities for great teachers, and for great school leaders.

    Just as there isn’t a ‘one-size-fits-all’ school, so there shouldn’t be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ career path for teachers. And, again, Sally – your career is a great example of some of the opportunities that being a teacher opens.

    And, of course, the London Challenge model and legacy lives on. Education in London has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years. Important networks and ideas are now owned by schools yourselves, like the Challenge Partners.

    And the core elements are now the basis for the self-improving school-led system we want to spread across the rest of the country – with the expansion of Teach First, and the networks of teaching schools and of national and local leaders of education.

    But a strong school system requires sound funding. We know that there can be no better investment in the future of our country than a good education.

    That’s why, thanks to the difficult decisions we’ve taken elsewhere, the Chancellor was able to confirm in the Spending Review that we would meet our manifesto commitments to protect core spending per pupil and to maintain the pupil premium at current rates – and that the core school budget will be protected in real terms to 2019-2020.

    We have been able to go beyond that, and similarly protect the base-rate funding received for every 16-to-19 student, at its current level, to the end of this Parliament.

    None of this is to say that schools will not have to find efficiencies. Despite being more generously protected than most of the public sector, you as school leaders will be challenged to make your budgets go further. We will help you to do that – supporting smarter procurement and better sharing of best practice.

    The introduction of a national funding formula will also mean change. It is clearly unfair that a school in one part of the country can attract over 50% more funding than an identical school, with pupils who have identical characteristics but in another part of the country. We need to rectify that.

    This is about transparency, and about fairness – and so schools in London which have very high levels of deprivation or other additional needs will be funded to meet those needs.

    Let me be clear, that while we will consult on the exact formula, we will keep a very close watch to make sure that we are earmarking the right level of funding for deprivation, to ensure that those needs can continue to be met. And, of course, there will also be a geographical element to the formula that will recognise the higher wage costs that London faces.

    Before I finish, I want to say a few words to you as school leaders.

    You do a phenomenal job. Your work is important and inspiring. Although I’m sure there are days – and weeks – when everything feels like a grind, you lead schools that transform lives. In your schools, children grow up. You are their teachers and their role models, and you guide and support them through towards adulthood. You have a lot to be proud about.

    I am delighted that this month’s data shows teacher recruitment starting to rise with over 1,000 more post-graduates starting training this year, compared to last.

    There’s a lot more to do to make sure we’re recruiting, training and retaining the teachers that we need, especially in key subjects and in some areas of the country. But I take these figures as a good sign, and I hope that they reflect a greater recognition that teaching is a fantastic profession and an exciting career to join.

    You will know that I recently announced the National Teaching Service – it’s a new programme to recruit and deploy our best teachers and middle leaders into underperforming schools in areas where they are needed most.

    The programme will launch next September, with a pilot of 100 teachers and middle leaders in the North West of England. By 2020 it will have deployed 1,500 outstanding teachers and middle leaders to underperforming schools in areas of the country that struggle to attract, recruit and retain high quality teachers.

    And I want to encourage each of you to think about the leadership role that you play with pride and with ambition. I know you want the best for your own school and pupils, and that you work hard to make a reality of your goals.

    If you haven’t already done so, I’d encourage each of you to think about the opportunities to share more widely and take a lead in the school-led system. You could form a partnership with one or more other schools. You might take a leading role within your existing chain. Or you might think about how you could share what works here with schools and emerging chains beyond London.

    Deputy heads – your heads won’t thank me for this – but you too should be thinking about when and how you want to take the next step.

    In addition to those of you here at this fantastic conference, I also want us all to do more to nurture and develop the leaders of the future. I want to encourage talented teachers – and especially those from under-represented groups – to take this step, and to tackle the real or perceived barriers that hold them back.

    This is the right thing to do for individuals, and for the profession as a whole. And, more importantly, it’s essential if we want to make a reality of educational excellence everywhere.

    I know that these aren’t easy jobs. I see and hear the challenges you face when I visit schools, talk to school leaders, and when I respond to emails and letters from teachers and heads. We shouldn’t pretend that leadership like yours is easy, because it isn’t. But it is important, valuable and rewarding.

    I will continue to challenge schools to do better. It’s what parents rightly expect of me. I will challenge you to give more pupils an excellent start – and especially to do so for those pupils who we currently fail. I simply wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t.

    But I can promise you that I will do it with respect, and with a recognition that it isn’t an easy thing to ask. And I’ll do it because we all share a fundamental belief that every child deserves an excellent education.

    As London schools show – great teachers, great heads and great groups of schools can achieve phenomenal things. Thank you, for all that you do.