The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 13 July 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 13th July 2008.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Welcome Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning Andrew.

    ANDREW MARR:

    How bad is it going to get in your judgment?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s quite clear how bad it will get. I think we’re going to be very close to recession, if not technically in recession, two quarters of negative growth. I think that’s entirely possible. But the problem we face at the moment is rather different from the one we faced in the early nineties or indeed in the early eighties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    In the early nineties we had that terrible problem of negative equity in particular and unemployment shooting up. A lot of people will say well it can’t be that bad this time round.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I said just now the problem was rather different. If you recall, on the day I became Prime Minister we had interest rates at fourteen percent. We had inflation at nine and a half percent. We had unemployment beginning to rise. All that was happening. We were heading for a recession as a result of the nineteen eighties boom.

    Now it was necessary then to deal specifically with one primary problem. And that primary problem was endemic inflation which had damaged the economy time and time again in the last forty years. And it’s precisely for that reason of course that Margaret Thatcher and I entered the exchange rate mechanism to bear down on inflation which was our predominant problem. And we did so.

    And the result of that of course, the figures when I became Prime Minister in nineteen ninety were awful. When we left I think by common consent we left the best economy people had seen for a very long time. But in the interim some very painful things were done and you mentioned some of the results of those painful things. But they were done to get inflation down, to put the economy on an even keel. And as a result of doing that we’ve had an extremely good economic run for a very long time.

    So the circumstances are different from the nineteen nineties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Are we going to have to see similarly painful things in order to get inflation down now? And by the way what do you think inflation really is now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well on the second point it certainly isn’t the figures produced either by the Cost And Prices Index or indeed the Retail Prices Index. If you recall the government changed the mechanism for calculating the CPI. They took out housing costs and they took out Council Tax. Now that for many people’s expenditure is probably forty five percent of their expenditure. So the CPI is the government’s preferred measure. But it’s an extremely misleading measure in terms of people’s spending patterns.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So do you think inflation’s what double, double the CPI figure?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Oh I think more than that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    More than double? Where would you put it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think it depends precisely where your income group is.,

    ANDREW MARR:

    But roughly?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would think for most people on average incomes if you look at what’s happening to food, you look at what’s happened to heating, you look at what’s happening to the expenditures that most people cannot avoid, I would say inflation is probably double the RPI figure so we’re between eight and ten percent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The government says that most of this, if not all of it, is imported. It’s what’s happened to oil prices, it’s what happened to food prices, it’s, it’s a global problem, a banking problem and, and Britain is relatively well placed to deal with this.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well to the extent it’s well placed it’s because of the structural reforms of the eighties and the destruction of inflation in the nineties. It’s got very little to do frankly with what the present government have done. But as far as the cause of the problem is concerned the government’s mantra certainly is that this is an imported problem and that is partly true.

    It is certainly true that there is an element of imported inflation with oil prices. That is undoubtedly true. What is equally true I’m afraid is that because of the actions the government themselves have taken over the last ten years or so we are not in a very good position to deal with that problem.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Actions and spending too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They certainly can’t cut taxes because they, in terms of increasing consumer choice because they have such a big fiscal deficit. They can’t increase public spending because they’ve already spent the, the money that we would normally use. So they have cut off the solution to this problem just as the problem has arisen.

    And it’s quite extraordinary that over ten years in which the world has had the most benign economic circumstances for a very long time, that we have run up such a huge fiscal deficit. We have increased taxes to the extent that we’ve increased taxes. And we have a trade deficit that’s about between fifty and sixty times higher than it was in nineteen ninety seven. So the problem is although there is a problem the traditional solutions to that problem are not practical at the moment.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Are not available. So what can they do do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think to a certain extent they’re going to have to sit this through. It’s going to take a couple of years to work its way through. Nobody’s quite certain how serious it’s going to be. I think it is a very serious problem. Some of the talk of Armageddon I think is overdone. I don’t believe that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You travel around the world. You’re in the States a lot. These two big mortgage companies which are deeply in trouble in America, is that kind of thing going to be, be felt here? Is that, is that part of the crisis?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think that must be one of the great worries that you’re going to have the collapse of a large institution, a large financial institution, and that would present very real difficulties for the Bank of England. But here again I’m afraid the regulatory changes made in nineteen ninety seven, certainly, if one puts it as its kindest, muddied the regulatory system.

    And the result of that may well have been Northern Rock. So I think we do have to look very carefully at precisely where the responsibility is for regulation. Some people I think are pretty unclear about that. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

    And the other thing that is essential, not something I can see that can be done over night, but at the moment the government, the state, are consuming between – depends on whose figures you use, the government’s or the OECD’s – between forty two and forty five percent of the national income. Well you and I are old enough to remember Roy Jenkins saying once you came above forty percent you were damaging a plural society.

    Now on the government’s own figures it’s around forty two to forty three percent. On the OECD’s forty five. So undoubtedly for the medium term health of the economy the proportion of public expenditure to national income has to fall. Now that plainly can’t be done over night, but it must be an objective for this chancellor and future chancellors.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. Should be said you weren’t in parliament but your party wasn’t vociferously opposing any of those increases in public spending as they happened.

    When we look at what’s going to happen now, however, house prices are bound to fall quite sharply. Everybody accepts that.

    Unemployment’s about to go up again. And we’re going to see inevitably increasing numbers of bankruptcies aren’t we?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think you are. Quite how bad that will be I’m not sure. Once again the unemployment figures are quite difficult to disentangle because the method of calculation now is different from the past. And a huge number of people who perhaps traditionally would have appeared in the unemployment figures now receive Invalidity Benefit and are excluded from the unemployment figures. So unemployment, if you’re seeking the comparison you made at the outset with the early nineties is certainly a good deal higher than the government say. There are going to be more bankruptcies.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Again, have you any sense of where it is really?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there have been so many technical changes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s impossible?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I mean well I think if one wished to be fair to the government I think it’s impossible to make a guess. But substantially higher than the

    figures they produce. I think that is true.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are going to be some more redundancies. I think that is clear. There are going to be some bankruptcies.

    Depending upon how liquid the banking system is and how available loans are will be absolutely crucial to determining how bad the situation is. So the underlying sub prime mortgage problem which has damaged inter-bank lending for example is very important.

    Fear is toxic and…

    ANDREW MARR:

    And it’s spreading?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And it is spreading. And that is a real, quite apart from the realities of the situation that, that toxic element, that fear element is very serious. And I think the government and the bank will need to look and see how they can give some hope, some circumstance where one can see things beginning to get better. And the sooner we can identify some of that and put that in place I think the better it will be for everyone.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Can I ask you about the Conservative Party because in many ways they are playing tunes that you will find familiar, what David Cameron said about responsibility and so on. You, I think you talked about we should understand a little less and condemn a little more and got into some trouble of that but there’s certainly echoes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it was, that’s because it was totally distorted. I mean…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Inevitably. It always is.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When I, well I dare say. I mean it’s a dangerous territory, but I mean there were two things. I said “back to basics” which was actually about traditional education and nothing to do with the matters that subsequently earned huge headlines. And when I said we condemn a little, should condemn a little more and understand a little less I was talking specifically about making sure very young children under the age of two or three actually understood there were boundaries and one didn’t instinctively say oh well, isn’t he lovely, forget the fact that he’s breaking all the crockery.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But, but with knife crime and stuff people are talking about this again.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But of course it was wholly misunderstood.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes but I mean, but in a sense what David Cameron is saying now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s quite similar to what you were saying.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s very similar. And indeed I think the underlying prescription needs to be similar as well. If you look at knife crime in the cities, if you go back to the time when I was a boy I, I lived in the middle of Brixton at a time of quite a lot of social turmoil, when there was relatively little to do. But there were gymnasiums, there were places where you could go and you could box, you could play indoor soccer, you could do things of that sort.

    Now one of the reasons I set up the Lottery which the government have ransacked and taken a large part of the money sadly, was to set up things like that right the way through the big cities. We need to find things for our young people to do. In the early part of the century, the previous century when there was a lot of trouble with youngsters, er, youth clubs, the Scouts, things like that were established and became set up.

    Maybe not the same prescription. But we certainly need the opportunity for sporting facilities and arts facilities inside the inner cities so that youngsters have something to do when they go out rather than stand on the street corner. Give them something to do. Give them the opportunity to do it. I think that would be expenditure well spent. It was the purpose of the Lottery. I very much hope and believe that a Conservative government will return the Lottery to its original intention.

    And I think we should work with the voluntary agencies and bodies like Chance To Shine, for example, who do so much to spread particularly cricket, to bring those leisure opportunities to young people in the cities. We need to help them. Of course we condemn people who use knives. That is unacceptable by any measure. But let us give them something to do that will attract their interest. And if that isn’t worthwhile expenditure I cannot myself imagine what is.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Could you imagine yourself coming back into public life? Just listening to you talk now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, I don’t think so. No, no. I was in public life for a long time. I enjoyed most of it but I don’t think I’m coming back, no.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If, if those are areas where you and David Cameron would feel comfortable it seems to me in one other area the Party has changed radically from the Party that you were leading. In those days Euro-sceptics were a very, very difficult minority that you were struggling with. Now they’re in charge.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well they were certainly extremely difficult at the time. That is absolutely true. But I think public opinion generally has changed. There were some issues particularly on Europe magnified of course by our exit from the exchange rate mechanism.

    I mean because that was the European exchange rate mechanism, it was magnified out of all proportion. Had it for example been an American exchange rate mechanism we wouldn’t have had so much trouble with it. But there was a lot of Euro-scepticism. I think there is more unity in the Party. I, I hope it is not a unity that is wholly Euro sceptic. Europe is still our largest trading partner. It is our, it is our nearest partner. It is an enormous market. But I think a too prescriptive Europe wasn’t amenable to me in the nineties, let alone the Euro sceptics.

    And I don’t think it’s amenable to most people in this country. And I think the prospects now of Britain as a nation having more allies amongst the members of the European Union is greater now than it has ever been. When Margaret was there and when I was there we were often isolated in Europe. That is no longer the case.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One other thing which has come back again I’m afraid is sleaze. I mean the Conservative Party’s got yet more problems over who’s paying what to whom. So has the Labour Party. It’s not one party or the other.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well indeed it isn’t.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But this must make you kind of despair because you know it was, it was supposed to be something that was around in the eighties and then disappeared again, whiter and white, purer than pure. It’s back. Both parties.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I was concerned in the mid nineties which was why I set up the Nolan Body in the first place and that was widely criticised by many people.

    But I felt, frankly I didn’t know how widespread it might have been. My inclination was to think that it wasn’t very widespread and Nolan would show that. Well in fact over the years it seems to have been rather more widespread than I had thought.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is there anything can be done about this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I strongly believe that it is desirable to audit which Parliament rejected last week. I think it is desirable to audit the money received by members of Parliament, the public funds received and the expenditure. I’m less certain about the publication of individual figures. They can be distorted and they can be utilised in a way that is often rather unfair.

    But I do not see any case whatsoever for there not being a private auditor set up by the Speaker or, or whomsoever who has access and audits the expenditure made available to MPs and the way they use the money made available to them and effectively producing an audit certificate saying this is within the rules. I see no credible case against that and I am absolutely baffled why the government opposed it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    When you look at Gordon Brown today human sympathy or Schadenfreude?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no, no. No. Well I hope it’s human sympathy. I have very strong disagreements with many of the things politically that Gordon Brown has done. But he’s doing an extremely difficult job. He’s doing it in extremely difficult circumstances.

    They may be partially of his making. But nonetheless it’s not helpful to the country or anybody else to have some of the comment about him that there has been and I, I regret that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    All right. John Major for now thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the National Sporting Club Lunch – 8 July 2008

    This is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the National Sporting Club Lunch, in honour of the South African touring team, held at the Royal Garden Hotel in London on Tuesday 8th July 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you, David, my book is available in all good book shops…

    Let me first welcome the South African team to England. We’re absolutely delighted to see them here – and looking forward to seeing them play on Thursday of this week. Huge excitement about this tour.

    From the few hours cricket our wretched weather has enabled them to have, it is regretfully evident their batsmen are in good form and I think everyone – with the exception of the English batsmen – are looking forward to seeing their new pace attack.

    Over the years, we’ve come to value games against South Africa and the forthcoming series, albeit only three instead of five that I would wish it to be, promises to be vintage. Let’s hope for good cricket (likely), good crowds (certain), good weather (hugely problematic) and a good outcome to the Series although that, of course, may not mean the same thing to the two Teams. In any event – should be a spicy contest. I don’t think I’m the only person who can’t wait for Thursday…

    By its very nature, cricket brings victory and defeat and delight and despair. Ironically, it was an Englishman with the unusual name – not of

    Despair, but of a man called Anguish – who, probably, first introduced cricket to South Africa. We can be grateful that he did because, since then, we have enjoyed watching a great stream of cricketers from Dudley Nourse to the present team.

    I look about this room and see my generation reasonably represented.

    One great regret for my generation is that – when politics ruled South Africa out of Test cricket – some truly great players like Barry Richards, Mike Proctor, Graeme Pollock and Eddie Barlow had their Test career ruined. As a result, cricket lost sight of what might have been one of the greatest of all Test sides in the long history of Test cricket. Thankfully – for South Africa – such days are long behind us.

    South Africa’s Captain, of course, for this Tour is Graham Smith, well-known here and widely admired. When England first toured South Africa in 1889, the English Captain for the First Test was also called Smith – C. A. Smith, but perhaps better known as C. Aubrey Smith, Hollywood actor, star of Rebecca and The Prisoner of Zenda.

    Aubrey Smith played only one Test whereas Graham has not only played a great many – with, hopefully, many to come – but Graham is by far a greater cricketer than his earlier name-sake. I am not sure, however, how good he may be as an actor!

    A few years after that first Tour, a trend began that has not yet ended. Over recent decades, several very fine South African cricketers have played for England – no doubt to immense South African frustration. This is not a new phenomenon. We are prepared to accept anyone.

    In the early 1889 Tour, an Englishman, R. M. Poore, once ADC to cricket’s Lord Harris in India – turned out for South Africa against the English tourists. Lord Hawke, the English Captain, and Harris’ protegé was apoplectic – and tried to poach him back to the England Team but lamentably failed to do so. I mention this only to discourage anyone from looking at the antecedents of any members of the current England team.

    One of the delights of cricket is that you don’t have to be good at it to enjoy it. I have always loved cricket but was only an average player. My failure to pick in-swing, out-swing, leg-spin, off-spin and length – condemned me to a life of politics.

    Once, I failed to pick the wrong people and questioned their parentage. With apologies, it was true. I was once forthright in private and off the record.

    Nevertheless, cricket was always a solace, even in the most difficult days. I remember after having lost the 1997 Election rather comprehensively, I went to the West Indies to watch an England game and – with that gift that served me so well in politics – picked the only game in Test history that was abandoned because the pitch was unfit.

    Hopefully, the weather won’t call off any of the games during this Tour and I wish the South African team a good Tour, free of injury – and (of course, within the limits of my English prejudice) every success both on and off the pitch.

    It is, Graham – truly – a delight to have you here.

    [Indistinct, but anecdotes relating to cricket].

    I don’t expect any instances like that but I do expect some wonderful cricket and I think a very large part of that wonderful cricket will be played by the South African team.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at the Lunch for Alec Bedser’s 90th Birthday – 4 July 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s comments made at the lunch to celebrate Alec Bedser’s 90th Birthday, held at The Oval on Friday 4th July 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Today is Alec’s 90th birthday. If I had any doubt that Fate had a sense of humour, Alec being born on Independence Day removes it: some think St George’s Day would have been more fitting. I disagree: George was a Greek, living in Syria who never visited England. Not at all right.

    Alec was born into a world now gone. On his birth date, Mehmed VI became Emperor of the Ottoman Empire. Later that month, the Soviets murdered the Czar and his family at Ekaterinburg, and the Battle of the Marne began. And yet, July 1918 had its good points: four Nobel Prize Winners were born together with one of the greatest bowlers in the long history of cricket.

    Today, Alec Bedser is revered in every part of the English-speaking world.

    Gathered here, today, are friends of a lifetime. Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey, Ken Archer and Alan Davidson have flown in from the opposite end of the earth. Richie Benaud is here, too. So are a galaxy of England players, some former team-mates of Alec. They are not only here as good friends to Alec: they are here because Alec is a good friend to them. Today, we celebrate Alec Bedser the man as well as Alec Bedser the great cricketer.

    I know that view will be shared by those here from Alec’s other great love: golf. Peter Alliss, John Jacobs, George O’Grady and his old friend and neighbour, Ken Schofield, will tell you Alec was a top-class golfer, too – well able to hit a Par 4 on the 14th at West Hill.

    In Pro-Am tournaments he partnered the great golfers, such as V J Singh, who played with Alec because they wished to win, and being second best was never a Bedser characteristic.

    Others present can – and will – speak more authoritatively about Alec’s cricket. I saw him only from beyond the boundary; they saw him at close quarters – too close sometimes if they were batting.

    His record is remarkable. He lost six cricketing years to the War, but still took 236 Test wickets in only 51 matches. If Tests had been as frequent then as today, his tally would have been phenomenal. In his first Test at Lord’s, against India in 1946, he took 11 wickets prompting his mother to say – when asked for some treacly quote – “Well, that’s what he’s paid for, isn’t it?” Glib platitudes were never a Bedser trait.

    In his early Test days Alec was often the alpha and omega of the England attack. Later, at Surrey he was the core of the greatest bowling attack any County side has ever put into the field. He bowed out of first-class cricket, with 5 for 25 for Surrey against Glamorgan. As a bowler, he was in the line of Sydney Barnes and Maurice Tate, and – 48 years on – his equal is yet to be found.

    Sometimes, little things tell you a lot. In his long career – which ended at the age of 42 – Alec only once left the field during play. He didn’t turn his ankle, pull a muscle or feel queasy. Nor did his studs or stitching work loose. He was never on a piece of elastic reeling him onto the masseur’s table and – if nature called – she was told to wait until the next interval. Nor did he begin the day’s play with a cuddle in a huddle: the senses rebel at the very thought.

    “Nothing can come of nothing”, said King Lear to Cordelia. Nor can talent.

    Is it God-given or the result of hard work? Both – of course. No-one could have bowled Alec’s leg-cutter without those huge hands. And no-one could have bowled over 16,000 first class overs – more than 1,000 a year – without massive stamina and supreme fitness. And no-one – without diligence and practice – could have gained his uncanny accuracy.

    Nor can a personality come of nothing. Alec’s character is as steady as a rock and as certain as the changing of the tides. He is a tribute to what must be a long line of ancestor Bedsers. I wish I’d known them – I daresay they told it as it was.

    When his playing career ended, Alec continued to serve cricket: as an England selector and long term Chairman; as a Tour Manager; as President of Surrey – and, more ephemerally, as a peerless judge of the game.

    Watching cricket with Alec is to enjoy a master-class in the finer points of the game. To ransack his mind is to open a treasure trove.

    Sometimes this was unnerving because he and Eric remembered everything. I said to him (rather smugly) one day that – as a boy – I saw him get Maurice Hallam caught in the slips off a rare out-swinger. This – remember – was one of nearly 2000 first-class wickets.

    “Ah”, said Eric, “yes, it was second slip!” “And it wasn’t an out-swinger” chimed in Alec, “he just mis-judged it!”.

    In this room are over 100 friends of Alec. At a conservative estimate he would, on average, have known everyone for 40 years: some, of course, far longer. Add it up – and there is over 4,000 years of friendship gathered together. And yet, there is one glaring absentee: Eric.

    Eric is not here: at least, not visibly so. And yet – I daresay he is somewhere about, because he was never far from his twin. No-one more enjoyed Alec’s success: Eric over-flowed with pleasure when his brother joined the select band of cricketing Knights. “Quite right, too”, he said to me, adding in character, “Course, he should have had it years ago!”. And how he would have loved the tributes – so richly earned – as Alec celebrates this special day (which, of course, is Eric’s birthday, too).

    Now, it’s after mid-day: so Eric will already have raised a pint in the Long Room to toast Alec. Let me now invite you to rise and do the same: the toast is – Alec – a very Happy Birthday.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation – 20 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation, held in Cork on Friday 20th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are some days that are indelibly printed in the memory: today is one. I shall always treasure the memory of this honour, and the delightful poem by Thomas McCarthy. All that, and lovely Irish music too! My only regret is that Michael Flatley was not dancing to it!

    It is an especial pleasure that this honour is in company with Albert Reynolds. Albert and I first met as Finance Ministers, and became Prime Minister and Taoiseach at almost the same time. From the moment we met, we both decided to put the Northern Ireland Peace Process at the top of our agenda.

    It looked hopeless: decades of mutual suspicion/recriminations/injustice/ violence. Few thought success was possible.

    Albert and I believed in politics of reason/persuasion: we believed that violence would never reach a solution: but dialogue might.

    But dialogue without agreement between the British and Irish Governments would simply sow confusion. That appreciation was the root of the Joint Declaration.

    Others had tried: others had cared – but only a joint Government agreement was likely to attract widespread support.

    The Joint Declaration not easily agreed. Went through many versions / much discussion / a lot of frustration – and the occasional squabble.

    But Albert and I got there in the end. Albert took political risks – for which I will be forever grateful – and so did I. It was worth it.

    What was the Joint Declaration?

    a powerful symbol of Anglo-Irish determination;
    a set of principles both Governments could accept;
    the essential bedrock of an agreement.

    It was not itself an agreement – but without it no agreement was possible.

    It offered reassurances essential to negotiation:

    To Nationalists:
    their traditions/aspirations would be respected;

    To Unionists:
    a United Ireland would not be imposed;

    To Paramilitaries:

    a way into democratic politics was open if they gave up violence.

    The Joint Declaration was the beginning of what we knew would be a long process. The Irish Peace Process was like a Rubiks Cube in Gaelic – never easy to solve.

    The Joint Declaration:
    Agreed objectives for London/Dublin;

    Addressed contradictory ambitions and fears.

    After the Joint Declaration, Albert and I were confident an agreement would be reached: my only regret was that it took so long.

    It was that path that has brought us here today: let me echo what Albert has already said: that we are proud to be your guests today, and that I am proud to be honoured alongside one of Ireland’s finest sons.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on 42-Day Detention – 6 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on 42-day detention, published by The Times on 6th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Government’s legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified by over-egging the threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction – perhaps that error was genuine.

    But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York – for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam’s Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

    These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home – on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London – they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.

    We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or – to put it in plain terms – the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

    Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

    I don’t believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

    That is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists – born in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if we bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

    The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular – and no less violent – assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.

    After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

    There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

    But it is not only the case for 42 days detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.

    The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue’s trick. We do have something to fear – the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies.

    This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

    Nor do I believe that anyone can defend another government innovation: a national identity register containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence. Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database – far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian.

    So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

    The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires – as it should – the sanction of a High Court Judge. Francis Pym once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a Parliament with a more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention before charge, identity cards and a DNA register would have never been passed.

    I understand – and sympathise with – the complex dilemmas of security and crime that face the Government. But, while I understand their motives, their remedies are too stringent and not wise.

    No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity – but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and – once in place – will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at St Louis – 6 May 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s “Churchill Speech”, made at St Louis, Missouri, United States, on Tuesday 6th May 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    76 years ago, Churchill spoke in the St. Louis Woman’s Club. He was out of office and out of favour.

    He could not know that – one day, not far away, there would stand a remarkable Museum, dedicated to his life and hidden under a

    Christopher Wren church which was destroyed in the London Blitz, dismantled, shipped across the ocean and re-assembled at Westminster College, Fulton. I saw it today. It is an unsung gem in the heart of Missouri and – most probably – the oldest building in America.

    For Churchill – half American and half English – there could be no greater honour.

    And it is appropriate: for in the long history of the British nation, Winston Churchill stands as one of our greatest leaders, alongside Henry II, Elizabeth I and Cromwell.

    In the most savage war in history, he rallied the British Empire as it stood alone against Nazi Germany until – as he predicted in his own magical phrase: “The New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old”. It is a classic Churchill phrase: compelling, vivid, and touching emotion at a level deeper than prosaic language.

    That gift for language was part of his genius. He used it to inspire, to praise, to condemn and to mock. And, of course, to write. Like Shakespeare, Churchill invented new words by adding suffixes and prefixes: unwisdom and unsordid, for example, were unknown words until he invented them.

    Because Churchill is such a figure of myth and legend it is easy to forget that he held power in the lifetime of our parents. He is not a hero from the distant past. His world was the forerunner of ours. At Yalta, he helped shape that world – though not entirely to his, or our, satisfaction. His leadership at a time of peril will be admired a thousand years from now. In the long march of history, most are forgotten – Churchill never will be.

    In March 1946, he was invited by President Truman to speak at Westminster College, Fulton, and – as an incentive for him to accept – the President offered to travel to Missouri to introduce him. For a romantic like Churchill, Truman’s invitation was an irresistible one, and he responded with one of his most famous speeches.

    The speech is remembered for his sombre warning – added on the train to Fulton – that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. But, in typical Churchill fashion, the speech contained much else of substance, as he looked ahead to forecast the opportunities and perils through which our generation has lived.

    Nations, said Churchill, would need to be shielded from war and tyranny in a world menaced by poverty and privation. He urged a unity of purpose for the US and Great Britain and forecast – wrongly – so far! – that we might one day share a common citizenship.

    He was trenchant that we should not trust any third country with the technology of the Atom bomb, and he welcomed the birth of the United Nations as a clearing house to prevent war.

    Since then, time has moved on. Were Churchill here tonight, he would look to the future and – albeit as a poor substitute – that is what I propose to do.

    Let me start by reviewing some of the structures Churchill knew.

    NATO has served us supremely well. Its founding purpose was to defend democracy against the Soviet Union. And so it did. But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even so, it would be folly to let NATO wither for lack of a clear-cut mission: we need to re-define its purpose.

    So, too, the United Nations. Today, it is widely derided – not least in the US. But the UN is an American invention: its Charter signed at the San Francisco Opera House in 1946.

    Its basic aim – to prevent war – is as relevant now as then, but the UN can only be as strong as its Members enable it to be. If its senior Member States are lukewarm in its support, then the UN is bound to disappoint.

    Certainly, it is in need of reform. When it was founded, the US, Britain, Russia, China and France appointed themselves as Permanent Members of the Security Council. But sixty years ago, the UN had fewer than 50 Members. Today it has over 190, and the continued tenure of the same nations is no longer acceptable to much of the world. Yet the Permanent Five remain in place.

    Unsurprisingly, nations like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, now seek to join them. They have a powerful case – and yet it is denied. It shouldn’t be. If we wish the UN to fulfil its function – and it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it – then the present Permanent Members must admit others and dilute their power. Only then can the ambitions of its Founders be realised.

    Reform of international bodies is vital to the future. It’s not only NATO and the UN that need to be updated. So do the Financial Institutions and – above all – the “Group of 8”.

    The G8 – allegedly – comprises the most powerful industrial nations of the world – yet China and India are excluded from membership: frankly, that is absurd – and must be corrected.

    It’s also instructive to note what Churchill did not talk about at Fulton: the rise of terrorism; the danger of an Islamic Jihad to divide Christian and Muslim; the unstoppable advance of science; and the prospect of near-universal free trade and a global market. Nor did he envisage a world with America as the only super-power. Had he done so, he would have warned that great power attracts great enmity, often without reason. As a child of Empire, Churchill knew that – and lived to see the Empire fade away.

    In the sixty years since his speech, Churchill’s loathing of Communism has been totally vindicated. It was one of the most miserable creeds Man has devised. Around the world, it led to bloodshed, violence, repression and economic failure. Soviet-style Communism confronted the free world in a fifty-year Cold War – until the whole rotten edifice of Soviet Russia collapsed.

    Whatever perils face us now, they pale beside the risk of massive nuclear exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. Now – that is gone. New – but lesser – threats lie ahead.

    The American Goliath – and her allies – are learning that massive military superiority in sophisticated weapons, although re-assuring, doesn’t protect against attack by small, highly dedicated groups. Nor does it prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    As a young man, Churchill went to war on a horse in Sudan and South Africa. He lived through an age in which Man learned how to kill his fellows in great numbers, and with great efficiency, on land, in the air and under water. Fifty years of science led to the sophistication of the Atomic Bomb. But that wasn’t the end of Man’s inventiveness. The destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons dwarf those Churchill knew and yet – despite this – the threat is very different and, I would argue, diminished.

    Both World Wars began in Europe. Today, the European Union extends from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East, and military conflict between its Members is inconceivable. One worrying side effect of this new amity – as we learn to our regret in NATO – is that the Liberal democracies of Europe have little appetite for military expenditure.

    The main enemy of our lifetime, the Soviet Union, has gone. But the major portion of it – modern Russia – survives. We have grown up with a 20th century perception of Russia that runs very deep, but is now out of date. If we are to understand modern Russia, we must consider her history.

    The last century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War, and yet more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    The famine of 1921, and the terror campaigns of the 1930s, claimed many more lives even before the Second World War robbed Russia of 70% of her young men between 18 and 32.

    Fifty years of repressive Government followed these horrors. So did economic stagnation, the Cold War and the decline and collapse of Communism as a philosophy – and the Soviet Union as an entity. Even then, the agony continued: economic and political reforms in the 1990s brought turmoil, crime, the Russian mafia and national debt.

    Until 1990, the Soviet Union – Churchill’s Russian “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” – was a persistent danger to us. It was a bleak time, now in the past.

    Today, we watch Russia warily as she becomes a newly oil-rich State. Russia makes money from an oil price of $14 a barrel; at $18 the income is significant; at over $20 it becomes rosy. At $80-$100 oil is an uncovenanted bonus, and offers a stability against which economic reforms and military re-equipment can be afforded with ease.

    Should we worry about this? I don’t think so – at least not yet or for a long time.

    It is probable that America spends as much on her military as the rest of the world combined. Certainly, she spends three times as much each year, as Russia and China added together.

    As a result, Russia is so far behind the US in capability, that any serious threat is negligible. The once Mighty Bear now has very blunt teeth. Nor is China a threat compared to the old Soviet Union. Although she, too, is spending far more on re-equipping her military than she admits – and, of course, has a huge conscript Army – she cannot match the superiority America has built up over decades.

    The gap is widening, not narrowing. In any major conflict, America has – and will retain – unchallengeable military superiority for a long time to come. Any security danger comes – not from large Nation States – but from rogue regimes and terror groups – and here the threat is imminent and serious.

    It is also universal. Every nation has a stake in this. In its different guises, terrorism has hit West and East as New York, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo and Bali can testify. All bear the scars and the fatalities of terrorist atrocities.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact of the phenomenon is seen on a wider canvas.

    The failure to find WMD in Iraq was a disaster. It strengthened international opposition to the War and weakened support for anti-terrorist policies – not least in Afghanistan – where the European military and financial contribution for what is a necessary conflict – has been feeble.

    Although every NATO ally agreed to a military role in Afghanistan, many have offered only token troops and placed caveats on what those troops will do and where they will go.

    This is hopeless: it leaves the military burden unfairly distributed.

    It may take a long time to diminish the potency of terror. But one thing is certain: action against it will be more effective if it is international – and wholehearted. There is a further point too: to be successful, we need to know our enemy. The battle against Islamic terror groups is a war of the mind – in a culture we don’t understand. We should try harder to do so.

    The battle is against Islamic terrorism, but not Islam. If it were, we would be engulfed in a mighty conflict. Instead, we face highly motivated fanatical groups intent on the destruction of everything that does not fit within their philosophy.

    After 9/11, America went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda training camps: she – and her allies – have ended up fighting the Taliban.
    Al Qaeda and the Taliban are different organisations, with few direct links. Yet they have a similar “inspiration”: both are fundamentalist, ideologically-motivated Muslim groups, seeking a purer Islam through a return to a Caliphate.

    And this emphasises the complexity of any anti-terror strategy: it must confront threats from many disparate groups. In Afghanistan, we have made progress: there is a Parliament, a Government, an electoral process, and central Government Ministers. None of this basic apparatus of order existed in 2001. Even so, we are far from the end game. Our troops will – at best – be there for years, and the diplomatic and financial commitment for far longer.

    In Iraq, much has improved too, but it is difficult to see an orderly withdrawal of troops in under 3-4 years and, even then, the allied involvement of special forces may stretch far beyond that – unless we wish to leave chaos behind.

    If Iraq becomes a stable country, with a form of democracy that survives, it will be a triumph. The War may have been launched under false pretences; it may have done immense short-term harm to America and Britain; but a benign long-term outcome will change the future of the entire region. The right combination of soft and hard power may yet deliver such a result.

    Let me turn now to economics:

    Churchill’s world of yesterday has long gone. He did not foresee the scale of the competitive challenge posed today by China, India, Brazil, Russia. Nor did he imagine the end of a Western economic dominance that had stretched back over two hundred years. But – as a practical politician – he would have recognised one ancient rule that still holds true today: economic power leads to political power.

    We, in the West, need to understand the scale of what is happening.

    It is not my purpose this evening to discuss the financial problems of the Markets – they will work themselves out – but I do want to emphasise the impact of changes now taking place.

    Energy prices have soared as demand has grown from the developing world. Once, emerging nations had a spurt of growth and fell away.

    Now, their growth continues. So, too – I suspect – will high energy prices. And food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand and price of foodstuff rises. One would need a heart of stone not to welcome the end of such hardship – even as we face the problems it poses.

    In this new world, all Governments are losing economic influence to the free market. Historic weapons, such as exchange or capital or import controls, are almost derelict. Competition in the global labour market continues to transfer manufacturing to low-cost centres in the developing world. Even tax policy is becoming ineffective or unusable since, if countries aren’t tax-competitive, capital moves to a more attractive host environment.

    Some people attribute the huge growth of emerging nations simply to the demand for raw materials, cost-effective manufacturing and the capture of a few niche markets. They are wrong: it is far more substantial.

    Outsourcing is growing rapidly. It is no longer restricted to manufacturing and call centres. Tax, accounting, financial, advertising and some legal services, can all be electronically delivered from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world.

    So, too, computer programming; architectural design; medical records; financial analysis; and research and development in the knowledge-based industries.

    An American economist (Alan Blinder), estimates that out-sourcing might cost the US many millions of jobs. If that is true of the US, it will be equally true – perhaps even more so – of Europe and Japan.

    Don’t imagine for a moment that I exaggerate. For the first time since 1820, world growth comes predominantly from the East. This will continue. Emerging nations hold 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They consume over 50% of energy and 80% of growth of energy over recent years. Their dynamism is striking. They are re forming the world market, and changing trade and investment patterns.
    China now manufactures 80% of the world’s photocopiers; 60-70% of mobile phones; 60% of digital cameras; and 50% of the world’s computers. If we are not already worried, we should be.

    In order to compete in the future, mature States must develop new science and new services. This is important socially and economically. Let me offer an example.

    America, Japan and the UK are leaders in investment in the knowledge-based industries – and especially Bio and Nano-technology. This requires huge research and development projects into this cutting-edge technology.

    This is likely to prove worthwhile. Demand is soaring for healthy food, pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, forensic medicine, genetic engineering and new and better drugs to combat disease.

    Biotechnology may be in its infancy, but is already a $30 billion a year industry, with unlimited potential.

    Nano-technology offers similar scope across the engineering and biological sciences. These are sciences for the new century and can be developed by anyone – anywhere – with access to capital and expertise. The social and financial rewards of success promise to be staggering.

    Successful innovation may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine the benefits to patients if chemotherapy could be so targeted in cancer treatment, that it caused only minimal side-effects. All this lies ahead.

    Some commercial applications of Bio and Nano science are already apparent: the technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, and better protection from the sun.

    Already, advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon even be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    These are innovations which – until recently – seemed fanciful. In Churchill’s world they would have seemed like black magic.

    But soon, what was once fantasy will be an everyday reality.

    And that concept – fantasy becoming reality – may be a leitmotif for the future. No-one should be complacent that the present world order is fixed: it is not. Compare and contrast Churchill’s world of sixty years ago with today. Then factor in the reality that the pace of change is accelerating. Our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world.

    CONCLUSION

    Let me try and bring all this together. As the years unfold, change will invade every aspect of our lives.

    In Churchill’s maturity, one hundred years ago, the UK, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface and much of the world’s economy. No longer: today, the age of Regal Empire has gone and the age of Commercial Empire is with us.

    All over the world, young people dress as they do on the streets of New York and London. Over 200 million Chinese – and hundreds of millions elsewhere – are learning English.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of significant military conflict. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last 40 years – think of this – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years. Now, science is on the verge of raising it still further.

    Despite the perils and frustrations of our world – of Iraq, Iran, terror, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a resurgent Russia – it is an exhilarating time to be alive.

    Despite garish headlines, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the confrontation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact has gone. The world is safer. The risk of widespread warfare has lessened.

    Despite some tensions, international relations are more benign than for decades. China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America is becoming a continent of democracies. Even Africa – poor forgotten Africa – is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. There is much to be thankful for.

    Sometimes, I think, we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what has already been achieved. Francis Bacon observed in the England of Queen Elizabeth I that “We have planted things that are likely to last”. So have we in our own time. The English Language. The Free Market. Democracy. All gifts from the West to the world, with America and Britain as the principal donors.

    We need to look at the future with a critical and honest eye, and see how it is – with one prime purpose: if we see how it is, we can shape how it could be. That is what Churchill would have done and – in this as in so much else – we would be wise to take the lead of one of the most remarkable men in the long history of the English speaking peoples.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Chartered Insurance Institute President’s Dinner – 4 March 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Chartered Insurance Institute President’s Dinner, held at the Guildhall in London on Tuesday 4th March 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Aldermen, My Lord President, Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    There is a European debate in the House of Commons tonight – and I’m here: My goodness, life just gets better and better!

    When your President invited me to join you this evening, it was an easy decision. Easy, because of the reputation of the Institute; and easier still, because David Hunt has been a colleague and a true friend for very many years. When he left Government, it was at his request and to my regret. You are very lucky to have him as your President. From what I hear he is doing a superb job.

    Because David worked with me in Government for so long, his invitation to speak “on any subject” of my choosing was irresistible and it encouraged me to take a reflective look at my old profession. I do so, of course, conscious of the mistakes made during my own years in Government.

    It is now eleven years since I left Number 10 at the request of the electorate, and seven years since I left the Commons – so these days I speak for myself and no one else – which is a very liberating experience!

    It is not always easy to speak your mind as freely as you wish and even for the most frank politicians.

    In the last decade, the environment of politics has changed. In some ways, government has become more difficult. The free market has widened many of the prerogatives of Government have been diminished.

    The style of politics has changed, too. Brutal truths are out. Gentle reassurances are in. Now I’m not sure I wholly like this. Frankly, I don’t need someone to “feel my pain”. I much prefer them to remove it. And – if they can’t – on balance, I’ll take the brutal truths, please.

    Because Government is a serious business – even though – in the hands of some politicians – it seems sometimes to be afflicted with legislation by reflex, and communication by sound-bite.

    Many years ago, Francis Pym spoke of the democratic disadvantage of any Government having too large a majority. Now I agree with that, with one caveat: having led a Government with a tiny majority and a large number of irreconcilables, I am no great fan of minority government either.

    But over-large majorities almost always have a democratic deficit as their counter-point. They enable bad legislation to be carried; self-evident truths to be denied; and explanations offered that frankly make the jaw drop.

    Now one of the proudest boasts of this country has always been that we’re the oldest democracy in the world – and the freest. Although – probably – still true, I think events have tarnished that reputation.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified initially by over-egging the threat of Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction – which I wholly accept may have been a genuine error.

    But the case was then embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

    That misinformation was compounded by the implication that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the UK, which plainly it was not – and is not.

    We need to know how and why that happened.

    We have had Inquiries, four I think so far, of course, but all of them were circumscribed: none I think were on the essential question of how the decision to go to war was made and for the sake of future decision-making, we must have such an Inquiry.

    For the moment, the Government dismisses criticism with the response that it neither regrets, nor apologises for, the fact that Saddam has gone. Neither do I. Nor does anyone else, but that is not the point. One might as well say one does not regret an earthquake, because it helped bring down some old buildings. So it might have been, but what of the wider damage?

    Because, the damage is wider.

    Overseas, it is to our reputation. And, at home – on the back of the threat of terror, and with the impetus of two serious incidents in London – civil liberties are, slowly, being sacrificed.

    We now know that – despite repeated denials – our Government was complicit in rendition, or – to put it in plain terms – the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction, to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

    Now, although the intent – presumably – was to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world the Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

    Nor can any sacrifice of due process be justified by national self-interest. If we are seen to defend our values, in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values altogether. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it might serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to do.

    And that is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists – born here in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if our own actions bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

    The Government has introduced a series of measures to protect against terror. These seem to me to go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular assaults on our mainland from the IRA.

    Two years ago, following the London terrorist attacks, Parliament doubled the time suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. I agree that was justified. I supported that change and still do. But – now – Parliament will soon be asked to increase this again – to 42 days.

    Yet there is no proof such an extended detention period would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it would prevent future atrocities. No example of which I am aware has yet been given of why the Police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. Now this is a slippery slope. The argument that it “might be useful” in unspecified future circumstances simply will not do. Assertions are cheap: and assertions are worthless if we are to curtail liberty of the individual, we need more certainty than that.

    We need to be careful. I cannot believe any Parliamentarian would willingly relish a society in which suspects are detained for long periods without charge; in which excessive security impedes the flow of normal life; and in which border checks frequently verge on the frenetic. I fear such a policy – even if it is intended to improve security – will, in practice, play into the hands of the very people who seek to undermine our way of life.

    Nor do I welcome identity cards, likely to be expensive and ineffective. I certainly do not welcome a national register containing the DNA of many thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence.

    Now I understand the concerns the Government has – of course I do. And – I do not question their motives. But I fear over-reaction is more likely to alienate than protect, and it is precisely that alienation – “motivated by perceived antagonism to Muslims” – that led to the London bombings in 2005. Do we really want terrorists to see the havoc they are causing; the freedoms they are infringing – and thus to be encouraged to cause even more social disruption?

    A free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our instincts and – once put in place – will be very difficult to dismantle. It is not a road down which we should go.

    I suspect one reason for over-reaction is that we live in a scapegoat society. If some thing goes wrong, doesn’t matter what it is – it is assumed some one must be culpable. And not only culpable but criminally culpable. The impact of this blame-game is wholly negative on our national life. I think we would be wiser to acknowledge that no Government or individual can foresee and protect against every eventuality. It’s always a mistake to believe there is a solution for every problem. Often in Government the reverse is true: a new solution merely identifies a different problem.

    Now, of course, much of this revolves around too much legislation – and, sometimes, poor legislation – is a problem that goes far beyond the security remit – and has been so for decades. I am certainly prepared to accept a certain mea culpa for my own years but – having done so – I think it is fair to note that the situation has worsened: moreover, new procedures mean a compliant majority now votes much of that legislation through the House of Commons undebated and untested.

    I could illustrate this unappealing trend in many ways: one will do. The public are worried about crime – and rightly so: how could it be otherwise, when so many are intimidated by robbery, yobbery and thuggery on too many council estates and on too many streets?

    So, each year, we have a Criminal Justice Bill: often containing a lot of sensible policy – let us acknowledge that – but sometimes, as if in homage to knee-jerk reactions, containing measures to appease the sort of opinions heard in a four-ale bar late at night. (Well – in the old days – late at night with 24-hour drinking. Now – of course – heard any time day or night.) And – if you think I exaggerate – ask yourself this question: if I exaggerate, why in subsequent years, are large sections of some of these Bills repealed, having never been implemented?

    Meanwhile, crime still rises, the prisons overflow and the Justice Minister – a veteran of the “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” era – is reduced to pleading with Judges to impose less draconian, non-custodial sentences.

    The “tough on crime” sound-bite is an illustration of how simplicities in politics often backfire. It is not alone. “Education, Education, Education” – was first said by Lenin, who didn’t mean it either; and as for “24 hours to save the NHS” or “Whiter than White” – discretion forbids any comment at all.

    After the experience of how sound-bites so often lead to a political blind alley, anyone who gives houseroom to them in future plainly needs adult supervision. Government can – and must – do better than that.

    Mr President, I have focused on short-comings this evening, but that is not the whole story. Let me leaven the criticism.

    Throughout the last ten years, I’ve travelled constantly around the world. If that has given a degree of perspective to my criticisms – it has also shown me no better system of government.

    Over many decades, successive Governments have presided over a growth in personal and national well-being. This City audience – despite disagreements over individual policies – has seen their financial industries flourish.

    And here – in the midst of the most successful financial centre in the world – that is a real cause for optimism.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 16 December 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 16th December 2007.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now of course one of the big events from the past year was Tony Blair’s exit from office.

    Already the histories and political obituaries have been written, but so far his predecessor in No. 10 has been virtually silent on the New Labour years. John Major joins us now to look back over the last year. Welcome, thank you very much for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the economy, because some people might say it’s a sense of déjà vu, house prices under pressure, coming down again, the kind of outlook that we haven’t maybe had since the immediate days around Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that of course was exactly what I inherited when I became Prime Minister, there were some similarities with now, we were going into a recession, it was clearly going to be very deep. And it took a long time to get out of it.

    But if you recall, when we left office in 1997 I think we probably left the best economy any government has left for the last 50 years. We had had five years of consistent growth every quarter, falling interest rates, falling unemployment, increasing growth, for a long period.

    It wasn’t created by the present Labour government it was there in place when they took office. But of course they have always used Black Wednesday to mask that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it has to be said that they then picked up that ball, as it were, and ran with it for a long time?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes they did, to a certain extent and the fact that they haven’t wrecked the economy is something one can give them credit for. But I think it’s now beginning to unravel in quite a serious way.

    If you look at what has happened over the last ten years, there were going to be no tax increases, specifically there were going to be no tax increases on pensions. In fact a specific tax increase on pensions has wrecked final salary pension schemes and wrecked the security of many pensioners.

    But you now see over the full ten years we have dropped significantly in competitiveness, productivity is down over those ten years. We have had a tax increase almost every month for the last ten years, on average. We’ve had 111 tax increases over that period.

    The economy is now clearly running into some significant difficulties, and there are two events, two events that are specifically related to the government policy that have caused huge problems. One of them you’ve referred to them already this morning, Northern Rock, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    The other of course was the then Chancellor’s decision to sell gold. He sold gold quite gratuitously, something like 395-400 tonnes of gold at an average price of, I think, about $275. The loss to the exchanges from that decision is now in excess of the loss to the exchanges on Black Wednesday, in excess of the Black Wednesday costs.

    ANDREW MARR:

    From your point of view, Golden Tuesday or whatever it was, is worse than Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well in terms of the loss to the exchanges most certainly it’s a different political damage. But in terms of the loss to the exchanges it most certainly is. And I hope it will stop the Prime Minister talking about ten successful years because they haven’t been entirely successful. And that absurdity that he sometimes turns to, that he appears to blame David Cameron who was a bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, as though David was at all responsible, for he wasn’t.

    The second point of course is Northern Rock. We don’t yet know what the cost of Northern Rock to the Economy will be. But it is quite likely, not certain, but quite likely that it will exceed the cost for the taxpayer of either Black Wednesday or of the sale of gold. And that runs specifically from changes to the system introduced by the then Chancellor in 1997.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The regulatory system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The regulatory system.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right. I wondered in the final film that Tony Blair made about looking back over, looking back in part, over his ten years, what you felt when he said maybe he’d been a little bit rough in going for you over sleaze?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I didn’t watch it, I didn’t watch the film, but I read about it. But I think there is a clear-cut distinction between what was called sleaze in the 1990s and what has happened since 1997. Lots of people misbehaved in the ’80s and in the ’90s, but they were all individuals, it was never institutional, it was never related specifically to the Conservative Party or to the Conservative Government.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You don’t think there was a culture of overseas business people putting money in, sort of behind the back of the political system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think there was a culture. I mean I devolved responsibility for party fundraising when I became Prime Minister, so I had no direct hand in it. But, no I don’t think so. But what happened in the 1990s, there was a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative Party as an institution, it was almost McCarthyite frankly, as though it were sleazy, and it wasn’t.

    The distinction is that sleaze has seemed to be systemic since 1997. I mean, I can see a clear pattern, you probably remember the Ecclestone affair in, I think, November 1997. We have Abrahams in November 2007, and serial offences in between those two dates. 2002, when I think they were taking money from Mr. Desmond, the Labour Party set up a committee and decided they would vet every future donor. Well it clearly wasn’t very successful vetting, from what we’ve seen subsequently.

    So I do think that they have every reason to regret what they did in the 1990s, but I must say I was sorry when the Prime Minister apologised for the fact that it had bounced back on the Labour Party. I think he should have apologised for the fact that it wasn’t true what he was saying in the 1990s. And to accuse people in the Cabinet, a Cabinet that had people like Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Malcolm Rifkind, Ken Clarke, Gill Shepherd, Virginia Bottomley, John Gummer, Peter Brooke – to accuse them of being part of a sleazy government is just unscrupulous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think that Tony Blair has presided over a corrupt government?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s corrupt, no I don’t use the word corrupt, I think they have been careless. I think they have had a huge majority and they have been careless, I think that’s what it is. I don’t accuse them of corruption and I wouldn’t accuse them of corruption. I don’t think most politicians, occasionally there’s a bad apple in the barrel. We are in parliament a microcosm of the nation, there are bad applies. But I don’t think that. But I do think it was institutionally careless in the grand manner.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And why do you think that happened, simply because they thought when Tony Blair said I’m a pretty straight kind of guy, he sort of believed it therefore?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think if they were to say today, whiter than white or purer than pure, I think people would just laugh. And I think that is sad for the sake of the whole system. But there were of course a whole series of slogans then that look pretty stupid now – Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime – well we now have prisoners being let out early, gun crime up, violent crime up, total crimes up.

    It really hasn’t lived up to the billing and you could say that in the National Health Service, 24 hours to save it, well it’s a lot longer than 24 hours. And you don’t have to take my word, take Derek Wanless’s word, we are not on our way yet, to a world class health service despite huge extra taxation going into it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I imagine that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would say we’ve all had the same problem with party funding, it’s something that’s bedevilled British politics in Margaret Thatcher’s time, in John Major’s time, and now in our time too. And there does need to be a better way of dealing with this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think a better way is more money from the taxpayer, I know there seems to be a communal view that it is a good idea from all the parties, I don’t personally agree with it. And I don’t agree with it specifically for this reason – I think, apart from the fact I don’t think it’s right for the taxpayer to pay, but let us even put that to one side, there’s another practical reason. If too much of party funding comes directly from the taxpayer a great deal of the activity at the grass roots that brings a party together, that makes a party, that keeps the politicians in touch with the grass roots, gets swept away.

    And I think politicians are remote enough already from the electorate as a whole, I wouldn’t wish to see them made even more remote, and my fear apart from the undoubted desirability of the principle, my fear would be that if party funding too much came from the centre that it would diminish grass roots activity even more, that would be a thoroughly bad development.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. I mean you were swept out of power by Tony Blair and the Labour Party saying that you were sleazy, that your government was riddled, if not with corruption but certainly with sleaze which was the slightly politer way of saying corruption, as I recall. The old Chinese saying about if you wait long enough the bodies of your enemies float past, does it occur to you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, just a touch. But I mean, what they did at the time was absolutely unscrupulous. I don’t think that’s what cost us the election, frankly we’d been there so long if the leader of the Conservative Party had been the Archangel Gabriel and the Cabinet had been a choir of angels, I think after 18 years we would have lost.

    I think what their pretty unscrupulous use of facts did, was to magnify the defeat, to turn a defeat that was always likely into a much bigger defeat. And I think that they did do very successfully but I think in a manner that scarred politics in the long term.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And turning to your party now, it strikes me that what we said about New Labour back in the mid-1990s could apply to the Conservatives now, which is terribly inexperienced. Very, very successful in the polls at the moment, beginning to look like a party that could win an overall majority at the next election, long way away and all the rest of it. But nonetheless, is that a worry, the inexperience?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think the government are pretty inexperienced, in this sense. I mean half the Cabinet were special advisors two or three years ago.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Everybody’s only been a special advisor in politics these days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I know, it’s a great mistake to get to the top of politics that way in my judgement. But if you look back in Margaret’s time there were always three people who could have been Prime Minister. When I became Prime Minister, if I had been run over by a bus and some people rather wished for that, there were several…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Depends who was driving the bus?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were several people who could have taken over – Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind – who may well have done a better job, maybe people thought they would have done. If Gordon Brown were run over who would be Prime Minister?

    There was one very senior member, Jack Straw, beyond that nobody with any experience whatsoever. It is the most inexperienced Cabinet that I can remember. So I don’t think the relative inexperience of the opposition is a problem. Particularly, if I may say so, because of the way David Cameron is now going abroad regularly.

    I’ve just returned from China, I was in China last week and I met some senior Chinese there and David Cameron is going there next week, and we were talking about his visit and they’re very much looking forward to seeing him. And I think these overseas trips are very important for him to do and I’m delighted he’s doing them.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the younger members of the Cabinet, David Miliband, I was just talking to in Basra. It is all’s well that ends well, is it finally over down there, how do you read that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’m uncertain. I mean, if you take an audit, we went into Iraq on what turned out to be a false premise. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein I think undoubtedly is a bonus.

    Everything else looks pretty bleak to me. If you look at life within Iraq at the moment, most of the major decisions that needs to be taken haven’t yet been taken by the Iraqi government. If you look at life in Iraq, inflation is 70%, unemployment is 50%, about 3,000-3,500 Iraqis over recent months have been killed every single month.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Was it worth it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That doesn’t look to me like a stable situation as a result of policy over the last few years. I don’t think this is going to be looked back on with any pride by the policymakers. I think the Army were given an impossible job which they did as well as it could have been done, but it was almost impossible and the outcome is bleak.

    ANDREW MARR:

    For now, John Major, thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to Trinity College Dublin Historical Society – 21 November 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made to the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society on Wednesday 21st November 2007.

    Mr Chairman, Mr Auditor, Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen of College Historical Society, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My privilege to propose “that the Best Thanks of the Society are due to the Auditor for his Paper”.

    Well done, Tim.

    Chancellor, Provost, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin and doubly so to be at this famous University.

    As you know, Albert Reynolds is unwell and can’t be with us this evening. However – the good news is – he’s recovering and will be out of hospital in a few days. I visited him this afternoon and he was in fine form. I know I speak for Albert Reynolds as well as myself in thanking you for the privilege of receiving this Award for our work on the Irish Peace Process. Timothy Smyth has presented a Paper full of insight and I am delighted to respond to it.

    Let me begin with a disclaimer: many people – some acknowledged, many not – contributed to the Irish Peace Process. They came from the Civil Services – I am delighted to see Roderic Lyne and Martin Mansergh here this evening – both of whom were pivotal figures in the whole process. They were crucial. When tempers heated, they cooled them. Tempers cool – they backed us in a way that rose them. They were magisterial. So were members of the Catholic and Protestant communities; the Churches; as well as figures from local and national politics.

    Paddy Mayhew, Peter Brooke, Dick Spring, John Bruton come to mind, as significant contributors. So – in different ways – do Jim Molyneaux and John Hume. And – it must also be acknowledged – individuals within the paramilitaries on both sides who realised violence was failing and opened their minds to a political settlement.

    Before I arrived at Downing Street, I had very little contact with Ireland – North or South – despite the presence of an Irish grandmother in my family. But, once there, Northern Ireland became a priority, and for long periods the priority. I held meetings beyond number in Westminster and in Belfast. Some were friendly. Some were rancorous. Some were full of hope. Some were interminable. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress. I knew from the outset that progress would be two steps forward – and one back: and so it proved.

    Invariably, I was struck by the disparity between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland Troubles lay deep in history, and were made worse by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots were ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning fiercely.

    And that loathing had led to carnage that, by the early 1990’s, seemed a permanent and irreversible way of life in Northern Ireland, with violence spinning off to the British mainland. Another atrocity. Another hooded victim. Another soldier dead. Such violence seemed to be so common-place, it often lost its place in the daily news. Shock receded to acceptance. Familiarity stilled the horror of butchery.

    But I did not believe the situation was irreversible. Nor, when I met him, did Albert Reynolds. I will now embarrass Albert. I’m sorry, Albert, but what I’m about to say is true. When I met Albert, I liked him instantly – not always the case among politicians. The man I came to know was a pragmatist with convictions – never an ideologue. He was a deal maker: a man who would offer something to gain something. It felt as though I was looking in the mirror. There was hope.

    At our very first meeting in No. 10, Albert and I agreed to put a peace process at the forefront of our political agenda. We knew we might well face hostility. Deep-rooted scepticism was certain. Political setbacks were likely. At worst, our careers might end. But at best, innocent people would no longer be killed. During the nearly seven years I worked on the Peace Process, that was the easiest decision I had to take.
    In his Paper, Timothy Smyth observed that there were lessons learned that might offer sign-posts to solving other conflicts. He is right: there is one, above all.

    Any Peace Process means dialogue: dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and dialogue – indirect at first – with the paramilitaries. That point about peace making is absolute: you cannot reach an agreement with someone to whom you do not – or will not – talk.

    That was my view – and Albert’s too. Yet it was not received opinion.

    For years, the IRA had sought a political objective through violence. For years, they had been resisted. It was a dance of death -interminable and pointless. It was also a stand-off that was convenient to the warriors of each side. The IRA could say they were not cowed by the power of the British – and would fight continuously for a United Ireland. The British Government could parade its strength by refusing to talk until the IRA disarmed which, without progress, they would never do. These so-called “strong positions” – these “positions of principle” – merely served to entrench the violence and the killing. And – as Mr Smyth observes – there was a cumbersome baggage of ideology on every side.
    Albert Reynolds and I approached the problem in the belief there would be a settlement because there must be. That ideology must give way to common sense. Some thought that was a triumph of hope over experience: we did not.

    It seemed to me the groundwork for a settlement was obvious:-

    (i) We had to agree objectives between London and Dublin for – if the two Governments had opposing agendas – the chance of a settlement was minimal.

    (ii) We needed to get inside the mind of the paramilitaries. People would be astonished at how many hours I spent trying to think myself into their minds – particularly those of the leaders of the IRA. What were their motives? Why did they act as they did? What constraints did they face within their own organisation?

    (iii) We knew we had to address the grievances that made it so easy for mischief makers to stir up hatred and foment disputes between the two communities.

    (iv) And we had to offer an end product that would encourage those within the paramilitaries, who had begun to realise violence would never succeed and were looking for a political settlement.

    (v) We also had to address contradictory ambitions and fears. Unionists feared a united Ireland. Nationalists favoured it. Both communities needed reassuring.

    Returning to Mr Smyth’s observation about lessons learned: the above approach, with modifications, has to be the bed-rock of any approach to end violent conflict.

    Putting together a Peace Plan in the early 90s was like playing multi-dimensional chess. It was a Rubik’s cube in Gaelic. What pleased London often worried Dublin. What was acceptable to the Unionists was anathema to the Nationalists. What was welcomed by some in Parliament was condemned by others. A peace process was never going to be a smooth ride – and it wasn’t.

    The Joint Declaration

    In his Paper, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Mr Smyth refers to “elements of mistrust” on both sides. He is absolutely right. Mistrust was a serious impediment to progress. Time and again committed advocates on both sides used leaks to the Media – often half-truths – to highlight fears and submerge progress. Everything that emerged from a Republican source (or was welcomed by Republicans) was poked at suspiciously and denounced by Unionists. The reverse was also true. The history of the Joint Declaration is a classic illustration of this tendency.

    In retrospect, the Joint Declaration stands out. But – in the early 1990’s – other avenues were being considered too.

    There was, of course, the three-stranded talks between the constitutional Parties; London and Dublin and North and South. They had many frustrations and deficiencies and ended up as a blind alley, but they were a source of ideas to determine what was acceptable to all sides, and what was a show-stopper. One point we learned was crucial for later: the political Parties would talk to the British Government but not to each other – yet we learned they would do so if elected to the same body. Years later, that led to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the unexpected partnership of Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness. In the 1990’s that would have seemed impossible, yet it is only when extreme positions are isolated, or neutered or brought together that a solution is possible.

    There was also the “back-channel” communication between the British Government and the Provisionals – a crucial clearing house and test bed. It was politically risky for the British Government, but also – let us not forget – for the Provisionals as well. When a newspaper “leaked” the existence of this channel, many were affronted by its existence – but making peace is a messy business and neither then nor now do I have any apologies to offer on this score: it advanced the Peace Process; it spelled out to the Provisionals what was – and was not – on offer; it removed misunderstandings; it helped save lives. To my mind, that is ample justification for it.

    It was in February 1993, through this “back channel”, that I received the following message:

    “The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold a dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion to the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet the Secretary of State’s public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked.”

    In London, we gave this message a very restricted circulation. Even so, amongst close colleagues, some were suspicious. Some saw a political trap to lure the British Government into concessions. Few thought it would yield anything worthwhile. Doubt, as well as distrust, was ever-present on all sides throughout the process.

    The advice I received from the Security Services was that the message was from the Provisional Army Council – more specifically, they thought, from Martin McGuinness – although I should place on record that he has always denied sending it. This is a pity since – even in the darkest days – those words encouraged me to believe a settlement was possible. And there were many dark days.

    In his Paper, Mr Smyth reminds us of the bombs at Bishopsgate, Shankill Road, and Warrington to which he could have added the Loyalist murders at a pub in the village of Greysteel, in revenge for the IRA’s bungled bombing at Shankill Road. These atrocities were pivotal in hardening the public mind against violence, and boxing in the paramilitaries.

    I remember those bombs with the clarity of yesterday. I was in my garden in Huntingdon on a bright and beautiful Easter Saturday when I heard news of the Warrington bomb which fatally injured two little boys. It came only days after I had received assurances of progress from the Provisionals through the “secret link”. It was the only time I seriously considered breaking off the Peace Process. I did not – for two reasons: – firstly, I did not want any more loss of life – not least those of children: and secondly, I had begun to understand the psyche of the IRA. They believed they had to show themselves to be “strong” to placate their volunteers: that meant violence would accompany progress as, in their own way, they sought to show they were not making concessions, not – in their own mind – giving ground. Blood and progress marched together. It was a bitter assessment, but I believe it was the right one.

    The concept of a Joint Declaration had been around for some years. John Hume and Gerry Adams had pioneered the idea in 1988. Various private enterprise and Government texts had been floated but none was remotely likely to gain the support of the Unionist community. They were seen as too “Green” in complexion. Therefore – to the Unionists – they were flawed. Therefore, they were denounced. As so often in Irish politics, a sound idea was spoiled by its parentage – only a text jointly negotiated and agreed by the British and Irish Governments had any chance of acceptance North and South of the Border. And any negotiated text was bound to be very different from the early cock-shies. Nonetheless, the Hume-Adams’ dialogue was important and opened a window.

    It was not easy to agree a text. Officials – North and South – worked at it incessantly. Road-blocks were common. Disputes were frequent. I had innumerable hours of meetings with my own Officials, as no doubt, did Albert on his own side. Frequently we met – or resolved points over the telephone lines. I recall a meeting at a European Summit that dwarfed the importance of the Summit itself. And a stand-up row – in private – in Dublin Castle, when Albert and I deserted our Officials for one of the fiercest rows I ever had in Government. We survived it and returned to negotiation: that afternoon, I knew we’d reach a settlement.

    Albert Reynolds and I resolved the final points in the text of the Joint Declaration over the telephone on 14th November 1993 and announced it publicly sixteen hours later.

    What was the Declaration about? Was it worth all the effort?

    I believe it was. After 74 years of partition and almost 25 years of violent conflict, the British and Irish Governments – for the first time – had agreed principles upon which they could both unite.

    The Joint Declaration promised fair play to both communities. The Unionists were guaranteed there would be no imposition of a United Ireland, and the Republicans were guaranteed their traditions and aspirations would be respected. It was implicit that if there were ever to be a majority in the North for unification, that the British Government would not stand in the way. In addition – and crucially – the Paramilitaries were promised a full place in democratic politics once they abandoned violence. It was a powerful symbol that pointed the way to a very different future for Ireland.

    The impact of the Joint Declaration was immediate. It received massive public support at home – and worldwide. It isolated the men of violence. Encouraged the IRA to offer a cease-fire. And drained from all the paramilitaries the subliminal sympathy that earned them funding, recruits and public tolerance from their own communities. I believe, too, it offered hope where none previously existed.

    Much work still needed to be done. Political restrictions on the paramilitaries were eased. The Joint Framework Documents, negotiated with Albert Reynolds and finalised in 1995 with John Bruton, bridged a gap towards a final settlement. Indeed, re-assembled they were the basis for The Good Friday Agreement – when a new future was finally put in place for all Ireland.

    Prior to 1990, the Prime Minister and The Taoiseach met irregularly as sparring partners, often playing to their own gallery: today, the political relationship between London and Dublin is a relationship of allies – of friends; old opponents – once viscerally at war with one another – now work together.

    Ireland saw a new future and grasped it – putting an end to a black history that cost too many lives and dashed the hopes of too many generations. The pessimists were confounded. Reason prevailed – and the winner was – is – Ireland.

  • Sir John Major’s Letter to The Times – 10 January 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s letter to The Times on the subject of the Kate Middleton, published on 10th January 2007.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir,

    I was dismayed to see television pictures of photographers in persistent pursuit of Kate Middleton, so eerily reminiscent of those who haunted the life of Diana, Princess of Wales.

    Ten years on from the tragic death of the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry – and in the midst of the inquest into the circumstances surrounding it – it seems that we have learned nothing.

    Chance brought Prince William and Kate Middleton together. So far as I am aware, Kate Middleton has never sought publicity for either personal or professional gain. It is grotesque that, due to her relationship with Prince William, she should have to endure such an invasion of her privacy.

    We are told that laws exist to prevent such intolerable behaviour. If so, they are not effective. We are told that further laws could be introduced to tighten up that existing legislation. This is sheer bunkum. Must everything be done by legislation? Whatever happened to common decency?

    There is one sure way to put an immediate end to this hunting down of private citizens, and that is for the proprietors and editors of all British newspapers to state that they will no longer buy or print any photograph taken without the knowledge and consent of their quarry. Rupert Murdoch has instructed his UK newspapers accordingly and I commend him for this. I hope that other proprietors and editors will follow suit. No public – or private – figure should be pursued down British streets against their will, nor should their homes be besieged.

    In September 1997 we were assured that serious lessons had been learned. Learned, perhaps, but how soon forgotten.

    One day, Prince William will become King. Hopefully, there will be someone by his side to share that heavy burden of responsibility. We, as a nation, should afford Prince William, and those to whom he is close, the same degree of personal freedom, consideration and compassion that, in due course, we will receive from him as our Monarch.

    Yours faithfully.

    John Major
    London SW1