The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Jedda – 19 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to British Businessmen in Jedda on Monday 19th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Patrick, thank you very much! I have to say to you that it says nothing about being eccentric as an expatriate but if you think being an expatriate is eccentric, how eccentric is it to cease being an expatriate and go into politics? That I must tell you is real eccentricity!

    Let me just say a few words this morning in the brief time we have got together and then I would like to leave as much of the time as we can for whatever questions you have.

    Let me say firstly I am delighted to see so many of you here this morning and delighted to be here myself. I had last evening a very lengthy audience with King Fahd following the banquet that he most generously gave in my honour and one thing strikes me always when I come back to Saudi Arabia – and it was certainly very evident in our discussions last evening – and that is the truly excellent state of relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. I say that not as a matter of form but as a matter of fact. Those relations are excellent in their warmth, in their breadth, in their depth, diplomatically, politically and in terms of trade and commerce and we speak to each other, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, over many years as friends with common interests in the region and common interests in the world that bind us together and we share a particular concern for the continued stability of the Gulf to which we make a substantial contribution whether on the ground or in New York at the United Nations.

    More recently of course we have kept in touch on a range of matters, about events in Yemen during the civil war, so the first thing that I would like to assure you of this morning is that you will be able to continue to work here in Saudi Arabia against the background of an excellent political relationship at all levels. We are determined that that will remain the case.

    The trading relationship, you know as much as I do of that but let me simply say that the relationship between our two countries as far as trade is concerned is flourishing as never before. We export goods and services worth close to 2 billion pounds a year to Saudi Arabia, total trade is over 3 billion pounds a year; Saudi Arabia is our largest export market outside the OECD with the single exception of that rather special case of Hong Kong and what is becoming increasingly satisfactory is that this is becoming increasingly a two-way relationship. We are delighted that high-quality Saudi goods were on show last week in London at Olympia and I know that British companies are looking hard at the opportunities to invest in Saudi Arabia through joint ventures and our OFFSET programme is designed specifically to assist this. We believe that we have a great deal to offer that may assist Saudi Arabia from our experience in privatisation and I have made it clear to the Custodian that such experience as we have is available upon request to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On this occasion, this is all too brief a visit but I had the very clear impression that it strengthened yet further the already close bonds that exist between Britain and Saudi Arabia.

    Let me turn to a few British matters for a moment before I take questions and I would like to say just a few words about the British economy.

    There has been a continuing change for some time but I think perhaps the scale of the opportunities that lie immediately ahead of us is not wholly appreciated, I doubt yet that it is wholly appreciated domestically and certainly not internationally. Britain, I believe, is at an historic turning point. We are now standing at the threshold of an economic recovery unlike any we have seen since the Second World War and we are determined that this is going to be a recovery without inflation, a recovery that will last, a recovery for the long term, a recovery that will provide the springboard to our exporters to capture and then hold for the long term foreign markets and I say that after a careful examination of the facts and it is worth perhaps setting some of them out very briefly:

    Total national output has now risen for over two years; manufacturing output is now 4% higher than a year ago; we have the fastest-growing industrial production of all major European Union countries and the IMF, OECD and ourselves expect this happy trend to continue in 1995.

    Our export volumes are hitting record levels, they are 10% higher than a year ago and are outpacing imports. Inflation is at a low not seen for a generation and well below the average of our European Union competitors and not many of you experienced businessmen will recall that circumstance on many occasions in the past.

    Investment is up 6% higher than just a year ago; consumer demand is now growing at around 3% a year; and unemployment has just taken another big tumble – overall it is now 380,000 lower than its peak at the very end of 1992.

    They are very encouraging statistics and the whole range of them suggests that this is a broadly-based recovery that is set to last. Of course, not every statistic on every occasion is going to be a good one, that is not the way the real world works, but the overall direction is perfectly clear: Britain is securely on course for long-term economic recovery based on sustainable growth, low inflation and sound public finances and we are determined to keep it that way.

    Almost every previous economic recovery we have seen has been wrecked by overheating. We have seen it time and time again. Frustratingly, when things start to go right, they suddenly go too right too quickly and we have headed off into difficulties yet again.

    Let me say this to you quite bluntly: I am determined not to allow this recovery to be endangered in this way. We are going to take no risks whatsoever with inflation. The British public and believe British business as well require stability and predictability in their household budgets, their mortgage repayments, investment decisions and in their export pricing and it is only when they have confidence in that that they will be able to take decisions with confidence for the future and that is what we seek to instil both in the short- and the long-term and that was the reason last week that we moved to raise interest rates by one half-point. The British people and British business need to know that where the Government is concerned short-termism is not going to be an option. We are playing for the long term, long-term prosperity, long-term jobs and long-term growth.

    The current recovery – and this is a very welcome development – marked by a very strong performance by our exporters and I think this is one of the reasons why observers see this recovery as being different in kind from any that we have seen before and the Government will do whatever it can, whatever it needs to do, to ensure that this continues and to provide the conditions that will enable British enterprise to go out and beat the competition and continue to beat the competition in markets all around the world.

    That was what lay behind the Competitiveness White Paper some time ago; it is why exports play such an important part in it; it is why we will continue to look right across the range of Government activity from the more obvious areas of competitiveness to supply-side changes in education and elsewhere to ensure the long-term competitiveness of British industry in the future; it is why I brought with me on this occasion a very strong team of business leaders – we want to help them utilise the opportunities in major export markets that await an economically resurgent Britain. I am more confident that they will be able to take those opportunities than I have been for very many years and our job as Government is to try and ensure that we maintain the right economic framework, the right levels of confidence, to enable our businessmen and our industry to go out and sell the best of British in every corner of the world. I believe they will do their job providing we do ours and we are determined to do so.

    That very briefly is the view from London. It is an optimistic view but it is also the view I hear from foreign observers of the British scene, that rarely have they seen such a favourable combination of economic ingredients. I hope, therefore, that people will begin to build up the confidence that is necessary for them to go out and take advantages of the circumstances that are coming together – I am sure that they will.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at English Heritage Conference – 16 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the English Heritage Conference, held at the QEII Conference Centre in London on Friday 16th September 1994. The speech was on the subject of the National Lottery.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    THE NATIONAL LOTTERY

    I’ve always believed it to be a virtue to think long-term – and perhaps nowhere more so than in the preservation and enhancement of our Heritage.

    There’s no mystery about why there should be: a healthy society needs a positive attitude to its own past, and its own future. We have been fortunate to have had our horizons widened by the creative legacy of the past and now we must leave our legacy for the future.

    It is especially appropriate to make this point to a conference celebrating the work of English Heritage. Their mission, of preserving the best of our historic environment and enabling us to understand and enjoy it, is vitally important. Today many traditional values which held society together are being questioned. We face ever-more rapid changes to our daily lives. At times like this the history about us is reassuring: it provides a link with the past and reinforces a sense of identity.

    This is not just nostalgia. The built environment plays a big part in creating community and pride. And the growth in the membership of English Heritage, up from 80,000 members in 1986 to over 300,000 now, demonstrates that rather clearly.

    This morning, I want to pay tribute not just to English Heritage, but also to all those individuals who devote their time, their money, and their energy to conservation. Over years, the vast majority of historic buildings and monuments have been preserved by private owners. Most of them remain in private hands. The pleasure of owning historic buildings comes with an in-built duty to care for them. Around the country thousands of families take pride in fulfilling this duty.

    English Heritage and others don’t just produce social benefits. They produce significant economic benefits too. 37 per cent of overseas visitors cited historic buildings and monuments as important factors in their decision to visit Britain. Since 1982, when we published the White Paper that led to the formation of English Heritage, visits to historic properties have increased by 24 per cent. Historic buildings provide 20,000 paid jobs in the England. When you consider that the tourist industry is worth £33 billion a year, 5 per cent of our GDP, you begin to comprehend the immense value of our built heritage.

    THE LOTTERY

    But preserving it isn’t cheap. Happily, today we are on the verge of one of the most important steps forward ever in providing resources for improving our Heritage. I refer to the National Lottery which will inject substantial extra funds into the Heritage, the Arts and Sport. It will provide also a valuable new form of support for charities. And it will unleash a wave of creativity for projects to mark the Millennium. These extra funds are now perhaps only ten months away. Anyone who has ever burned with the desire to change the face of their town, their village or the whole country will have a chance do so. And I hope and believe many people will take advantage of this opportunity with enthusiasm and originality.

    Getting this far hasn’t been easy. The history of public lotteries in this country is – to be as polite as possible – colourful. The Director-General of OFLOT would have a fit if he had to investigate the standards of probity and security that obtained in Georgian and Victorian lotteries. Thankfully, times have changed – and I believe we have set up a system that is safe, fair, honest and popular.

    The resources created by the Lottery will unlock the door to a higher quality of life for millions of people, irrespective of income and without extra taxation. This is not a peripheral matter, it is central to the continued health of our society: to the successful transmission of civilised values down the generations. I am keen to ensure – as far as possible – that far more of our citizens have access to those intangible good things of life.

    The general guidelines the Government have issued make clear that the Lottery will fund mainly capital projects carrying an element of partnership funding. We have found in other fields, notably urban regeneration, that asking bidders to find private sector partners willing to put up money injects a degree of realism into ideas which make them ultimately much more successful. I hope that the attraction of partnership funding from a wide range of sources will bring the same disciplines to Lottery projects.

    The guidelines also make the important points that projects must benefit primarily the public good rather than private gain, and must be financially viable. On the Government’s side – Treasury, please note – we will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money raised by the Lottery will not replace existing Government spending. It will enable the funding of projects which will make a lasting contribution to various aspects of our national heritage.

    So let me set out how the Lottery will help. I am sure that our hosts today, English Heritage, are not short of ideas. Let’s take the built Heritage as an example of the transformation that will take place. I have always been acutely aware that the built heritage is one of the defining characteristics of this country; as much as our fields, rivers, and landscape, our cathedrals, castles, great houses, and even commercial and domestic buildings reveal the essence of what we are.

    I believe also that my enthusiasm for the Lottery will be shared by the British people. Millions of people will participate every week. Thousands of jobs are being created. The combination of millionaire winners and huge benefits to good causes is immensely attractive. And the projected money that will be made available to the good causes is genuinely spectacular.

    The best estimate is that between this year and 2001, around £9 billion will go to the good causes: that is, over the next 6 years, roughly an extra £1.8 billion for each of five good causes;

    – the existing heritage

    – sport and arts – the living heritage

    – charities

    -and the Millennium Fund which will be both built and living heritages. These are huge sums that dwarf existing resources. I don’t believe the scale of what is likely is yet appreciated but it soon will be. And this extra funding should revolutionise provision in areas of immense importance to our quality of life.

    DISTRIBUTION

    Each of the five areas could receive £320 million a year when the Lottery is fully up and running. Let me emphasise: that money will not be under Government control. The distributing bodies will decide where the funds are spent. Departments will not have a role in assessing the individual applications for Lottery funding. On the Millennium Commission Ministers are, quite deliberately, in a minority. This independence is vital for the success of the Lottery. Each and every one of us can take pride in the visible improvements the Lottery will bring about.

    We can be genuinely excited at the sheer size of the sums that will be made available. Many in this audience will have been affected at various times by the hard pounding of the annual public spending round. I have myself at various times worn the Chief Secretary’s black hat, the spending minister’s white hat, and more recently the umpire’s white coat – and we all know that the umpire’s decision is correct – and final.

    What I have learned in every one of these positions is that the prospect of extra hundreds of millions of pounds for heritage or the arts and sport would be sheer fantasy from mainstream public spending. Whether the public finances are in surplus or in deficit there will always be pressure from the bigger programmes: from health, social security, law and order, and defence. These pressures are immense – and they invariably swamp the demands of those areas which will benefit from the Lottery, however essential many of us regard the needs of the heritage, and culture.

    I strongly believe man cannot live by GDP alone. A rounded life involves much more than economic security. A country can only be strong, healthy, and contented if it burnishes its heritage, encourages its citizens to pursue excellence in sport, and cultivates widespread appreciation of the arts. I would like to see everyone in this country share in the opportunities that were once available only to the privileged few.

    That means not just jobs, decent healthcare, and a good education, but other less tangible advantages. The chance to appreciate great art or great music, even if it is not part of the normal background to your early life. The ability to absorb the living history of our great buildings, and the poetry of the many British landscapes. The opportunity to test your physical abilities to the limit through sport. And the chance to contribute to the wider community through voluntary and charitable work. I am determined that the Lottery will make it possible for millions more to enjoy a fuller life.

    It was in that spirit that I set up the Department of National Heritage. Its creation was a sign that Government should take such activities seriously. For millions of people, they are not optional extras, they are worth valuing in their own right. DNH is, I believe, more than a Ministry of Culture, more than a Ministry of Fun. It is a permanent statement that Government regards the activities which people choose to do as highly as those which they have to do. In as much as Government can help, and that itself is a source of fruitful debate, Government will help.

    HOW THE GOOD CAUSES WILL BE TRANSFORMED

    The arrival of the Lottery is a sign that I wish to ensure that Britain’s artists and sports men and sportswomen don’t suffer second class facilities. There will always be a place for brilliant work done on a shoe-string. But the Lottery will mean that it is less likely that this will be the only option, or even the most likely option.

    English Heritage, and many other bodies, already do a magnificent job in preserving the best of the past for future generations, and ensuring that contemporary building will also leave a positive mark. The extra funds that will flow from the Lottery will enable such bodies to extend dramatically the range and effectiveness of their work. For instance, the Brighton West Pier is entirely beyond the existing EH budget, but could be the type of project which attracts Lottery Funds. Completing the restoration of the Crescent in Buxton could be an ideal example of public/private co-operation. All these choices are not for me – how and whether to apply for funding is for English Heritage. It will be a great challenge for Jocelyn Stevens and his colleagues. But I know it is a challenge which they are delighted to meet.

    MILLENNIUM COMMISSION

    The heritage will undoubtedly have an important contribution to make to the Millennium celebrations. And so far, in discussions of the Lottery, many people have focused on the work of the Millennium Commission. Those of us who regard it as part of our job to receive helpful, if unsolicited, advice from all sides are developing a degree of sympathy with the Commissioners. Never have so many advised so few about so much. And it will get worse. But since the Commission is a fiercely independent body, and will remain so, I do not regard myself as in any way disqualified from adding to their burden.

    Marking the Millennium in an appropriate way is a difficult enough task, not least because none of us has had much practice. The ecclesiastical historians tell us that at the end of the first Millennium people all over Europe abandoned their homes in terror and ran into the fields, thinking it was the end of the world. At least the Millennium Commission has not provoked that sort of response – yet. Although, these days I suppose, anything is possible.

    What it has provoked is an enormous outpouring of ideas from all areas. Opera houses, art galleries, sports facilities, exhibition centres, computer networks; all have their advocates, and all, no doubt, have an excellent case. What I would like to do today is to appeal for a national outbreak of lateral thinking. As well as conventional ideas I hope that we can come up with some unusual and original projects which are worthy of Millennium Funding. Potential applicants should range widely in their thinking. Perhaps we should be considering engineering and construction projects, or ways to help the environment and wildlife.

    Applicants can also draw inspiration from similar projects in the past. Many have marvelled at the Eiffel Tower and the Sydney Opera House, and the pavilion created for the Seville Expo.

    In our own country, we can draw inspiration from the great cathedrals, and public buildings such as the Houses of Parliament and the Inns of Court. We created the Crystal Palace in a previous outburst of celebration. Our best architects have always found commissions across the board. The great Victorian pavilion at Lords was designed by the same architect who designed the Criterion Theatre. This summer, the new opera house at

    Glyndebourne was unveiled – designed by the same architects who gave us the Mound Stand at Lords. I can’t think why these cricketing comparisons come so easily to me.

    These combinations of the best of our built heritage with some of the best of our living heritage illustrate that heritage isn’t a backward-looking concept. We are constantly creating tomorrow’s heritage, and we must always be aware of the permanent effects of our daily decisions. Clearing a pond, creating a bird sanctuary, improving and opening up a garden: all of these will provide enjoyment for future generations.

    So for the Millennium Fund we might also consider projects with a humanitarian aim – or what about the provision of new technology in local communities? Every village hall with its own computers. There could be educational projects. Now is the time to let all our imaginations run free.

    MILLENNIUM BURSARIES

    One area where many individuals will have imaginative proposals is for bursaries. I am delighted that the Millennium Commission is considering the scope of a Millennium Bursaries Scheme. This could involve the spending of some tens of millions of pounds. I can’t emphasise too strongly how important this idea will be in spreading the benefits of the Lottery, and engaging individuals in the whole Millennium project. The bursaries will be a means of fulfilling personal aspirations for the future and broadening the body of knowledge we carry forward to the 21st century. They can be educational in the broadest sense, perhaps including research projects to act as exemplars in the scientific or environmental fields. New ideas could be developed which could act as a model for others to take forward. Chairs could be endowed at universities in subject areas which will contribute to the quality of life for everyone in the third Millennium. The bursaries could encourage voluntary activity, or could release individual talent and expertise to the benefit of the wider community.

    Perhaps some bursaries could allow training in unusual skills and crafts which could be passed on to others. They should not be restricted to any age group; I am sure the elderly will have as much to gain, and as much to contribute, as the young. I know the Commission will be considering how to reflect the millennial factor in the awards they make, and are looking to make a lasting contribution to learning, participation or enlightenment. This is one of their many vital tasks, and I wish them well in it.

    LOCAL MILLENNIUM PROJECTS

    The Commission is also thinking of spending more than £500 million, on current projections, to support projects which will be of specific local benefit. These projects will give the opportunity to develop partnership contributions in kind, with whole communities contributing time, energy and resources in support of millennium proposals.

    Some of these may be one-off capital schemes, or Millennium initiatives with a universal theme, such as the “greening of Britain”. They include aspects of urban renewal, such as proposals to transform city centres into public spaces where people can easily meet, shop, eat and drink, and participate in cultural and sporting activities. Attention could also be paid to the rural environment through projects to protect or improve different types of landscape in which wildlife can flourish.

    Again, the only limits are those imposed by our own imaginations. A new village hall or playing field can be as vital a signal of national revival as world class cultural centres in big metropolitan areas. With the Lottery, we can aspire to both.

    CONCLUSION

    I am determined, as I am sure all of you are, to eradicate the lingering feeling that we are continually falling behind. It has become part of conventional wisdom that after great and heroic efforts in the Second World War Britain was exhausted and unable to keep up. This has always been a simplistic and in some areas simply wrong-headed view. Our cultural activities in many areas are world class. London serves theatre and concert goers better than any other city in the world. No other country can aspire to the glories of our buildings. The honourable tradition of private sponsorship, made famous by Soane and Tate, has continued through the names of Clore and Sainsbury. Who else has festivals as good as the Proms, or Edinburgh? Who else has a broadcaster with the range and worldwide respect of the BBC?

    My message today is that we can make things even better. The Lottery gives us the biggest chance anyone has ever had of making a significant, permanent difference. I am sure that this is a vision which will stir the hearts of many, whatever their background, age, or interests. Every man and woman in this country can be a direct beneficiary. Not just the great and the good. There will be local transformations, as well as international prestige projects. Your own particular field of the Heritage will be just one of the good causes which will find its funding completely transformed. We are at the beginning of a period which can be uniquely exciting for all those of us who care deeply about the long-term quality of life in this country. I hope the whole British people will share in the excitement, and the ultimate benefits, which the Lottery will bring. I know that you in English Heritage will play a full part in making sure this happens.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at English Heritage Conference – 16 September 1994

    Below is the text of the press release following Mr Major’s speech at the English Heritage Conference, held at the QEII Conference Centre in London on Friday 16th September 1994. The speech was on the subject of the National Lottery.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    THE NATIONAL LOTTERY

    In a speech opening the English Heritage Conference, the Prime Minister set out how hundreds of millions of pounds from the National Lottery would go to good causes, which would transform for the better the face of the nation and the lives of countless people.

    The National Lottery

    The Prime Minister said that “Happily we are on the verge of one of the most important steps forward ever in providing resources for improving our Heritage. I refer to the National Lottery which will inject significant extra funds into the Heritage, the Arts and Sport. It will provide also a valuable new form of support for charities. And it will unleash a wave of creativity for projects to mark the Millennium. These funds are now perhaps only ten months away.”

    “The resources created by the Lottery will unlock the door to a higher quality of life for millions of people, irrespective of income and without extra taxation.”

    The Prime Minister explained that “the Lottery will fund mainly capital projects carrying an element of partnership funding … projects must benefit primarily the public good rather than private gain, and must be financially viable. On the Government’s side – Treasury, please note – we will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money raised by the Lottery will not replace existing Government spending.”

    The Prime Minister believed that his enthusiasm for the Lottery would be shared by the British people. “Millions of people will participate every week. Thousands of jobs are being created. The combination of millionaire winners and huge benefits to good causes is immensely attractive. And the projected money that will be made available to the good causes is genuinely spectacular.”

    “The best estimate is that between this year and 2001, around £9 billion will go to the good causes: that is, over the next 6 years, roughly an extra £1.8 billion for each of the five good causes –

    – the existing heritage

    – sport and arts

    – the living heritage

    – charities

    and the Millennium Fund, which will be both built and living heritages.”

    “Each of the five areas could receive £320 million a year when the Lottery is fully up and running. Let me emphasise: that money will not be under Government control. The distributing bodies will decide where the funds are spent. Departments will not have a role in assessing the individual applications for Lottery funding. On the Millennium Commission, Ministers are, quite deliberately, in a minority. This independence is vital for the success of the Lottery. Each and every one of us can take pride in the visible improvements the Lottery will bring about.”

    The Prime Minister continued that “I strongly believe man cannot live by GDP alone … I would like to see everyone in this country share in the opportunities that were once available only to the privileged few … I am determined that the Lottery will make it possible for millions more to enjoy a fuller life.”

    Millennium Commission

    The Prime Minister said that, to mark the Millennium, the Millennium Commission had received “an enormous outpouring of ideas from all areas. Opera houses, art galleries, sports facilities, exhibition centres, computer networks; all have their advocates … I hope that we can come up with some unusual and original projects … Potential applicants should range as widely in their thinking. Perhaps we should be considering engineering and construction projects, or ways to help the environment and wildlife … We might also consider projects with a humanitarian aim or what about the provision of new technology in local communities? Every village hall could have its own computers. There could be educational projects. Now is the time to let all our imaginations run free.”

    Millennium Bursaries

    “I am delighted that the Millennium Commission is considering the scope of a Millennium Bursaries Scheme. This could involve the spending of some tens of millions of pounds. I cannot emphasise too strongly how important this idea will be in spreading the benefits of the Lottery, and engaging individuals in the whole Millennium project. The bursaries will be a means of fulfilling personal aspirations for the future and broadening the body of knowledge we carry forward to the 21st century. They can be educational in the broadest sense, perhaps including research projects to act as exemplars in the scientific or environmental fields. New ideas could be developed which could act as a model for others to take forward. Chairs could be endowed at universities in subject areas which will contribute to the quality of life for everyone in the third Millennium.”

    Local Millennium Projects

    “The Commission is also thinking of spending more than £500 million, on current projections, to support projects which will be of specific local benefit. These projects will give the opportunity to develop partnership contributions in kind, with whole communities contributing time, energy and resources in support of Millennium proposals.”

    “Again, the only limits are those imposed by our own imaginations. A new village hall or playing field can be as vital a signal of national renewal as world class cultural centres in big metropolitan areas. With the Lottery, we can aspire to both.”

    Conclusion

    The Prime Minister concluded by saying that “the Lottery gives us the biggest chance anyone has ever had of making a significant permanent difference. I am sure that this is a vision which will stir the hearts of many, whatever their background, age, or interests. Every man and woman in this country can be a direct beneficiary. Not just the great and the good … We are at the beginning of a period which can be uniquely exciting for all those of us who care deeply about the long-term quality of life in this country. I hope the whole British people will share in the excitement, and the ultimate benefits, which the Lottery will bring.”

     

    Notes to Editors

    1. The Director General of the National Lottery announced on 25 May that the Camelot Group plc had been selected to run the National Lottery. Camelot aim to launch the National Lottery in November. With an estimated annual turnover rising to £5.5 billion, the National Lottery is set to become the biggest lottery in the world.
    2. Net proceeds from the Lottery will be distributed equally among the arts, sport, the national heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund. In its peak year, the lottery is expected to raise £1.6 billion for these good causes – £320 million each. Over the seven years of the licence, Camelot estimate that £9 billion will be raised for the five good causes.
    3. The money for the good causes will be directed primarily at capital projects which have an element of partnership funding and where all associated short term revenue costs are covered. Projects should also be for the public good rather than primarily private gain.
    4. The Millennium Fund will finance major projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the new Millennium. The members of the Millennium Commission, who will decide which projects to finance, are:

    The Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP – Chairman Professor Heather Couper FRAS

    The Earl of Dalkeith DL

    The Hon. Robin Dixon CBE

    Sir John Hall

    The Rt Hon Michael Heseltine MP

    Simon Jenkins Esq

    Michael Montague Esq CBE

    Miss Patricia Scotland QC

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Jacques Santer – 14 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the European Commission President-Designate, Jacques Santer, in London on Wednesday 14th September 1994.

    JACQUES SANTER:

    I was very pleased in my function as designate-president of the Commission of the European Union to see the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, John Major, on my trip through the capitals, coming from Dublin; before I was in Madrid, Rome and Lisbon and we had very good talks about the constitution of the Commission and we had also the opportunity to discuss some common subjects about the forthcoming European Union, about the procedures and the institution of procedures and also the intergovernmental conference of 1996 and so on. We had a very constructive and for me at least a very useful discussion and in my view it is very important that as the upcoming President of the Commission I hear all the opinions of the members of the European Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is very little, frankly, to add to that. I have been delighted to welcome the President here today. As he said, we have ranged fairly widely, looking at what might be in the IGC, very much in its preliminary stages of course at the moment; to look at the way in which we think Europe might develop to the east; to discuss the composition of the European Commission; and to look at a number of matters related to common foreign and security policy and defence policy in the future so I think it has been a very fruitful discussion and we have agreed that we will meet at regular intervals to continue it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you are taking over at a time when there is a debate going on about the future structure of the Union. Do you see a future for a Union which has a hard core in the centre, what some people see as a two-tier Union?

    M. SANTER:

    I am very fond of all the discussions you can have about the future of Europe. I think that everybody can bring in a paper and we have to discuss it. I think that is very useful also that we have to discuss it in the future.

    As the forthcoming President for the European Commission, I cannot deal at this moment with all the papers coming up and with all the Opinions made by the European Union but I think as we made it up also for the Treaty of Maastricht and for the Treaty of the European Union we have to reach the objectives and to be a Union of 12 member states and we have to reach this objective of 12 and even the intergovernmental conference of 1996 has to reach agreement at 12 or 16; after the referenda in some of the Scandinavian countries, we have to reach 12 or 16 member states so we try and I am trying as forthcoming President of the Commission to reach agreement by all the member states. I think it is very important that all the member states can reach the targets, the objectives, that we have been trying to.

    QUESTION:

    Is it your personal view that one of those objectives should be and will be a single currency for Europe?

    M. SANTER:

    I think we reached an agreement about economic and monetary union, Inside the Treaty of Maastricht we made the steps and the stages and of course also established the criteria that each country has to reach before they could pass to the third stage and in this view I think the Treaty of Maastricht would be operational in itself. It is not my opinion to change the Treaty of Maastricht belonging to the economic and monetary union.

    QUESTION:

    But you would support the objective in that treaty of a single currency?

    M. SANTER:

    Of course.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you believe that the IGC in 1996 will be the be-all and end-all of this debate or is it just a staging post along the way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the IGC of 1996 has anything to do with a single currency and I will be very surprised indeed if a single currency is part of the debate in 1996. That debate was had at Maastricht, a view was expressed by various people, we have expressed our view and at some stage in the future people will make a judgement about whether that can proceed or not but that is not a matter that is going to be particularly on the table in 1996. Many people misunderstand that but I don’t think that is going to be materially on the table then. What people are going to be at are other institutional matters and the development of course of the Community to the east, the enlargement of the development and what that means for the institutions of the Community, that perhaps and the development of common foreign and security policy and defence.

    QUESTION:

    And on the issue of a hard core which has been raised in Germany?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know my view about the issue of a hard core. It depends what you mean by the issue of a hard core. If you mean the issue of a hard core that lays down precisely how the rest of the Community go, goes there and expects the rest of the Community to follow it, then I think that will be destructive and I set out my views on that very clearly at Leiden a few days ago.

    QUESTION (Hugh Pym – ITN):

    If I could switch to a more domestic matter, the unemployment and inflation figures this morning, do you feel they might suggest that the interest rate rise on Monday was unnecessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think that. I was delighted to see the further fall in unemployment; it has been falling for a long time; we are down now to 9.2%, that is far higher than I would like to see it but there has been a very great improvement and I think people are very pleased about that but one of the things to sustain employment in the future is to ensure that we have low inflation in the future, one of the things that will make us competitive with other countries not just in Europe and elsewhere is to make sure our inflation is as low as theirs.

    What concerns me and has concerned the Chancellor is that over many years in the post-War period inflation has gone down but it hasn’t been held down, it has gone down and it has gone up. What we are determined to do in the interests of keeping people in jobs, keeping Britain competitive is to make sure that we keep inflation within our target range of between 1 and 4% and round about the middle and lower half of that by the end of this Parliament so we are looking at the pressures that might emerge in the future and taking action to ensure that those pressures don’t damage people’s jobs and people’s prosperity.

    QUESTION:

    And would you agree if necessary interest rates would have to go up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am never going to speculate on which direction interest rates may go. It isn’t a one-way stream ever, you have to look at the conditions that apply and see what monetary policy is appropriate to contain inflation. We are serious about making sure we keep inflation under control. I have never made any secret about my passionate belief that we have to do that if we are to make sure that our economy progressively gets stronger and people’s employment gets progressively more secure and towards the end of last week the decision was made that it would be appropriate to have a small change at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    On one other subject, in a court case today, the Rachel Nickell case, there have been severe criticisms of the police handling because the accused has been allowed to walk free. Do you have any view on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the reports yet, I may comment when I have seen them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you very briefly about Ireland? There is criticism today from the Republican prisoners who are suggesting that perhaps you and the British Government are dragging your feet over the IRA ceasefire.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The IRA were conducting intolerable outrages for twenty-five years. I hope they have now given up those outrages for good, they certainly seem to be indicating that, they haven’t expressly yet said so, I hope they will expressly say so but we have made a great deal of progress. The Downing Street Declaration isolated the IRA, it isolated them in the opinion of the world and in the opinion of many other people and it has brought them to the position of a ceasefire. I hope we can build on that but we will build on that in a way that will be secure and I will do that at the time I think it is appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Social Market Foundation – 9 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Social Market Foundation, held in London on Friday 9th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Robert, simply to put your mind at rest, yes I have certainly used the phrase “social market economy”, but as you rightly say that is not the subject of the remarks I wish to make to you today.

    Over the last few years one thing that has become absolutely constant in the minds of most of the electorate that I talk to is their concern over crime, not just in the last year or two, but certainly throughout the 15 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and I suspect for many years before that, it ebbs and flows in the depth and strength of concern, but it is a consistent concern and I think it is easy to see precisely why that should be.

    We all have ambitions for ourselves, for our neighbours, for communities, we would like them to be safe, to be secure, to be prosperous, like them to be free of crime and safe for the vulnerable and for children.

    It is for that reason that since 1990 I have sought to keep the fight against crime high on the government’s list of priorities. Four years now have passed. I would like to take the opportunity today to take stock of the progress we have made and set out perhaps some of our plans for the future.

    Many of the strands of policy that we have developed since 1990 are now beginning to come together. It is a fallacy that you set out a policy one day and a thing emerges in completely mature form within a matter of the next few weeks, so often that is not the case. I believe now that we are beginning to see a series of events coming together that will have a material effect, a beneficial effect, in the general community fight against the level of criminality we all face.

    I have never accepted, as some occasionally appear to do, that increasing crime figures are an inescapable feature of modern life. And I believe today we can begin to feel a little more optimistic, though certainly not complacent. Events are showing that we can turn the tide against crime, we can begin to have confidence in what too often has been a province of despair.

    We should of course keep a sense of proportion. Of course there are appalling crimes which seize the headlines and shake the national consciousness. But overall this is a safer country than most, more civilised and more secure. And yet despite that, when I talk to people I sense that the fear of crime is greater than I personally can remember and my message today to those people is that we can beat crime.

    The fact is that recorded crime actually fell last year, the falling number of insurance claims for thefts and burglaries begins to say the same story. Many Police Chiefs are now more optimistic that this hopeful trend will continue. And when we put that in an historical context, that trend is all the more striking because crimes of all sorts have been rising steadily since the 1950s, in times of boom, in times of slump, they have been steadily rising. And not just here but in other countries across Europe as well. So although we have to treat the encouraging figures we have seen with caution, I think we are right to be encouraged by them because there are other encouraging signs as well.

    Throughout the 1980s we put substantial extra resources into fighting crime. The largest prison building programme since Victorian times has seen 21 prisons open since 1985; we have recruited more police; we have rewarded police officers more generously for the work that they do; we now have record staffing levels in police forces and we must keep it that way and use those record staffing levels to best effect. That investment in the 1980s was costly, but undoubtedly it was right and I believe we can be grateful for it today.

    And yet with all that effort crime went on rising, resources alone could not deal with the problem that existed. Equally important of course is how those resources are applied. And in addition to that, equally important, is the climate in which the police and the criminal justice system have to operate. From the 1960s onwards that climate of opinion has not always been supportive, it should have been but it has not been.

    A primary responsibility of any government at home is to take action to prevent people suffering from crime, we seek to protect then. And one of the first duties of the citizen is to obey the law and support those who uphold it, and that guarantee of law and order is essential to the British way of life, it is a basic element in any civilised society, and yet the philosophy of the last 30 years has manifestly failed to contain the rise in crime.

    In 1990 I concluded that we needed a new resolve, a revolution in attitudes, reforms to add to the power and effectiveness of the courts and of the police, and fresh thinking about some of the free and easy assumptions that have lain behind criminal justice policy for over a generation.

    Those were the objectives I set in 1990 – changes in attitudes, changes in policing and changes to strengthen the criminal justice system. Let me this morning take each of those changes in turn.

    Many perhaps will be surprised that I included a change of attitude as an objective, but I did it deliberately. The vast majority of people in this country would like to fight back against crime, to contribute to improving the safety of their streets, the protection of their children and the stability of their homes. They want to see blame for the bad and praise for the good, to rebuild respect for authority, to see responsibility rewarded and encouraged, they want less derision of decent social values, more support for those who contribute to our community and rather less for those who offend against it. They want communities where the streets are safe for the law abiding and not threatening for the vulnerable, they want to clamp down on all those who make some of our streets a frightening place to be, and that is true whether it is the professional drug dealer or the aggressive lout who makes life so uncomfortable for so many people.

    The boundaries of acceptable behaviour shift invisibly, but as they shift they change lives. It is not these days the big armed robberies that keep older people away from the city centres where they grew up, it is the fear they might be jostled, jeered at, made to feel insecure by rowdy or by offensive behaviour, and that minor crime – as some would see it – can have huge social consequences and make a dramatic impact in the quality of life for many vulnerable people and we need to face up to that particular problem.

    People rightly deplore in this country elements of what could be called a yob culture. Well let us set ourselves an objective to chance it, make a real national effort to build an anti-yob culture. No-one should pretend for a moment that this can be done just by politicians, legislation has a role but it also has its limitations. Parliament needs cooperation and no-one in any form of authority can afford to be a bystander if we are to win this particular battle. We need every parent, every teacher instilling standards of self-discipline and respect for others in our children, we need more Councils using new powers now available, like the by-law pioneered in Coventry against excessive drinking in public, to date 21 other Councils have gone down this route and others may follow. We need magistrates, using the powers they now have, to give the kind of tough sentence that some of these petty offences deserve. Many other examples could be given.

    All of us, without exception, can show by our attitude and by our example that we condemn and we reject loutishness, vandalism and crime, that we resent the mindless graffiti artists who deface our public places. Too often we have excused crime, patronising people as if nothing better could be expected of them. Too often we have allowed youngsters to slip further into bad habits condoning or repeatedly cautioning their offences when early action could have set a better path. Often it is right to say ‘No’, and to say ‘No’ both firmly and early, and I hope increasingly we will do precisely that.

    I believe that the right social attitudes will help to turn the tide against petty criminality across the next decades. But we also need to direct crime prevention measures now to make life hard for those who have turned to crime. And if we are to win that battle, I reiterate, it cannot just be done by legislation, it cannot just be done by legislation and the police, if we are to win that battle we must build a huge national partnership against the criminal in every city and county, every workplace, every school and every home, and partnership must be a key element in our crime prevention strategy.

    And that is why Michael Howard’s Partnership Initiative, to be launched later this month, will prove to be so important. Neighbourhood Watch offers already an excellent example. But the horizons of partnership need to be expanded. All over the country communities will have the opportunity to benefit from the security and the hope which this kind of action will bring. The aggregate of many small initiatives is an effective anti-crime strategy as a whole, and one way in which partnership can make a difference, it is one of many, is through the involvement of special constables. It is worth illustrating this to make the point. In the past most special constables have been required to undertake duties anywhere in their force area, but in some parts of the country specials are now being deployed to work exclusively in their own neighbourhood. In Cornwall a number of villages now have their own special constable who regularly patrols the village on foot and turns out for community events, and people do find this reassuring and I believe it is an area which may well extend to very substantial benefit.

    This Partnership Initiative, this new initiative, will extend the opportunity for people to serve their own community in this and in other ways. They will be able, if they wish, to serve only their own neighbourhood or immediate community. Schools must help, they have an important role by providing a disciplined environment and taking a strong line on truancy. To put it at its simplest, if children are in a class learning grammar they are not cut in the street learning crime. They can also help by offering competitive team sports, keeping youngsters active, learning to play by the rules and to lose as well as win, it helps build the sort of attitude and character that personally I believe is so important in later life and I believe we need to re-instil it by every means we can.

    Councils, designers, developers, can all play their own part, play their part by planning out crime – good lighting to expose the vandal and the mugger, strong locks to keep out burglars, roadside barriers to block ramraiders. Simple things perhaps, but they are the type of things promoted in our recent planning guidance and supported with growing success by the Safer Cities Programme, they are obvious but they are effective and we wish to see them introduced more widely.

    Car manufactures too can help to get to grips with the scourge of car crime, backing up the tougher penalties we now have for the thieves themselves. We are working hard for agreement in Brussels on high standards of alarm systems, door and steering wheel locks and immobilisers. Some car firms already have them, it would be helpful if all of them did. And I am glad to see moves within the insurance industry to lower the premiums for protected cars.

    So there is a big programme of sensible, in some cases low key, crime prevention already in hand. Some of the steps may seem small individually, but if you put the pieces of that jigsaw together they can change attitudes and they do cut down on crime.

    Modern science has a role to play as well and that is why we are giving the police more access to close circuit television, better information technology and DNA testing. Up-to-date methods like these will enable the police to stay ahead of the would-be offender. They help deter crime in the first place but if it is committed they help them catch the criminal.

    I would like to see if we can go further, so we are now looking at the practicalities of photo driving licenses, smart card technology and the likely value of identity cards. I know there are concerns expressed by some about civil liberties and it is right that we should consider these issues very carefully, and I promise that we will, but to my mind anything that can check crime and cut fraud must be worth careful examination, for above all it is crime, and the fear of crime, that most violates our civil liberties.

    Chairman, no single crime prevention measure would be more significant than success on the front against drugs. Last year there were 28,000 notified drug addicts, up 13 percent; there were 11,600 new addicts, up 20 percent; in 1992 there were 72,000 seizures of illegal drugs by police and Customs, up 3 percent; and in the same year there were 1,300 drug related deaths in England and Wales, up by 8 percent.

    Startling statistics, but those statistics tell only part of the story. Drug taking wrecks lives, but drug trafficking has spawned a vicious breed of criminal. So far this year there have already been 4 murders and 12 attempted murders in London alone connected to crack. Dealers and traffickers thrive on theft and violence to support their trade, much petty crime is also drug related as people seek cash to fuel their habit.

    I have already agreed an international drive on drugs at the European Council in Corfu and the Economic Summit in Naples. I pressed our partners hard to improve coordination in an international fight against drugs. One result will be that we will draw in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in that battle, essential given the huge new source of drugs and crime that the former Soviet bloc has created. Another will be more cross-border action by Europol, the new European Police Agency which we must get up and running as soon as we can.

    The world’s drug barons have their own perspective of Europe, to them Europe is a lucrative market and enough cocaine has been seized in the European Union so far this year to provide 24 million individual doses of cocaine. We must not lose that particular battle against the drug dealers and so we will use, wherever possible, the powers that many governments have taken to confiscate the assets of those behind the international traffic in drugs.

    But we also need more comprehensive action here at home. Tony Newton will shortly be publishing the results of his review of our policy, it is not ready yet, but I can tell you today that it will include a three year action plan and a new drug strategy. And let me make one thing clear at the outset, there will be no question of legalising any drug. I know some people make a case for legalising some soft drugs but frankly I do not agree with it, I believe there is too great a risk that experimentation with soft drugs is the first step towards dependence on hard drugs. There will be a new emphasis on education and prevention designed to reduce the acceptability and availability of drugs to young and increase the safety of every community from drug-related crime. We will be stepping up the campaign against drugs in schools. Schools must be havens of learning and opportunity, not the place where children get their first introduction to crime. So we will be putting more money into guidance on drug prevention to help make sure that every child understands the dangers of using drugs. And we are asking our independent school inspectors to do more to spread the lesson of how to stop drug abuse in schools.

    At the time tougher enforcement action will be taken on the streets. I mean the kind of action that we have seen in Kings Cross which shows that the dealers can be taken off. We want police forces everywhere to put the fight against drugs on their list for priority action, the public need to know that their local police force will be giving very high priority to the nationwide war on drugs.

    There will also be a major blitz on drugs in prisons. I prefer people to come out of prison reformed, not sucked into a sub-culture of drugs. We need to choke off the supply of drugs that still get into prisons so there will be improved perimeter patrolling, more thorough searching of inmates and better supervision of domestic visits which are the main source of drugs entering prison at present. New powers in the Criminal Justice Bill will allow compulsory drugs testing of inmates.

    And another component of the strategy will be that the treatment of drug addicts will be improved, with better access to drug services right across the country. And special attention will be paid to the needs of young people and their families, for few things are more tragic than the spectacle of young babies born with an inherited addiction to drugs.

    Finally, we have agreed to renew funding for the government’s drug prevention initiative. It is an imaginative scheme which works at the grass roots of society and focuses on young people, it puts in small specialised teams to work alongside local communities up and down the country. The teams will now expand their areas of operation, increasing coverage from 6 million people to 16 million people, and this will help spread the kind of work being done for example by Notts County Football Club and the Professional Footballers Association to draw youngsters into football training schemes and away from the temptation of drugs.

    All in all, the initiative that Tony Newton will be introducing will be the most comprehensive strategy to tackle the drugs problem that this country has seen, that that strategy will be the start and not the finish, the battle against drugs is one that we simply cannot afford to lose.

    Mr. Chairman, changing attitudes to crime in general and drugs in particular is one of the three main aims of our strategy. The old proverb is right, prevention is better than cure, yet not even in the Garden of Eden could all crime be prevented and that is why I have been equally keen to see ever more effective policing. Of course, not all criminals, sadly, are going to be caught but in common with our chief constables I believe that many more criminals could be caught and many more are being caught thanks new approaches as policing changes in the 1990s.

    A successful police service is central to everything we are trying to do against crime; that is why we put more policemen on the streets; it is why we have let them have the equipment they need, not just the technology I have mentioned but practical weapons like the new batons for the beat constable; but we don’t in this country have a paramilitary police force and I would not myself wish to see one. We have a citizen police force and I believe that is one of its greatest strengths. They don’t go back to the barracks at the end of a tough day, they go home to the flat next door, they are ordinary men and women of a rather extraordinary quality.

    The police force grows out of and is part of our community so I hope we will see less portraying of the police as if they are a force apart – they are not. Our police force needs and deserves public trust and public esteem, it is doing I believe a great deal to earn it. Wherever a wedge is driven between public and the police, only the criminal gains and the rest of us lose. The more successful the police are in combating crime, the more they will be respected; times change, crimes change, so too must the approach that the police take and that is why we have been making the most structural and functional changes in the police service which have been so widely debated in the last year or so. I know that changes of this kind are always a cause of concern but I am confident that the police will rise to the challenges and opportunities they have from the reform package that we have placed before Parliament.

    Our reforms are there to ensure that we get the very best out of the 5 billion pounds a year of taxpayers’ money that we spend on policing in England and Wales. They give more power to police authorities and to chief constables and they do so so that they can use their resources flexibly and maximise their effect in the fight against crime. They will encourage a more responsive service, people will be able to feed in views on what they want the police to focus on in their particular area and people from every walk of life, not just councillors and magistrates, will be able to contribute to the fight against crime as members of police authorities. There will be clear strategic objectives for the police, fewer petty controls, fewer unnecessary management tiers and less paperwork, freeing up officers for the sort of duties that they entered the service to perform.

    Crime-fighting is what the police do best and that is where we need them most. Of course, they will still help elderly people across the road and offer leadership in youth clubs up and down the land but what we are seeing today more and more clearly is how effective the police can be with clear targets and a freer rein.

    If you take burglary, for instance, the illustration is quite clear. I have always seen burglary as a key target and I remember some years ago rejecting the idea that there was any such concept as property crime which was expressed as though it was something slightly less serious. Well tell that to the widow or the other vulnerable person whose home has been robbed and their mementos destroyed! I don’t think they regard that as a petty crime and I don’t believe we should either.

    Police chiefs told me they thought they could tackle these villains but somehow the idea had taken hold that it didn’t matter so much, that it couldn’t be solved, it was scarcely worth taking the fingerprints or visiting the scene of the burglary but now the police have shown in a very clear fashion precisely how wrongheaded such defeatism is. Many of you I suspect will know of the Met’s “Operation Bumblebee”. By targeting and surveillance of a hard core of burglars, they have cut residential burglaries in London by 16% in just one year. Two thousand people have been arrested, property worth more than a million pounds given back to those to whom it belongs. Since Bumblebee’s launch, perhaps 100,000 fewer victims have had their lives blighted and this success has given a tremendous boost to the morale of those young policemen and policewomen involved.

    But today’s burglary isn’t as once it was seen by some, isn’t just a city crime, it is increasingly a rural crime as well. Right across the rural areas of this country people have begun to see professional burglars moving out from the inner cities to what they see as softer targets in the rural areas and now, as a result, up and down the country chief constables are adopting similar approaches to Operation Bumblebee. The Sussex police launched their own in October 1993 and that proved so successful – 600 arrests for over 700 offences and £630,000 worth of stolen property recovered – that they have extended it indefinitely. Better protection for the citizen through modern policing is spreading and a very welcome reality. A further example comes from Warwickshire where Operation Claw was launched in 1993. In just two months property in excess of £100,000 was recovered and 450 people arrested.

    This is a changing attitude. It is a changing attitude that deserves the oxygen of publicity, it is a changing attitude to put the burglar on the defensive, the belief that they are more likely to be caught than once they were is a change in attitude that will encourage them to be less active than clearly they have been but Mr. Chairman, catching the criminal is of precious little value unless he receives a sentence that straightens him out and deters him in the future and that takes me to the final strand of our strategy – changing the criminal justice system itself – and that is the purpose of the legislation that we have been taking through Parliament in the last two years.

    Making changes is often controversial, sometimes I think it is invariably controversial. We have faced difficulties in Parliament and challenges outside often I have to say from those who were reluctant to see the most liberal assumptions of the last thirty years challenged but we were right to address the problems as we did and it is reasonable that everyone should now embrace those changes and help to make them work. I make no apology for taking a harder-line approach with the criminal. The criminal justice system has to give the right messages, they must be unambiguous messages that wrongdoers will be punished and victims supported. There is a place for punishment and there is a place for prison as punishment and that is the fundamental case for change and it is a case accepted not just by the British Government but by governments across Europe and in the United States.

    Over the last twenty or thirty years, the criminal justice system has tended to drift away from public opinion. There is a role for professionals and above all for the judiciary to lead but a system that does not carry confidence loses consent and there is now little or no public support for the social orthodoxies of the ’60s which still hold sway in social work training and in parts of criminology as well. The public would like to see people have a chance to get out of crime but they would also like to see those who go on offending being dealt with firmly; they want common sense policies, tough and challenging penalties for persistent young offenders, not visits to safari parks as the holiday of a lifetime; they want remand and not bail for people who risk repeating the kind of violent crimes for which they are awaiting trial in the first place.

    We need a criminal justice system from the social services right through to the judiciary that is in touch with day-to-day concerns, not academic, not out of touch, not overindulgent of deviant behaviour and not despairing about the prevention of crime or punishing the guilty. Whatever theories people come up with to establish the causes of crime, none of them can justify crime.

    Crime is a decision, it is not a disease. There isn’t an excuse for crime. Just because you are poor doesn’t mean you are likely to be criminal and just because you are rich doesn’t mean you will lead a life of virtue. The privileged may turn to crime and the most uneconomically unfortunate may be pillars of rectitude in their own community because what people often forget is that far from being perpetrators of crime, the poor are often the main victims of the criminal, they are too often the victims of repeated crime. Go on some of the worst council estates up and down our country and you will find people who have suffered most from the activities of the criminal not once, not twice but repeatedly. People who have least often suffer most from some of the criminals that we have in this country. Crime does come smashing on the door of the poor. One study found that half of those who were victims of crime had been victimised before and that they suffered 81% of all reported crime. People suffering four or more crimes a year accounted for 44% of all reported crimes. Tackling this, as the police are now trying to do, will not only cut crime, it will help the most vulnerable in our society.

    Whatever doubts I may have had about the prevailing views of the ‘60s, the ‘70s and parts of the ‘80s, l have been struck by the way the criminal justice system has now begun to reflect the changing public mood. Courts have now begun to make greater use of the range of penalties available to them; there has been a 50% increase in the proportion of cases involving 10/17 year olds where the parent is ordered to pay a fine or compensation; there has been an increased use of custody by the courts in line with the hardening of the public mood against crime. The Government’s prison-building plans are making more places available and we must make sure that the courts need not be nervous of long sentences where merited or the use of remand when they think it is right.

    The signs are that the system is now responding to the public mood and with more prison space as a result of the investment programme there need be less nervousness about long sentences or the use of remand. All parts of the criminal justice system – police, courts, magistrates, the crown prosecution service, prisons, probation, social services – need to bear public concerns in mind. We in Government must lead and Parliament where appropriate must legislate; then others must join us in carrying forward the responsibility for making sure this strategy succeeds.

    I know, going round the country, that some people are still apt to say: “What are you doing about crime?” and yet a great deal has been done since 1991 and of course the measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill have yet to take effect. I don’t intend this morning to give a great litany but let me just touch on a few of the key steps we have taken to change already the criminal justice system:

    We have cut down on the scandalous overuse of cautioning for persistent offenders; we are tightening-up on the granting of bail. How could we have got ourselves to the point where 50,000 crimes were committed last year by offenders who were out on bail before facing the courts on earlier charges? We have given new sentencing powers to the courts for violent and sexual offenders and for drunken drivers and the Attorney General has a new power to refer over-lenient sentences to the Appeal Court for fresh consideration. We are allowing the courts to take proper account of previous convictions when passing sentence and we are ending the abuse of the right to silence which has often been woefully exploited by experienced criminals, and now in our present Bill we are giving the courts tough new powers to detain juvenile offenders for a spell of up to twelve months and even following release they can expect a further twelve months under intensive supervision. I know for some those are controversial powers but I see no other way of dealing with that handful of young criminals who offend and offend and offend and offend again.

    More work is also in hand on the way those found guilty are handled. We are looking at ways of making prisoners earn their privileges and at ending the abuse of home leave. We also propose to make sure that community service is tough and is demanding; we are planning a Green Paper on community sentencing and we are revising the national standards governing them to ensure that they are. Punishment in the community can be a real alternative but it is to be a real alternative it must be a deterrent, it must involve real work and not just a soft option.

    Let me read you something that was written recently by the Chief Inspector of Social Services:

    “A strategy must command the confidence of the public and victims and not give messages to the young people concerned which they might misinterpret as society being soft on them. They should be made to repair the damage of their unacceptable behaviour and help people less fortunate than themselves.”

    I agree with every single word that he said.

    Mr. Chairman, there is one group that does deserve much gentler treatment and I refer to the victims of crime. The best thing self-evidently one can do for victims of crime is to try and stop them becoming victims in the first place and that is what our measures on prevention and policing are aimed to achieve but when we do have victims of crime we do make very serious subsequent demands upon them. We must do all we can to make their ordeal less painful and less unpleasant, not least because this will remove any reluctance to assist the police and courts in bringing criminals to justice and that is why the Criminal Justice Bill will make it easier to prosecute a variety of intimidating behaviour; it will protect witnesses better and it will punish revenge attacks very hard indeed. We are doing away with old-style committals. We are doing that so that vulnerable or frightened witnesses will not have to give the same evidence twice and last year we increased the resources made available to victim support and also, in line with the provisions of the Citizen’s Charter, I want to see far more done to make victims feel comfortable in court. One ought not to overlook the ordeal it is on someone who is a victim of crime then having to go to court, confront the person perhaps guilty of that crime and give evidence in public. I believe the criminal justice system needs to work much better here than it has in the past. Let me give you some examples:

    It should be routine, for example, to tell victims in advance what is expected of them as witnesses and what evidence might distress them; to provide separate waiting areas wherever possible and keep waiting times to a minimum both in the run-up to the trial and on the day itself; give better information to victims on the detection of crime, on court hearing dates and on sentences and above all let them know if and why a case has been dropped in which they are concerned. They are simple points but I think they would make a great difference to many vulnerable people who on behalf of all of us collectively go to court to give evidence against someone who may have been guilty of crime and I believe courts also should pay full regard to the effect of the crime on the victim. Sentencers have the power to do this and I sincerely hope that they will use it.

    Mr. Chairman, in the fight against crime it is my judgement that we have the overwhelming majority of people in this country with us. Down the years, Britain has had a reputation for decency, civility and order. I believe we have all been distressed to see that good name at times cast in shadow. Our aim now is to build a new and better name for Britain as a pioneer in successful strategies against crime not by decriminalising or by diverting from justifiable sentence or by moving the statistical goalposts but by getting to grips with the real problems of prevention, protection and punishment. By changing attitudes, changing police approaches, changing the balance of the criminal justice system, we can put crime on the defensive and criminals on the run. The evidence from recent figures is that the steps which we have taken are coming together and beginning to have an effect.

    Michael Howard and I are committed to taking forward this programme of reform. Later this year, Michael will be publishing a further comprehensive account of the strategy we are adopting in our determination to reduce the level of crime. The maintenance of law and order is the foundation of a stable and a secure society. Without it freedom is limited and choice is confined. Whatever the controversies there may have been in Parliament or press, I have been struck in going up and down the country by how strongly the public attitude has changed. There is a real sea change against crime and I believe we must catch that tide if we are to make the reduction of crime a permanent trend.

    That is not an easy ambition to meet but I believe it is an ambition that we must seek to meet not just in the short term but in the long term and I believe the partnership with the public at large that I spoke of earlier will add an immensely valuable part to the Government’s armoury in dealing with crime. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Festakt in Berlin – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Festakt in Berlin, on 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Herr Bundesprasident, Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This is a memorable day. Let me begin by thanking you, Chancellor Kohl, for the generosity of your tribute to the role of Allied Forces in Berlin. Let me thank you too, for this very special farewell to mark the Allies’ departure.

    It is a pleasure to be here in this wonderful setting, a pleasure which none of us could have enjoyed only five years ago. Outside, we have seen the magnificent restoration of one of the most beautiful squares in any European city. Ladies and Gentlemen, restoration is not just about buildings. We are here today in a city made whole again, in a re-united country, and in a Europe restored.

    A few years ago, it used to be fashionable to talk about European architecture. Here around us we have the sort of architecture I would like to see for Europe. The French Church in the square outside, matching the German Church across the square, stands for a tradition of hospitality, free speech and tolerance. This theatre itself is an echo of a different age – the Age of Reason, of Locke and Voltaire, of Kant and Benjamin Franklin.

    So it is fitting that we should be meeting here today. For if we are wise, Europe today stands on the threshold of a new Age of Reason. We have before us now possibilities for peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before. Today there is no West Berlin and East Berlin, no West Germany and East Germany, no West Europe, no East Europe. The points of the compass have lost their post war political connotations – and they have lost them for good.

    We owe this great opportunity to many people. First, to the men and women of the Forces themselves: our forces, American forces, French forces, and standing behind them the whole of NATO, including the Bundeswehr.

    We came to Berlin as occupying forces, we stayed as protecting forces, and we leave as friends. Earlier this afternoon we attended a moving ceremony to commemorate those who gave their lives during the Airlift. The Berlin Airlift marks the point when enemies became Allies. We honour those who lost their lives in the Airlift. Our ceremonies today, in a united and free Berlin, demonstrate to us all that they did not die in vain. They will always be remembered.

    We also honour all of those stationed here who were prepared to give their lives in the defence of freedom and for the sake of Berlin. It is to their commitment that we owe the new opportunities in Europe today.

    The second people I would honour are the statesmen. Adenauer and Churchill, Truman, Bevin, Kennedy and De Gaulle; and, of course, Ernst Reuter, Governing Mayor of this city in some of its most difficult days and years. All of these, in different ways, defended and sustained Berlin. Later came others led by a former Governing Mayor, Willi Brandt, who began again the slow process of turning former enemies into friends.

    First, the defence of freedom then the hand of friendship. And the final act, where the hand is taken and the friendship sealed, will forever recall the name of one of the great statesmen of the post-War period, Mikhail Gorbachev and, of course, your own name, Herr Bundeskanzler.

    Finally, we owe this opportunity for a new beginning in Europe to the people. It was the people of Berlin who rebuilt this city from the ruins of war. It was the people whose courage and humour sustained Berlin during the tensest moments of the Cold War. And it was the people on the streets of Berlin who brought the wall down.

    The story of freedom always begins with the people. On the streets of Berlin, on the streets of Leipzig, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw and Moscow.

    The service of our soldiers, the wisdom of our statesmen, the courage of our people. These have given us the opportunity for a new Age of Reason in Europe. That all of these historic changes have come without bloodshed gives us hope that this may be so.

    While Europe was still divided, the process of building the institutions we need to preserve peace and to spread freedom had already begun. The old world of the balance of power is gone. Instead we have the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the CSCE. Above all, we have the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. The peace, freedom and prosperity that these have brought to all our countries must now be carried eastward across the old borders of the old divided Europe.

    War between us has become unthinkable. Next year we will celebrate 50 years of peace in Europe, something never known before. I look forward to welcoming our partners, and Allies, including your country, Chancellor Kohl, to our celebrations on 7 May 1995 to mark this anniversary.

    We are here today to bid farewell to the Allied Forces in Berlin. When they arrived Berlin was in ruins. While they served here, it was divided. Now they leave it, a city restored, making ready to take its place again as the seat of Germany’s Government and Parliament. Herr Bundeskanzler, we came as adversaries, we stayed as allies, and we leave as friends.

    But our links with this city will not diminish. Through our future new Embassy in Wilhelmstrasse, our businessmen, our culture, our architects and our people, we remain committed to Berlin and Germany’s future. British people will continue to play their part in the life of this fine city.

    On behalf of the British forces in Berlin, Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your warmth and hospitality to British servicemen and women down the years. I join them in celebrating your success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Berlin Brigade Headquarters – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Berlin Brigade Headquarters, held on Thursday 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today is an historic occasion, it is not often one can say that and mean it with total sincerity, but on this occasion one certainly can, because today is the end of a chapter of British and Allied military involvement in Berlin.

    I know from some of the soldiers I have spoken to in the last few minutes that for some of them and their families it will be a matter of great sadness to leave a city that they have many fond memories of, but I believe as they do so, they can do so with great pride in what has been achieved over recent years. We can recall not just the recent years, not just the service of the men here at present, but the contribution made by British soldiers and British airmen to preserving the peace not only in Berlin but in Europe as a whole over many years.

    Berlin for many years was the front line in the Cold War and the men who defended Berlin for so many years were the front line troops in that Cold War, it was a unique task, preserving half a city isolated in the middle of hostile territory. But despite the difficulties, despite the problems, despite the depth of commitment that was needed, that position was successfully defended for 49 years.

    As this chapter closes another one inevitably opens, new links are being forged between Britain and Berlin, the new British school has been opened in the city, a centre for British studies is to open at the Humboldt University, British companies have a thriving commercial presence here in Berlin, and a British church will remain to serve a British community of around 8,000 people.

    All this is to look forward, but I know as we look forward that people will not forget the contribution made by British troops over so many years. It is perhaps almost a unique circumstance. Normally everyone is very pleased to see the back of a foreign army, but I suspect the people of Berlin will look very differently upon the years that you have served here. To them I do not believe you have been a foreign army, you have been protectors, you have been allies and I believe in their minds as well as in ours you pass as friends.

    Later on today I shall have the pleasure of attending ceremonies which will express gratitude for the role played by Britain and the other two Western allies in preserving for nearly five decades the freedom of Berlin, we shall be commemorating the Berlin Airlift at the Luftbruke monument, a permanent symbol of thanks to the British and American servicemen who broke the blockade of Berlin.

    Sixty-eight Servicemen, Servicemen and civilians, gave their lives in that remarkable and historic operation and twenty-eight of them were British. They will not be forgotten by us and I believe they will be remembered here long after we have left.

    All those who served here will I believe also be remembered, they will be remembered by the people of Berlin and I am grateful to Chancellor Kohl’s interest in keeping those memories alive in the exhibition he opened last Saturday which will form the core of the Allied Museum, a permanent record of the role played by the allies.

    In a few moments I have the pleasure of unveiling another permanent reminder, a commemorative stone at this site which for over 40 years was the seat of allied military government, and has since 1990 been the headquarters of the British battalion in Berlin. In a few moments that will be a duty I perform with great pleasure, with pleasure, with gratitude for those who served their country so well and with enormous pride in the historic role played by Britain in the defence of freedom and democracy in Europe.

    But that is a perspective perhaps from a political view point. know that many of the men here today will not only have that perspective, will not only have the personal pride and memories of what they have achieved in their time here in Berlin, I believe they will go home with personal memories, personal memories of friendships forged here, duty well done here and I hope a life enjoyed here, and it is those contacts as much as any others which bode so well for the future relations between Germany and between Britain.

    Perhaps I may say on a purely personal note how proud I am of the contribution that has been made over so many years by so many British soldiers here in Berlin.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Berlin – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Schauspielhaus Theatre in Berlin on Thursday 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Herzog, President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, Secretary of State, Governing Mayor, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Today is a memorable day. Let me begin by thanking the German government and the German people for their generous tributes to the Allied Forces in Berlin, thank you for this very special farewell to mark the departure of the allies from this remarkable city.

    It is this evening a pleasure to be here in this wonderful setting, a pleasure that none of us could have enjoyed only 5 years ago. Outside we have seen the magnificent restoration of one of the most beautiful squares in any European city. But restoration is not just about buildings, we are here today in a city made whole again, in a united country and in a Europe restored.

    President Mitterrand talked a few moments ago about European architecture. Here around us we see the sort of architecture that I would like to see for Europe, the French church in the square outside matching the German church across the square standing for a tradition of hospitality, free speech and tolerance. This theatre itself, this theatre is an echo of a different age, the age of reason, of Locke, of Voltaire, of Kant and of Benjamin Franklin.

    So it is fitting that we should be meeting here today, for if we are wise, Europe today stands on the threshold of a new age of reason, we have before us new possibilities for peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before. Today there is no West Berlin and East Berlin, no West Germany and East Germany, no West Europe, no East Europe, the points of the compass have lost their post-war political connotations and I hope and I pray that they have lost them for good.

    We owe this great opportunity to many people, first to the men and women of the Armed Forces themselves, British forces, American forces, French forces, and standing behind them the whole of NATO, including the Bundeswehr. We came to Berlin as occupying forces, we stayed as protecting forces but we leave as friends.

    Earlier this afternoon we attended a moving ceremony, a ceremony to commemorate those who gave their lives during the airlift. The Berlin Airlift marks the precise point when enemies became allies. We honour those who lost their lives in the airlift, as ceremonies today in a united and a free Berlin demonstrate to all that they did not die in vein and that they will always be remembered.

    We also honour all of those stationed here who were prepared to give their lives in the defence of freedom and for the sake of Berlin, it is to their commitment that we owe today the new opportunities that exist across Europe.

    The second people I would honour today are the statesmen – Adenauer and Churchill, Truman, Bevan, Kennedy and De Gaulle, and of course Ernst Reuter, Governing Mayor of this city in some of the most difficult days and years. All of these, all of them in different ways defended and sustained Berlin. There later came others, led by the Governing Mayor, Willy Brandt, who began again the slow process of turning former enemies into present friends, first the defence of freedom and then the hand of friendship, and the final act where the hand is taken and the friendship sealed will forever recall the name of one of the great statesmen of the post-war period, Mikhail Gorbachev, and of course Chancellor Kohl your own name as well.

    We owe this opportunity for a new beginning in Europe to the people, it was the people of Berlin who rebuilt this city from the ruins of war, it was the people whose courage and humour sustained Berlin during the tensest moments of the Cold War, and it was the people of the streets of Berlin who eventually brought the Wall down.

    The story of freedom always begins with the people. On the streets of Berlin, on the streets of Leipzig, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw and Moscow the story is always the same. The service of our soldiers, the wisdom of our statesmen the courage of our people, these have given us the opportunity for a new age of reason in Europe, that all of these historic changes have come about without bloodshed gives us hope that this may be so.

    While Europe was still divided the process of building the institutions we need to preserve peace and to spread freedom had already begun, the old world of the balance of power has gone, instead we have the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the CSCE, above all we have the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. The peace, freedom and prosperity that these have brought to all our countries must now be carried Eastward across the old borders of the once divided Europe.

    War between us has become unthinkable. Next year we will celebrate fifty years of peace in Europe, something none of our predecessors has ever known in the long history of our countries. I look forward to welcoming our partners and allies, including your country, Chancellor Kohl, to our celebrations on 7th May next year to mark this anniversary.

    We are here today to bid farewell to the allied forces in Berlin. When they arrived Berlin was in ruins, while they served here it was divided, now they leave it, a city restored, making ready to take its place again as the seat of Germany’s government and parliament. We came as adversaries, we stayed as allies and we leave as friends.

    But our links with this city will not diminish. Through our new future Embassy on Willem Strauf [phon], our businessmen, our culture, our architects, and above all our people, we remain committed to Berlin and to Germany’s future, British people will continue to play their part in the life of this fine city.

    President Herzog, Chancellor Kohl, Mr Governing Mayor, on behalf of the British forces in Berlin I thank you for your warmth and hospitality to British servicemen and women down the years. As they go home from today they leave a part of their hearts behind here in Berlin, and as they go home today I join them in celebrating your success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Leiden – 7 September 1994

    Below is the press release following Mr Major’s speech at the William and Mary Lecture, given in Leiden at the University on 7th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    EUROPE: A FUTURE THAT WORKS

    Speaking in Leiden, the Prime Minister said that his theme “will be the long term future of Europe – all of Europe – and the extent to which we are now outgrowing the concept of the original founders of the European Union”.

    The Prime Minister dealt with:

    The British outlook on and contribution to Europe.

    The future development of the European Union.

    Extending security and prosperity to Central and Eastern Europe. Britain’s Outlook and Contribution

    The Prime Minister tackled a popular caricature of Britain “that there are … only two approaches to the European Union – that of the eleven on the one hand and of Britain on the other … Britain is said to be a backmarker … and British arguments anti-European. The caricature is ludicrous. Many of the key developments of the past few years have been due to Britain’s advocacy – the single market; budgetary discipline; proposals for CAP reform … No backmarking there.”

    The Prime Minister went on to say that “Britain is irrevocably part of Europe … but it must be the right sort of Europe … We can achieve that but to do so such a Europe must be flexible … The most constructive attitude to Europe is to plan a future that works.”

    “The assets Britain brings to Europe are perhaps too easily taken for granted … second largest net contributor to the European Union’s budget … a global reach … a more significant contribution to NATO – and hence to the security of all Europe – than any other European nation … our willingness to contribute whether to the European Union or to NATO, is vivid evidence of the British commitment to the freedom and future of Continental Europe.”

    Future of the European Union

    The Prime Minister said that the vision of the Founding Fathers of the European Community “was proved right for its age. But it will not do now … The European Union seems temporarily to have lost the self-confidence of the 1980s. Popular enthusiasm for the Union has waned. We need to listen to these warnings if we are to make the right moves in the future.”

    The Maastricht Treaty “strained the limits of acceptability to Europe’s electors … our vision will only work if we carry the support of our electors … that is the fact of the matter. We need a vision grounded in reality. Europe’s peoples in general retain their favour and confidence in the nation state … I believe that the nation state will remain the basic political unit for Europe.”

    The Prime Minister said that he saw two pre-eminent tasks for the future:

    “within the existing Union to rebuild the cohesion and confidence which has diminished in the past few years: in external policy to extend security and prosperity to the countries to our east …”

    Flexibility

    “I have read with great interest recent contributions to the European debate by Edouard Balladur and by Wolfgang Schauble and Karl Lamers. I welcome their emphasis on a more flexible Europe. Diversity is not a weakness to be suppressed: it is a strength to be harnessed. If we try to force all European countries into the same mould we shall end up cracking that mould. Greater flexibility is the only way in which we shall be able to build a Union rising to 16 and ultimately to 20 or more Members States …

    The way the Union develops must be acceptable to all Member States. It seems to me perfectly healthy for all Member States to agree that some should integrate more closely or more quickly in certain areas. There’s nothing novel in this. It is the principle we agreed on economic and monetary union at Maastricht. It may also happen on defence.

    But the corollary is that no Member State should be excluded from an area of policy in which it wants and is qualified to participate. To choose not to participate is one thing. To be prevented from doing so is quite another -and likely to lead to the sort of damaging divisions which, above all, we must avoid.

    I see a real danger, in talk of a “hard core”, inner and outer circles, a two-tier Europe. I recoil from ideas for a Union in which some would be more equal than others. There is not, and should never be, an exclusive hard core either of countries or of policies. The European Union involves a wide range of common policies and areas of close co-operation. No Member States should lay claim to a privileged status on the basis of their participation in some of them. For nearly forty years now, the Member States of the European Union, first six, then nine, ten, twelve, soon to be sixteen, have worked to reduce divisions in Europe. We must not see them reintroduced. That is why an essential component of the future European construction must be flexibility. We need a debate about it.

    … Flexibility is essential to get the best out of Europe. The European Monetary Union is a case in point. The arrangements in the Maastricht Treaty for progress towards EMU do not simply allow, but require a differentiated approach. This is essential. Whatever one’s view of EMU Stage III – -and I have thought it right to reserve the United Kingdom’s position, and still do – the introduction of a common currency without proper prior economic convergence would be a disaster. But Maastricht recognised that.”

    Inter-governmental Conference

    The Prime Minister said that the Inter-governmental Conference in 1996 was likely to bring such issues into sharp focus. “How, for example, can we fashion a fairer voting system? Can we develop simpler and more transparent legislative procedures? Should the Council exercise more control over the Commission? Is the number of commissioners becoming unwieldy as the Union enlarges? Should the Commission have new powers in some areas – for example to enable it to pursue budget fraud into the Member States themselves?”

    The European Parliament and National Parliaments

    “Parliaments take time to mature … the European Parliament is a fledgling institution … there is a long way to go before it wins respect and popular affection … The European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus of the Union. But this is a flawed ambition because, the European Union is an association of States, deriving its basic democratic legitimacy through national parliaments … The task for 1996 is for the European Parliament to grow into its existing powers … much more should be done to build links between national parliaments and the European Parliament … I see a case for joint committees (both by inviting MEPs to contribute to national scrutiny committees and vice versa) and we will examine this in the months ahead.”

    Foreign and Security Policy

    The Prime Minister said that “steps which have been taken towards joint actions in foreign policy strike us as no more than a modest beginning … We should be more ambitious. There are obvious advantages in developing common policies towards Russia, the Ukraine and other countries in eastern and central Europe.”

    Defence

    The Prime Minister said that both NATO and the WEU had been the focus of British efforts over the past 40 years. We are committed to looking ahead … to constructing a European Security and Defence identity which reinforces NATO, which builds on the potential of WEU … Britain is, and must remain, at the core of the defence of Europe. Enlargement to the East

    The Prime Minister said that bringing the central European states into our family of democracies “must and can be done in a way which benefits the whole of Europe …The process will require many changes from the countries to our east … change cannot be only on one side … we must also face the fact that our European Union cannot function in the same way and with the same policies with 16 or 20 or more members as it did with 6 or 10 or 12 … For example, the CAP would be unsustainable and unaffordable with 20 members.”

    “It must not be our objective to admit new members to a status inferior to other partners. They must enjoy the same options, in a flexible Union, as are open to us.”

    The Prime Minister added that we had a responsibility to help the economic development of our eastern neighbours: “They must be given access to our markets and not kept at bay by trade defence mechanisms. We do not want to build a continent where economic divisions would return as ghosts of the political barriers which crumbled in 1989.”

    As to security relationships with central and eastern Europe, the Prime Minister said that “for some countries, membership of NATO will be the right answer: the only question is when rather than whether.”

    “The end of Communism has been the biggest peacetime change in our continent for over a hundred years … We now have the chance to entrench democracy across Europe. History will not forgive us if we squander it.”

    Conclusion

    The Prime Minister concluded by saying that “we have the prospect of a Union of increasing diversity [which] will make varied geometry a fact, whatever decisions we take about our institutions.”

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Dutch Prime Minister – 7 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Wim Kok, on Wednesday 7th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say firstly that I am delighted to be back here today and to renew my acquaintance with the Prime Minister, we had the opportunity of working together as Finance Ministers some years ago and I have no doubt that the excellent relationship we have enjoyed with the Dutch government over recent years is going to continue and we had the opportunity to review a range of matters of joint interest over luncheon.

    We spent a substantial amount of time looking at the prospects as we move forward to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 and other current European matters, I will not go into those in detail, no doubt if you wish to pursue that you will ask questions about it.

    We also spent some time reviewing the present situation in Bosnia. As you know, the British have a number of troops there and the Dutch have a very large contingent, many troops in Srebrenica and elsewhere, and we were looking at the events over recent weeks, the current prospects and what may happen in the future, to review the possibility of there being progress, we spent some considerable time on that.

    Beyond that we looked at a number of other bilateral matters. I will spare you the details of that, the Prime Minister may wish to mention some of them but by and large I think I will leave it to you to ask questions.

    MR KOK:

    Let me be brief at the same time. I am delighted that Prime Minister Major is able to be here today and to give his lecture this afternoon in Leiden, we know each other already for quite some time. And I think both on the bilateral and on the multilateral level a lot of issues had to be discussed in a constructive and fruitful way – the future of Europe, the enlargement of Europe, at the same time the preparation for the intergovernmental conference 1996, there we have a lot of interests in common – and we have agreed that on a bilateral basis our officials will be in contact in order to inform each other about views and possible common ways in order to tackle common problems.

    As the Prime Minister said already, we also discussed the situation in Bosnia and the undesirability that the arms embargo would be lifted, not in the least because of the position and safety of the considerable amount of troops we have in the region.

    And perhaps I might say in ending this short comment on my behalf that we exchanged views on Northern Ireland and that I expressed my admiration for the courageous and statesmanlike way in which both Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Reynolds are trying to bring an historic problem hopefully to an end because Northern Ireland is a centre of instability and violence, as we all know, and we all in Europe, and we here in the Netherlands, do hope that it will be possible to bring this violent situation for a number of decades to an end and we fully encourage and support the way in which Prime Minister Major is doing his utmost in order to contribute to the stabilisation of that very difficult part of the world and Europe.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Kok, do you like what you hear from Prime Minister Major about variable geometry, multi-speeds, multi-layers in Europe? And Mr Major, did anything you heard from Dublin or anywhere else yesterday lead you towards setting the clock ticking?

    MR KOK:

    Would you allow me to comment on Prime Minister Major’s speech after I have heard the speech?

    QUESTION:

    We may not have the chance to talk to you.

    MR KOK:

    I will be available, I will be there.

    QUESTION:

    I think you have heard the idea from him before though?

    MR KOK:

    Yes, but it is better perhaps to give my comments after having listened to the speech.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out the position the other day, I do not think our position has changed, Naturally I think we are inching forward to being clearer about matters but I do not think that is quite yet the case, I very much hope we can move forward and it can be absolutely clear that this is intended to be a permanent cessation of violence. That is the conclusion that I wish to be able to draw, but I must credibly be able to draw it and I am not sure it is entirely there yet.

    QUESTION:

    Al Gore has today joined Albert Reynolds in accepting that the IRA renunciation of violence is permanent, do you feel uncomfortable that you are still sticking out when they are both prepared to accept this, and are you worried that the rush by Dublin to get Gerry Adams involved is prejudicing the chance of bringing the Ulster Unionists along in any eventual settlement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find myself in a unique position in this respect. Unlike other people I actually have the responsibility for the security of Northern Ireland and I must be absolutely certain myself that this is not just a short-term ceasefire, but a credible long-term permanent cessation of violence and I believe the people of Northern Ireland would wish me to be certain about that as well. As I indicated a moment ago, I think gradually it is being made a little clearer that perhaps this is not just a temporary ceasefire, but it is not clear yet. It can be made absolutely clear very simply. All that has to be said is for Sinn Fein to say quite clearly yes, under no circumstances would we go back to violence – that is all I am waiting to hear. I do not want any particular formulation, I do not ask them to accept words that we have ourselves uttered in the past, I just ask for a clear cut, unequivocal assurance that violence is over for good, and I believe the people in Northern Ireland would expect me to be certain about that before I move forward, and I will be.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] Gerry Adams involved by Dublin [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone must make their own judgements about what pace to take things. The Taoiseach and I have worked very closely indeed over the last couple of years and I do not doubt for a single second his commitment to have a permanent end to violence and to be able to move forward satisfactorily, there is no shred of doubt about that and we will continue to work together to try and achieve that, but both he and I must make our own judgments about the speed at which things develop.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] British troops out of Belfast?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not a matter I can answer today, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, there are British troops in every part of the United Kingdom, they are there to protect people against terrorist behaviour, that terrorist behaviour has come from the IRA and it has also come from some Loyalist sources as well. The policing and the troops on the ground in Northern Ireland are an operational matter, decisions upon that are decisions taken upon the advice of the GOC in the case of the Army, and the Chief Constable in the case of the Police.

    QUESTION:

    A two speed peace process seems to be coming along, with Mr Reynolds in the driving seat, what is your view on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I indicated a moment ago, the decisions that must be taken in the near future are decisions that involve the British government and the people of Northern Ireland, we must be certain about those.

    QUESTION:

    What do you think about the UK economic recovery [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a question that you do not seriously expect an answer to. The rate of UK economic recovery has certainly been quickening over the last year or so. We now find ourselves in the position where unemployment is falling, inflation is at a 25 year low and growth has been accelerating, so I think we have a very benign set of economic circumstances and we are determined to keep them benign.

    MR KOK:

    We are now following that all over Europe, the continent is now falling, the only hope I have is that we are not only looking to the short term improvement of the economy because of the incidental improvements, but that we also are aware of the necessity to make structural adjustments all over Europe because the White Paper made by Jacques Delors and approved by the European Council is still very up-beat.

    QUESTION:

    What is your reaction to the lifting of the trade ban by Malaysia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very pleased about that. When the trade ban was introduced some time ago we made representations about it and we have continued to do so. We have had a,very long standing trading and investment relationship with Malaysia, I am delighted that the hiccup is now behind us and that we are now back into our traditional relationship.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Kok, would you be happy with the idea of a hard core of countries that went ahead, an inner core of 5, without necessarily pre-empting the Prime Minister’s speech?

    MR KOK:

    I would not be happy as an objective. We cannot exclude that as far as the economic and monetary union is concerned, where the Netherlands play another role than Britain, as we all know, that at the end of the day by 1997 or 1999 there would be a certain split for the time being between some countries participating in the third stage and others who are not yet ready, but that should always be an unavoidable outcome of the process instead of an objective. I think it should not be the objective to make a split right from the beginning, but I do not exclude that the outcome of the process might be so.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who is to be the next Secretary General of NATO?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not reached a conclusion on that matter today, no.

    QUESTION:

    Which names were you discussing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    None I am prepared to divulge today.

    QUESTION:

    This morning Dr Paisley has been calling you a dictator but we have not heard yet what you have to say about him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will read what he has to say with my usual interest.