The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Uncategorized

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Dinner for the Guild of International Bankers – 20 September 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Dinner for the Guild of International Bankers, held at Vintners Hall in London on Wednesday 20th September 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    Master, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.
    When I was asked to join you this evening it was an easy invitation to accept. This is partly because I began my career with one international bank and – as I am currently with Credit-Suisse – may end it with another. But it is far more that Peter Middleton was Permanent Secretary at the Treasury when I first went there as a young Minister. It was those years that prepared him for his later career in gambling – as Permanent Secretary. I can, therefore, say from the personal knowledge of many years that you are immensely fortunate to have him as the incoming Master of the Guild.
    I learned a lot from Peter – and about him. I’m sorry to tell you he’s a life-long Sheffield Wednesday supporter but – apart from that – I know nothing to his disadvantage. Peter doesn’t change with the years. He looks almost exactly as he did when I first met him. Either Peter Pan has a rival or there is a portrait in his attic that is withering away.
    In his early days at the Treasury, Peter ran the Press Office. This was a long time ago: during that dear dead age in which the term “spin” applied only to cricket. I don’t much like spin. In 40 years of politics I only ever heard one worthwhile example of it.
    [Indistinct, but anecdote about when Boris Yeltsin was asked about the state of Russia in one word, and he said “Good”, and when asked to describe the state of Russia in two words, he said “Not good”.]
    During all the time I worked with him, Peter was a source of wise counsel and – usually – an epicentre of calm. He had a gift for laconic disengagement during Ministerial decision making until he noticed the decision going in a direction of which he did not approve. At this point he ceased to be either laconic or disengaged until a common position was agreed.
    I greatly admired this gift for consensus-building. Pragmatism is a virtue. It is a neglected art in our ideological world and one we would do well to revive.
    The spread of global commerce and trade has given us common systems of banking and business in every great city of the world. But, as international bankers, your interests encompass a world divided on subtler – and in some ways, more entrenched – lines than the stark divisions once epitomised by the boundaries of communism and the free market.
    Culture, religion and ideology are today’s battle-ground and they arouse violent passions. If anyone doubts that, I invite them to consider Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or the long running low-grade war between Israel and the Palestinians. It is as important for the business climate to ease away these conflicts as it was to end the threat of East-West conflict.
    None of them, in my judgement, can be solved solely by military means.
    Modern life offers us a curious dilemma. Nothing can hold back the revolution in life-style that is the fruit of globalisation. Most – but not all – of the changes are beneficial, and the finance you provide is the oil that greases the engine. But many millions – especially those who see no benefit from globalisation – are bewildered by the changes it has brought about and look at the world with eyes that hunger for familiarity.
    Kipling once wrote:
    “East is East and West is West
    And never the twain shall meet.”
    The great poet did not foresee the global market, but culturally Kipling is still more right than wrong.
    In a world changing too rapidly for comfort, people cling to their familiar cultures. We British should understand that. For over 30 years, we have done so ourselves in our attitudes to Europe. Time and again, there has been a fierce response to modest changes because of fears – often mistaken and usually inflamed – of what they may lead to. I can, I think, speak with some authority about that. In my own Party over Europe, reasonable men became unreasonable. Clever men became foolish. Colleagues and friends become bitter enemies and no-one seemed to care as they disembowelled their own prospects. Colleagues and friends on some issues became bitter opponents over Europe.
    Such fears can be far worse if whole nations, or religions, fear – albeit wrongly – that their culture is threatened. It is here that the art of political pragmatism is needed. Our Western values are familiar and comfortable to us, but it has taken many hundreds of years for them to evolve. We make a mistake if we believe we can impose our values on others whose history and instincts and modes of thought are very different to ours.
    I admire pragmatism because it can often achieve results, where the rigidity of ideology achieves only stand-offs. And yet, too many people see pragmatism and consensus-building as weakness. They seem to prefer what the foolish call “strong leadership”, even if it marches off in the wrong direction. My belief that we need pragmatism is not an appeal for policy without conviction. We must have convictions – life is empty without them – but we should not let our own convictions trample on those that may be different but are dear to other people.
    My concern with ideology is that it often goes beyond conviction. As I look at the world today, it seems to me that, too often, ideology erects barriers instead of removing them. It highlights differences and achieves popular support by condemnation of them. It thrives on conflict. Ideology is too high on passion and certainty and too low on moderation and understanding. I believe we need to change the balance here – and that is why Peter Middleton’s skills at consensus are needed on the very widest canvass.
    Ideologues, of course, will hate what I have just said – but I believe they are wrong. I look at the future with optimism. Politics and fashion come in waves and I think we are learning lessons today that will encourage us to beware if ideology supersedes common-sense and common understanding. If I am right, and this change is coming, then there is every reason for optimism in the future.
    As for myself, I am no longer in public life and have no plans to return to it. In many ways, I am glad that I have left for I am, perhaps, a little too old-fashioned for the game. I still believe that traditions should die out naturally and not be stamped out. That Cabinet should collectively take decisions. That Parliament should not be bypassed. That the independence of the Civil Service should be protected.
    So, as you can see, I am unreconstructed. So out of date am I, that I even believe the media should report the news and not embellish it. There is therefore, no hope for me.
    But there is for international banking which will grow and grow and I wish this Guild and its incoming Master every success in the years ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Europe – 15 October 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s article in the Conference Magazine – Conservative Group for Europe, published in October 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at odds over Europe. There are Cabinet splits about the offer of a referendum. Dissent lurks on the backbenches. An anti-European fringe party threatens to elevate European policy into Party warfare while a largely hostile-to-Europe Press licks its lips, hungry to magnify the fall-out. This is European policy under a Labour Government in 2004. How hauntingly familiar.

    There are essentially three contrasting points of view upon Europe:

    (i) It can do no right – which is the view of extreme sceptics such as UKIP and the former Referendum Party – whom we might call the Ultras to distinguish them from those of more moderate scepticism;

    (ii) It can do no wrong – Federalists, extreme euro-philiacs; or

    (iii) That it is, on balance, favourable to the UK but that elements of policy frustrate and irritate. Like most of the British nation, I belong to the third – and majority – school of thought. I for one would like to make the EU more popular: but can it be done?

    Nothing, I suspect, will change the views of the Ultras – who are beyond arguing with over Europe: the worry is that they have begun to shift the centre of gravity towards arch-scepticism. This has the potential both to divorce the UK from Europe – which, for the Ultras, is the ultimate goal of their scepticism – and wreak havoc upon the British political system (especially the Conservative Party). Much the Ultras care: even those who call themselves Conservatives subordinate the Conservative Party’s interests to those of their anti-European cause. Indeed, some of the most prominent UKIP Members are former Conservative MPs who helped ferment the rebellions that crippled the last Conservative Government. No Conservative should expect help from them – and no Conservative should do any deals with them. Since nothing can be done with this group it is necessary to ignore their shrill message and direct policy to reassure the bulk of the electorate.

    What can be done to achieve this? It would be beneficial to have an honest debate among adversaries, but that is unlikely.

    It would be desirable to have a fair and balanced media, but that is unobtainable. The written Press especially, is as deeply entrenched in the dispute as the political adversaries. The pro-EU Press has an air of sanctimony in which all dissenters – and their arguments, even when valid – are grandly dismissed. And the anti-EU Press is relentless in its campaign and careless of the implications of it.

    If reason and commonsense could heal the rifts over Europe they would have been mended long ago. But words alone cannot do it; suspicion and unease have grown continually since the Single European Act in 1986 and nothing has assuaged it. Indeed, it has worsened since most European Treaties are the natural father of the successor Treaty.

    I recall that, throughout the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty, I was constantly reminded that Margaret Thatcher had signed up to “ever closer Union” and a large extension of qualified majority voting (thus reducing the British veto). So why, I was asked, was I so obstinate over the Euro, the Social Chapter and a further extension of QMV?

    As a result of the growing collective influence of successive Treaties, the public tend to see European policy as a juggernaut that cannot be stopped and which tramples over every sensitivity. This is the most damaging perception of all and the root of much suspicion over Europe.

    Europe has now enlarged its membership to 25 Nation States, and when Giscard D’Estaing’s Committee was established to make recommendations that would update the practices and administration of the EU, I welcomed it. Europe needed reform to accommodate enlargement and many prizes loomed: consolidation of existing complex treaties; a more effective form of European administration and – above all – whispers that the recommendations would finally set out in Treaty form the limits of European imposition upon the authority of National Government. Against this yardstick, the European Constitution makes some helpful moves, but overall it is a lost opportunity for those of us who wished to minimise the existing suspicions about the direction of policy.

    Pro-Europeans should not fool themselves. It will not be easy to turn around the present hostility to the EU. For too long foolish myths have been, if not unchallenged, at least undestroyed. The reality is our European Partners are not concerned with “doing Britain down”; they do not all have a federalist agenda; they are less and less in the Franco-German camp. All this is true, but it’s hard to persuade a majority to agree. Indeed, among Member States, the Anglo-Saxon view of the EU has more supporters now than ever before, Margaret Thatcher and I would have warmly welcomed such reinforcements in earlier disputes. Europe can be made more acceptable to the British view, but only if the Ultras are put to flight. Since their myths are often the stuff of tabloid fancy, this will be hard pounding. Nor is it made easier by those criticisms of the EU that are well justified.

    What is the case for Europe for those prepared to be persuaded? It remains powerful. The EU is the largest, richest free trade area in history and spreads from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East. In years to come, one can see those borders increasing ever further – to take in Turkey and, perhaps, other nearby States, and possibly even to reach an accommodation with Russia herself.

    But it is not just valuable for free trade. It has made a major European war inconceivable as the entangling of trade and investment build up common interests. It can provide an economic counter-weight to the power of the United States and the potential power of China. It offers opportunities to the rising generations that their forbears never enjoyed. These may be grand themes but they are indispensable to the well-being of individual Europeans.

    The fundamental problem, it seems to me – as a wellwisher who believes there is a limit to integration and that we are close to it – is that Europe’s true failings and its over ambitious agenda encourage any myth about it to gain currency.

    The wise European would be cautious about entering the Euro zone (which is plainly not in our short-term interest); very sniffy about parts of the new “Constitution” (which is a step too far in its present form – although it does have some good aspects); and would be determined to make an onslaught on fraud and mismanagement.

    Much is going our way in Europe and we need to rebuild domestic confidence in our membership of the European Union. To do so, we must neither fear to build upon developments in tune with our British instincts nor to resist those that go too far.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy – 26 February 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s speech on the Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy, held at Huntingdon Constituency Conservative Association on Thursday 26th February 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Tonight has the air of times past and it’s good to be back.

    I miss the Constituency – I rarely miss politics. It’s changed. It’s too media driven and – often – too trivial.

    Everything is presented as all black or all white. Every event has to have a hero or a villain.

    We live in the era of soundbite and spin or – as I prefer to term it – deception and deceit.

    [Indistinct section].

    That is the essence of spin. It’s all reminiscent of the 18th century politician who died and caused his opponents to ask “I wonder what he meant by that?”

    Such distrust of politics is back.

    One of the advantages of leaving politics is that one can stand back from the daily controversies and see the bigger picture.

    There is much I don’t like about the present Government.

    It is more concerned with perception than reality.

    It prevaricates as a first instinct, not as a last resort.

    It is intolerant of opposition and illiberal of policy.

    All too often it is high-handed and arrogant.

    And – my theme this evening – it has made, is making, and proposes to make – changes to our Constitution that I believe are damaging to Parliamentary Government.

    This may seem abstruse. It is not. It may seem irrelevant to the average citizen. It is not.

    Our Constitution sets out the relationship between citizen and the State – and as such affects us all. Change our Constitution – and you change the rights and obligations of the citizen.

    We take democracy so much for granted in our country that we scarcely notice any longer whether it exists; how it is exercised; or the ways in which it is being undermined.

    The visible structures appear intact – mature political Parties; a universal adult franchise; free elections with a specified maximum term of Office; a two-tier Parliament supreme in authority; an independent Head of State; the rule of law; an impartial Civil Service; a free Press; traditions of behaviour that amount to hidden institutional safeguards and restraints. It is familiar and comforting.

    Unfortunately, it’s so familiar and comforting that we have scarcely noticed that the structure which supports it is creaking and diseased and in danger of collapse. The structures are still there but they’re being hollowed out. The erosion is evident from the top to the bottom.

    At grassroots level – the Party machines are moribund, poorly financed and often unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole.

    At the top, erosion arises if any major Party has no care for Parliamentary traditions and propriety; if its use of power becomes an abuse of it; if it resorts to character assassination as a political weapon. Our present Government has all these traits.

    When senior members of the Labour Party were investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, there appeared to be an organised attempt to obstruct the inquiries or to withhold proper cooperation. When the Prime Minister established a Committee to examine issues relating to Standards in Public Life he then refused to let his own key officials appear before it. When the Committee reported, he largely ignored the report. These are very murky depths that have added to the public disillusion with politics.

    The broad mass of our nation is detached from politics. Many feel a distaste for it.

    Turnouts at General Elections used to be around 80%. At the last General Election it was under 60% – with the “don’t knows” and the “won’t votes” scoring as highly as the winning party. This was no “blip”.

    The rot in our political system is evident in Parliament. For New Labour has been careless of Parliamentary traditions and propriety; and the Prime Minister’s famous promise – to be “purer than pure” – has not been kept. Consider for example the Ecclestone, Hinduja and Mittal affairs which have all been so close to the centre of power that there is a perception that New Labour’s failings may have influenced government policy. This charge is vigorously denied.

    But in the age of spin the perceptions are damaging. Spin is the pornography of politics. It perverts. It is deceit licensed by the Government. Statistics massaged. Expenditure announced and reannounced. The record reassessed. Blame attributed. Innocence proclaimed. Black declared white: all in a day’s work.

    This behaviour is a factor in the reduced reputation of the House of Commons. There are wider elements as well. Nowadays, vital decisions are often decided in wider fora: in the G7, the UN or – most likely – the EU. As part of this Government’s policy, Parliament has also surrendered decision-making within the UK to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Mayor of London and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It looks set to do so to Regional Assemblies as well. Monetary policy has also been subcontracted to the Bank of England. Some of these changes have merit – arguably some have significant merit. But all of them are consistent in only one regard: they all reduce the power of Parliament. One by one its prerogatives are going.

    This has been exacerbated by the Government’s disregard, sometimes contempt, for the Commons. Labour uses its majority as a rubber stamp. Select Committees are ignored or suborned. Complex Bills are poorly scrutinised as the Government is bound to get its way.

    Since 1997, Parliament has been downgraded in more subtle ways, too. Major policy statements have been made outside it, or leaked, before any Parliamentary announcement. This may be a good way to control media coverage but it is bad for democracy.

    Parliament has been weakened, too, by the Government’s policy towards the House of Lords. If the House of Lords attempts to block or amend legislation, which is its legitimate role, it is discredited and attacked. Already it has been mutilated. The abolition of the hereditary peers was a populist – and to many, popular – policy but, for those who wish to see an effective Upper House, it was a mistake: it robbed Parliament of a revising chamber of talent and experience and independent thought. Hereditary legislators were a soft target to attack but, if they had to go, they should have been replaced by others with similar virtues. They were not.

    The House of Lords should have more power: there is much it could do. It could improve the quality of our law by pre-legislative scrutiny of Green Papers, thereby foreshadowing changes in the law. It could monitor the resulting Act of Parliament to see how it worked in practice. It could examine and take evidence publicly on draft Treaties. It could establish a Standing Committee on Ethics as moral and personal questions become more difficult to adjudicate upon. It could maintain a Standing Constitutional Committee … all this and more would be useful.

    I do not agree with the current vogue for a largely elected Second Chamber. Yes – it is democratic. But No – it will not be an improvement. It will replace nominated leading figures of substance from Industry, Trade Unions, Education, the Military, the Civil Service, the Media with elected career politicians who failed to make it to the House of Commons. We are in danger of replacing first rate independent minds who have made it to the top of their professions, with second rank politicians whose Party Whips will do their thinking for them. A pale imitation of the Commons is pointless and will further diminish Parliament.

    I understand the urge for the legitimacy of election but it is a poor bargain for electors: a less talented House of Lords stuffed with more professional politicians is the wrong prescription for our democratic deficit.

    If not election, then what? Prime Ministerial appointment alone is no longer acceptable (although any mechanism must provide for nomination by political leaders so that a proper political balance can be maintained in the Upper House.) We continue to need a system to nominate leading public figures to maintain and reflect the wide experience now available to the Lords.

    And, in my view, it should remain “the House of Lords”. Its members should continue to be Peers: to change the name would be pointless if it is to serve its traditional role as a revising Chamber and to withhold the courtesy of the title would be petty. Labour, given free rein, might do both.

    Further diminution of Parliamentary authority will be accomplished within this Parliament if the Government enacts the proposed European Constitution as a superior overarching legal framework. The legacy of centuries of common law would be subordinate to ambiguous language interpreted and enforced by European institutions.

    If the Government enacted this, any legislation should properly be subject to a specific referendum of the whole Nation – although Labour will seek to avoid it since they know they would lost the Referendum. Steadily, they are moving away from the instincts of the Nation.

    At the same time as respect for Parliament is in decline, so too is the neutrality of the Civil Service – now in danger of being compromised.

    The pattern of by-passing the independence of the Civil Service was set in May 1997, with the appointment of special advisers with authority over career civil servants; with the huge increase in the number of political special advisers ; and with the dismissal or forcing out of the Government Information Officers – the Civil Service interface between the Government and the media, and the guarantee of impartial and straightforward answers. The cult of spin was let loose.

    From the moment New Labour saw the value of spin, the truth became partisan. The outgoing Conservative Government was to be abused: no piece of character assassination, no calumny, no half-truth, no insult was to be missed. Nor were they the only target. Others who embarrassed the Government – even non-politicians such as the 94 year old hospital patient, Mrs Rose Addis or train campaigner Mrs Pam Warren – were all part of the shooting gallery. So too, at one time was the “psychologically flawed” Gordon Brown; and Mo Mowlam, who had committed the sin of being too popular. All suffered from behind the scenes briefing to serve the contemporary interests of the Government at the expense of the reputation of the conduct of politics generally. Nothing on this scale has been seen in modern British politics. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have individual citizens – wholly unconnected with politics – ever been targeted before.

    Some months ago, after a piece of underhand dealing was exposed, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said “what was appropriate in Opposition was not appropriate in Government.” If one decodes this sentence, it means it was acceptable to spread any falsehood about the Conservatives in the 1990s because they were unpopular. Now, however, as everyone becomes familiar with the tactics used by New Labour, we are told it is necessary to move on.

    The art of misrepresentation for political advantage is not new.

    But what sets this Government apart is the scale and pre-meditation of its spin operation. The result is a cynicism now so deep-rooted among the electorate that when the Government’s spin merchant-in-chief said spinning had gone too far, the public suspected it was only spin that made him say so.

    It is fatal to the conduct of policy if the word of any Government is disbelieved until proven beyond doubt to be true. The erosion of trust has now reached the point where it is undermining the ability of the Government to call on the trust of the people – as recently, for example, on Iraq. New Labour cannot complain if their word is not taken at face value: it is their own behaviour that has brought this about.

    A few years ago, it would have been inconceivable that any Prime Minister’s Office could have been accused of distorting and misusing intelligence information to popularise the case for war and yet, whatever the reality, that has now become a widespread belief. For the sake of the future conduct of policy this impression needs to be dispelled.

    It is clear the Prime Minister has failed to understand the importance and power of the traditions, customs and conventions that have shaped the values of our system of government. The way our nation’s government works is not simply defined by the bare words and legal structures of legislation – it works because generations of Britons, in safeguarding their liberties, have established boundaries of acceptable behaviour and created rituals and rules that keep them alive.

    New Labour, apparently contemptuous of our history, has swept away centuries of institutional values. Rushed, ill thought-through constitutional changes have been introduced in the name of modernisation – changes that imperil the soul of the Constitution and leave democracy and freedom weaker and poorer. Even where there is a case for change – as in the role and stature of the Lord Chancellor, and the abolition of Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales – the Government has bungled it. It neglected to consult, announced the changes as an off-hand consequence of a Cabinet reshuffle and then had to climb down as the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had to don the Lord Chancellor’s wig and tights; and other Cabinet Ministers became, after all, territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

    The Government now proposes to introduce without consultation a Supreme Court to replace the Law Lords in the Lords and an independent Judicial Appointments Committee to appoint Judges. These policies will be railroaded through Parliament. They are fundamental changes that have not been subjected to proper consideration.

    All this is a mess. Gladstone once said that “The Constitution presumes the good faith of those who operate it”.

    That has been so until now. It is one reason we have had for so long an unwritten Constitution that could evolve rather than become irrelevant in a decade of change. But the present Government have undermined that good faith. They propose fundamental change without consultation.

    They are sweeping away centuries of tradition in the careless cause of political correctness.

    They have produced legislation on devolution that is deeply flawed and offered Scotland and Wales what they seek but ignore the consequent knock-on effect on the UK as a whole.

    I have never been in favour of devolved Assemblies except in Northern Ireland where, for decades, Ulster politicians had no responsibility whatever for policy. Yet even there I favoured only very restrictive powers. My fear was that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom as a single entity and that this would diminish our influence in the EU and around the world. That has not happened yet: but it still might. That is why I resisted Scottish and Welsh demands for their own Parliaments. Time alone will prove whether I was right or wrong to do so but it is certain that the Conservative Party paid a heavy political price for putting long-term concerns for our Country before short-term party political self interest. We were pro a United Kingdom not anti Scotland or Wales. Alas, spin and soundbite distorted that truth and ensured it was not seen that way.

    New Labour took a more populist and electorally self-interested view and implemented changes that were poorly thought through: even Scots, proud of the principle of Home Rule, admit the reality of it has been a shambles. An overwhelming majority of Scots demanded devolved powers and, as I well know, denying them was painful. But – if devolution had to be ceded – it should have been done in a fashion that was not politically motivated to benefit the Labour Party; that was not a one-way advantage for Scotland at the expense of England; that ignored the knock-on effect across the UK; and that distorted the electoral make-up of the Commons.

    It was tactless beyond belief to appoint Dr John Reid, a Scottish MP as Secretary of State for Health in England. Even worse, it is wholly wrong that Scottish MPs are entitled to vote on legislation at Westminster affecting England –university top up fees is a recent example – yet not vote on similar legislation affecting their own constituencies: it is also a scandal that English MPs cannot vote on comparable legislation affecting Scotland. New Labour’s devolution was tantamount to gerrymandering an electoral system already biased in their favour by grotesque Boundary changes to constituencies. These have resulted in a situation in which the Conservative Party needs an 8% lead in votes over Labour to win the same number of seats: in a system in which vigorous politics offers the best safeguard of individual freedoms this cannot be acceptable. Parliament loses because Labour has chosen to ignore this anomaly so that it might benefit from it.

    The most dangerous erosion is in the trust and confidence with which our political system is regarded.

    Recent episodes have worsened this perception.

    The Hutton Inquiry was given inadequate Terms of Reference. As a result, it did not convince.

    The Butler Inquiry, too, would have benefited from a wider scope.

    The fact that this was denied adds to public cynicism because many who supported the war in Iraq are concerned that no WMD were discovered and fear the war was conducted on a false premise.

    Even those, like me, who continue to support the aims of that war, believe it essential to clear up the concerns that have arisen.

    The reason for this is not to seek a scapegoat: it is because if there is any doubt about the circumstances in which our troops were ordered into war, such doubt needs to be addressed, explained and cleared up for good. Thus, should our troops need to be committed to action by any future Government, there need be no hesitance in Parliament in supporting the Prime Minister of the day.

    As things stand at the moment, if the Prime Minister were to ask Parliament and the public to support him in committing troops for a new conflict, he might well be met at best with a hoarse laugh, and at worst with a flat rejection, rather than the traditional support previous Prime Ministers would have been offered.

    The particular problem that has been causing so much disquiet is the question of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them in 45 minutes. At the time this claim was first made, it was widely understood – perhaps erroneously – to relate to all weapons of mass destruction. It has subsequently turned out that it is accurate only insofar as battlefield weapons are concerned. When challenged about this, the Prime Minister told Parliament that he did not know about this important discrepancy – and we must accept that. It would be unprecedented for a Prime Minister to mislead on such a crucial matter.

    But his ignorance of the true facts begs other questions.

    Mr Cook and Mr Straw knew – so the FCO must have known.

    Mr Hoon knew – and so the MOD must have known.

    Mr Alastair Campbell knew – and so the No 10 Press Office must have known.

    If the Prime Minister’s Press Office knew – his Private Office must have known.

    The Cabinet Secretary must have known.

    So must the Joint Intelligence Committee.

    And yet – in all the discussions and briefings – no-one thought of sharing such information with the Prime Minister. Although this is possible – it is extraordinary.

    There is a second point.

    The Prime Minister must have had many private meetings with advisers from the MOD, the Foreign Office, and the Joint Intelligence Committee. Since he believed the weapons of mass destruction to be a danger to our troops in Cyprus, and to Israel, he must surely have consulted his advisers upon how to protect them. If he did not, he should have done.

    If he did, why did not his Private Office, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary, the JIC, the Foreign Office, the MOD tell him that he alone did not understand what weapons Iraq truly had – and clarify the position for him? I recall, when I myself was Prime Minister, if there had been any possibility of my misleading either Parliament or the media on any issue – however inadvertently – my Private Office would have alerted me to this immediately so that the line could be corrected without delay.

    This complete failure in communication with the Prime Minister ought to be the subject of an Inquiry but it fell outside the Terms of Reference of Lord Hutton and there is no certainty that it falls within the Terms of Reference of Lord Butler. It is no wonder there is disillusion among the electorate.

    New Labour’s style of governing – and its adoption of spin and soundbite as its weapons of choice – has done immense damage to politics. Such black arts are political tricks, not statesmanship: they are not what we need in our complex world. It is hardly surprising that the electorate shrugs its shoulders in despair and moves on, blotting political involvement from its collective mind.

    The fate of politicians and governments does not matter: they are mortal and, in due time, are replaced by fresh administrations more tuned to the needs of the age.

    But if the institution of Parliament declines; if respect for it is lost; if politics is seen as a game not as the protection of our constitution and our liberties; if Ministers bow the head to advisers; and if the public loses its trust in the integrity of government, then we are in serious trouble.

    Is it too late for Parliamentary democracy? Has the watchman tolled the hour for our unwritten Constitution and Parliamentary system? I think not. I hope not. But the danger is clear and present.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Frank Worrell Lecture – 2 May 2002

    Below is the text of John Major’s speech at the Frank Worrell Lecture, held in Barbados on Thursday 2 May 2002.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    It is a great pleasure to be here this evening to deliver a Lecture in honour of Sir Frank Worrell. I’d like to thank the UWI/Barclays for inviting me – and the British electorate for making it possible for me to accept.

    This is the 9th Frank Worrell Lecture. It is also a personal anniversary for me: five years ago, this very day, was my last as Prime Minister.

    Inside 10 Downing Street I took my leave of officials. Outside the famous front door I bade farewell to the media. I waited upon The Queen at Buckingham Palace to tender my resignation – and then hurried from there to Kennington Oval to watch some cricket with my family.

    It seemed to me that life had come full circle. As a boy, I had watched cricket and dreamed of politics: that afternoon, as the dream drew to a close, I watched cricket.

    On the morrow of political defeat, cricket was the same soothing balm to me as it had been so often before. I said something of this sort to my companions on the Committee Room balcony and was rewarded with the tale of the great actor, Boris Karloff, watching cricket from the same spot. “Are you enjoying it, Mr Karloff?” he was asked. “Wonderful” he boomed, “I think I have died and gone to heaven”.

    Five years on, I have not gone to heaven – except in the metaphorical sense that I am here in Barbados and looking forward to enjoying the Test at the Kensington Oval.

    I was never a good cricketer and even some of my best moments were tinged with farce – so unlike politics you may think. My last innings was in Nigeria, in my early twenties, during the Biafran war when a plane bringing the weekly post landed. Unfortunately, it landed at Square Leg and the game was over. That was bad news.

    The good news was that I had three letters. But the bad news was that they were all bills. The worse news was that one was for the bat with which I would now never score a hundred. Days later, a disagreement between a car and a mountain, with me in the middle, left me a permanent spectator.

    Cricket has always been an important part of my life. Yet there are many pessimists about the game. As long ago as 1932, C.P. Snow was complaining: “These days, a man of taste can only go to an empty ground and regret the past!”. The same dreary view can often be heard today.

    For some, the past is always the Golden Age. Neville Cardus once wrote of falling asleep at Lords to the complaints of an elderly spectator that cricket “wasn’t what it used to be”. He awoke to see Larwood bowling to Hammond. Anyone who dozes off at Bridgetown could well awake to see Tendulkar and Lara on the same pitch.

    Of course cricket has changed – it would be surprising if it hadn’t. Some of the changes we may not like: slower over rates for example.

    Others we do, such as the vast improvement in fielding. But we should view the past in perspective: probably the three greatest teams in the history of cricket belong to the last sixty years.

    Which teams, I wonder, from any golden age could have beaten the 1948 Australians, the 1970s/80s West Indies or the Australian team (again) in the late 1990s?

    Off-field, the greatest challenge is the financing of cricket: whereas professional cricket was once funded overwhelmingly by gate receipts it is viable now only with the support of corporate sponsorship, television receipts and the revenues of Test Cricket.

    As a result, there is more Test Cricket than ever before and yet – perversely – for the professional players, a gap has opened up between their salaries – and those for other sports.

    Here is the Catch-22: too much Test cricket and familiarity will lessen its attraction. Too little and the finances of the game will become more fragile. No-one should envy the cricket administrators who must deal with this conundrum.

    To widen the appeal of the game, we must protect those aspects of cricket that make it unique. These go far beyond simple enjoyment. C.L.R. James, argued that – for the West Indies – cricket had a magic that was a guiding light for the dispossessed and the disenfranchised. From a polar opposite political position, Lord Harris argued that cricket upheld the values of the far from dispossessed or disenfranchised middle class in Victorian England.

    Clearly, cricket touches deep and conflicting emotions in both our countries, and provides an added value to society. The Ancient Greeks understood the value of games and it is a pity that over the intervening thousands of years we have not built on their example. It is a good time to do so and I shall focus my theme on cricket.

    From the earliest days of Alfred Mynn to W.G. Grace, cricket has been built on personality. Find a Bradman, find a Sobers and the game will flourish. Some cricketers, famous in their pomp, fade with the passing of time. Their day done, their memory is laid gently to rest until they are quite forgotten. But the elite grow in the memory. Their reputation is enhanced.

    One such is Frank Worrell. Not just because he was a great cricketer. Or because he was a great captain. Both of those things, of course. but also because, during a time of strife, he did much to unite black and white opinion. I fancy Don Bradman was not only thinking of cricket when he eulogised him as – I paraphrase: “a fine thinker with a broad outlook”.

    It is universally acknowledged that Frank Worrell was a fine man. That elemental cricket force, Sir Leary Constantine tells us more: Frank Worrell – the thirteenth West Indian captain – was superstitious. Bowled first ball in a game in Australia, he changed every item of clothing for the second innings, only to be bowled first ball again. I’m sure Clyde Walcott intended to tease rather than console when he asked: “Why do I always face a hat-trick when I follow you?”.

    When people talk of Frank Worrell some ancestral folk memory makes them smile. Perhaps it was his serenity: even maintained at moments of high drama – such as the Australian Test at Brisbane, forty years ago, when Joe Solomon ran out Ian Meckiff to bring about the most famous tie in all Test history. The smile at his memory is a smile of affection.

    He was one of a trinity. Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell and Clyde Walcott. Of an age, born only a few miles apart, all Barbadians, all world class batsmen and all honoured with a Knighthood for the way they played the game. It is a story unique in the annals of cricket: we have never seen its like before and may never do so again. Not even Alexandre Dumas would have had the temerity to conjure up such a trio. Athos, Porthos and Aramis may have been heroes – but they couldn’t bat.

    My memory of West Indies cricket stretches back – just – to the 1950’s Tourists: to hundreds by Alan Rae as well as the “Ws”. I was too young to see that team play but, even as a seven year old, I followed every match in detail. I will turn to the immortal Lords Test of that year a little later.

    I did see the 1957 team. I saw Frank Worrell open the batting and the bowling in a Test at Trent Bridge when he carried his bat through the innings for 191 – not even my comic book heroes in the “Rover” and the “Wizard” were able to produce such a dazzling performance.

    It would be unwise – perhaps even reckless – to admit to a Barbadian audience that one of my fondest cricketing memories is the epic May-Cowdrey partnership of 411 to save a Test match against the West Indies in 1957. In self-defence, let me add that it was a backs-to-the-wall effort employing bat and, in Colin’s case pads, to deny Sonny Ramadhin after Collie Smith had scored a majestic 161 in a partnership of nearly 200 with Frank Worrell.

    On that tour I had my first sight of Gary Sobers and Wes Hall – and I knew the West Indies would be a formidable cricketing power for years to come. What I did not know, of course, is what lay over the horizon: Clive Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Viv Richards, Michael Marshall, Michael Holding, Courtney Walsh, Curtly Ambrose, Lance Gibbs – and so many others: all fine players in a long and golden period for West Indies cricket.

    But let me go back to my belief that cricket touches the emotions. I myself saw it do so. In the 1950s I moved, with my parents, elder brother and sister to two rooms on the fourth floor of an old Victorian house in Brixton, South London. As accommodation, it was not much but, at the time, we were lucky to have it. My father, whose business had failed, was over 70, sick and nearly blind and my mother, although much younger, was in poor health. My family had no money. We were in debt. My mother often had to borrow so we could eat – but we were not alone in our predicament.

    The 1950s and 60s was a time of massive immigration to England from the West Indies, and most of the new Britons settled in Brixton. The house we lived in was, for a time, multi-occupied and multi-racial and provided a good primer on poverty for a future Conservative Prime Minister. I knew the immigrants as neighbours. I lived with them. I played with their children. I shopped in Brixton market – just as they did. I saw them for what they were: men and women seeking opportunity and a new life in a land immeasurably more wealthy than the one they had left behind.

    Others, more fearful, more suspicious, saw them in a harsher light. They feared for their jobs and their livelihoods. They were frightened of a turmoil of change in their neighbourhoods. Bigots and foolish men inflamed these fears. Pessimists predicted trouble. Brixton became a powder-keg of racial discontent. People waited for it to blow. Waited for the riots, the lawlessness. They waited in vain. The new Britons settled in. The dire predictions of conflict proved to be wrong.

    In my youthful innocence, I wasn’t surprised. Instead of inciting fear, the bigots and pessimists should have gone to The Kennington Oval where, when the West Indies played, it was carnival time: the atmosphere was noisy and full of fun as the crowd enjoyed glorious days of cricket. For those in the packed ground, the painful reality of life in Brixton was put aside, even though at close of play it was still there. Prejudice and hardship were daily companions to the new Brixtonians. Dr Johnson, who knew London 200 years earlier had it right:

    “This mournful truth is everywhere confessed. Slow rises worth, by poverty depressed”.

    Slow rises worth – but it did rise. And the West Indies’ cricket, the way they played and the way the team conducted themselves in victory, did much to help. In 1950, they took on England at her own game, in her own country, at the very headquarters of cricket.

    And they beat her on merit. Perhaps no win in cricket ever had such social significance as Ramadhin and Valentine’s destruction of England at Lord’s. A big hundred by Clyde Walcott set it up: it was then won by the charm and guile of the cricketing sophisticates’ delight: the art of great spin bowling. It was intelligent cricket – the West Indies out-thought England as well as out-played them. As a result, all West Indians walked a little taller in their tough lives because their national cricket team had lifted their morale. No wonder the calypso rang out: “Cricket, lovely cricket, indeed!”.

    It is the classic illustration of the power of cricket. It can uplift whole communities – whole nations even – or cast them down. And, because cricket is played in the mind, because it reflects the society from which the cricketers spring, it can imprint the character of that nation indelibly upon the minds of those who watch the way in which their national team play.

    Other sport has this effect up to a point, but cricket has it to a very high degree: it is why the attractive nature of West Indies cricket is so distinctive from that of an English, Australian, or Sri Lankan team.

    When I drove from the airport two days ago I passed the Gary Sobers roundabout – I assume a racehorse, a betting shop and a putting green will be added shortly – and also the Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell and Clyde Walcott roundabouts. Here is an unbuttoned nation that gives cricket a proper priority. In England, we give such roundabouts uninspiring and sometimes unspeakably awful names.

    Since sport can have such a dynamic effect upon a community and can spring so much from the very core of a nation it is puzzling that the opportunities it offers are so rarely taken advantage of, and it so often falls off the social agenda of Governments.

    Why is this? Many politicians love sport. Your first Lecturer, Michael Manley, wrote a distinguished history of West Indies cricket. Yet Michael Manley is among the exceptions: too often, the merits of sport are ignored by the statesman. He seems to have a puritanical instinct that relegates sport to a subordinate interest, as mere entertainment, as optional and unworthy of his interest and involvement. He misses its wider significance. He prefers gravity to gaiety. Fun is beneath his eyeline.

    It shouldn’t be. Sport matters and we should use it wisely. For sport not only uplifts, it can set an example to society –a fact I wish today’s “sledgers” and “false appealers” and “non-walkers” would remember. Once more, that 1950’s game at Lord’s illustrates the point.

    I moved to Brixton soon after this great game and observed its long legacy. When I played street cricket against lamp-posts, West Indian boys tried to spin soft balls on the unresponsive pavement. It did not bother them that the ball had no seam: they still tried to spin it. They wished to bowl like Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine and as they played they believed they were Ramadhin and Valentine. It was a vivid illustration that the impressionable young will copy their heroes, which places a responsibility upon those they imitate that Frank Worrell exemplified to perfection.

    It will not be easy to upgrade sport within the priorities of Government. We mustn’t be naive: Government must weigh sport against the creation of jobs, health, education, social security, domestic infrastructure and much else besides. Their task is not easy but I believe more can be done that will help sport and Governments.

    Children immersed in sport are not causing trouble on the streets. Children immersed in sport are less likely to be involved in drugs and crime. Such children can see that someone is supervising them, caring for them and making it possible for them to pursue an activity which they enjoy. Sport is a good social bargain for any community.

    Some argue that Governments shouldn’t concern themselves with something so transitory as sport. That, to do so, is the modern equivalent of Roman bread and circuses. Moreover, they argue that if there is a demand for it, the market will provide. It is puritanism run wild but up to a point it is true. But only up to a point.

    The market won’t provide sporting facilities for children at school or for villages or minor clubs. It’s not commercial to do so. Certainly, in the UK, the market hasn’t provided for the residents, young or old, of the inner cities – many of whom are West Indian. And those residents have lost something of real social benefit.

    I believe children have a right to sport and leisure. They are as important components to their development as literature and mathematics and – for most children – likely to give them some of the happiest memories of their childhood.

    Even now – fifty years on – which of us cannot remember the sheer joy of putting linseed oil on a real bat, wearing whites, padding up and stepping out onto the pitch? I wouldn’t deny that pleasure to any child.

    It is a cliche to say that the future of cricket requires the affiliation of the young, but that doesn’t make it untrue: we need them as players and we need them as spectators. Only by exposing children to the joy of cricket – even if they have no aptitude for it – can we inspire a love of the game. The long-term health of cricket requires the lifelong affection of the child who can’t play as well as the skills of those who can. And that affection must be won against the attractions, not only of other sport, but the television age and the computer revolution which offer powerful non-sporting, non-team-playing, non-character-forming challenges to outdoor recreation.

    Once, cricket was an escape from obscurity to fame, poverty to comfort, exclusion to inclusion. These motives are less strong today. These days, each successive generation of young has a greater choice of how to spend their leisure time: once cricket and soccer were unchallenged recreations – but no longer. So we cricket-lovers must ask: how do we attract and develop future talent to our game?

    As a boy, in one way, Frank Worrell was lucky. At Combermere School, the Administrator, the Reverend “Buff” Armstrong treated sport as seriously as he did academic studies.

    Quite right too: children need both. The young Worrell was exposed to scholar-athletes. He played in the First XI and hence, in those days, against high class opposition at the age of 13. Even earlier, at the age of 9, he was bowling his left-arm spinners to top class batsmen in the nets. No wonder this precocious talent blossomed.

    When Prime Minister, I sought to raise money for sport and other good causes by establishing a National Lottery. For doing so, I was assailed on all fronts. The Churches hated it: they attacked me for encouraging gambling. The Football Pools hated it: they attacked me for costing them money. The Press hated it: they attacked me out of habit. Very few spoke out in support. Fortunately, I got my way. My passion for cricket was well known and no-one stood in the way of it.

    My colleagues had seen how notes of the up-to-date Test score were brought into Cabinet Meetings every few minutes. When this ritual first began the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, was baffled. He witnessed the progress of the notes: Prime Minister, Cabinet Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer – and feared some kind of currency crisis.

    After a while, his self-restraint snapped and he asked to see one of the notes: it was a crisis: England 27-2 after 10 overs. Michael was utterly bewildered but then, for all his virtues, he’s no cricketer.

    And so the Lottery went ahead – and, thus far, has raised around £2,000m for sport at all levels: the money has gone to village greens, for cricket nets and rollers, to youth teams and club teams, as well as to the re-building of our national grounds.

    Together with other initiatives from cricket authorities, it has helped ensure that more people are playing cricket in England today than for generations.

    And this is despite the decline in school cricket. Here, I know, I did less than I should. I should have acted more comprehensively on sport in schools when I had the power to do so and know it now with all the clarity that comes to those who review their mistakes with honesty.

    Today, a gifted sportsman leaving school and seeking either a career – or simple enjoyment – has more sporting choices than ever before – witness the upsurge in popularity of soccer, tennis, golf, rugby or, in the West Indies, basketball and baseball. All of these are an alternative to cricket and – with the possible exception of rugby – all offer far more financial rewards to the talented sportsman. All these games are of value but I do believe that cricket may offer wider social rewards than any of them.

    Many years ago that great cricketer, Prince Ranjitsingh, analysed a cricket crowd:

    “There are all sorts and conditions of men around the ropes – bricklayers, bank clerks, soldiers, postmen and stockbrokers. And in the pavilion are QCs, artists, Archdeacons and leader writers. Bad men, good men, workers and idlers are all there and all at one in their keen-ness over the game … cricket brings the most opposite characters and the most diverse lives together”.

    Here is the value: to a remarkable extent, cricket is cohesive – not divisive.

    Again, I saw myself that Ranjitsingh was right. In the mid-1990s Nelson Mandela invited me to speak to the South African Parliament for the first post-Apartheid visit of a British Prime Minister.

    I took with me some famous sporting personalities and we visited Soweto. Colin Cowdrey and Alec Stewart presided over cricket nets. That wonderful athlete Judy Simpson held a masterclass in athletics. Bobby Charlton demonstrated his mastery of football. In the nets, I bowled Steve Tshwete, the South African Sports Minister, first ball. All Soweto turned out and the sports stars were mobbed – but cricket held sway, except for one small boy.

    He had been coached on hurdling by Judy Simpson and told to practice all the time. He was then on cricket coached by Colin Cowdrey. “I’ll practice night and day, Mr Cowdrey”, the boy promised. “No” said a horrified Colin, “you must get plenty of sleep too”. And he put down his cricket bat and began hurdling over it.

    As the boy walked away shaking his head, I heard him mutter: “The cricket man says I’ve got to sleep. Cricket must be for sissies”.

    That apart, during those hours in Soweto there was a bursting out of sheer, exuberant joy amidst hardship. Never doubt the healing properties of sport.

    So – let us recognise – the social case for cricket is a convincing one. It can uplift the morale of communities – even nations; it can imprint national characteristics favourably – even on a hostile mind; it is a good social bargain; it has socially healing properties; and can provide icons for the young to follow.

    If you doubt that cricket has these characteristics, doubt it touches the deeper instincts of people, then reflect a moment: are the streets ever aflame with excitement over a politician’s triumph in negotiating a Treaty, or a businessman’s success in winning a contract? I think not. No calypsos are written about such triumphs. Can you imagine a calypso: “Treaty, lovely Treaty” or “Contract, lovely contract”. Hardly. Nor are Treaties or contracts the talk of the streets, the workplace or the town bars. But a Test victory can be quite another matter. It is argued over endlessly, pored over, even gloated over.

    Those of us who love cricket must help cast its spell in the future. It won’t be easy: cricket faces many rivals for its eminent position in the world of sport. It is a game that, in its finest expression, takes five days to complete and – even then – may end without a result.

    I said this to President Bush – the father – once and his eyes glazed over. I said it to Boris Yeltsin too, over a large cup of vodka and his eyes glazed over too – although that could well have been the vodka.

    So, in our age of instant gratification, cricket is not an easy sell to the public.

    And, yet, to secure cricket’s future, we must attract that public. If interest falls, sponsorship falls, gate money falls –and the game falls.

    To encourage interest, cricket administrators have become ever more creative and some of their changes have become crowd-pullers: in particular, One Day cricket. Even a 20-Over version of the game is to be launched to attract the young. Day-Night games, coloured clothing, white balls may all upset the traditionalist but are an attempt to attract a new audience.

    Even technology, in a haphazard way, has entered the game. Once we pretended to believe that umpires were infallible or that their rare mistakes evened out over time. “Frank Chester never made mistakes”, one old Test player said to me. No doubt Mr Chester was a great umpire but yes he did – although his mistakes weren’t caught on film. The pitiless eye of the slow motion camera, replayed time after time, now exposes the fallibility of modern umpires in a way their predecessors never faced. As a result, many important games are marked by outcries against poor decisions, especially if they turn the outcome of the game. I sometimes think Steve Bucknor takes so long to make a decision in the hope that the film will fade.

    Pity the poor umpire: the pressure on him grows constantly both on the pitch – where aggressive appealing has become an unattractive art form and “walking” a lost art – and from television. The philosophical argument over whether we should use electronic aids seemed at the outset to be finely balanced. The traditionalist said “no”; the modernists said “yes”.

    Although my heart is with the traditionalist, my head says the argument was lost the moment technology was used for the first time. There is no logic at all in a situation in which umpires are saved from poor run-out decisions but offered no assistance with LBWs or feather-touch snicks behind the wicket.

    If the umpire is entitled to verify some decisions with technological aids, then why should he not, at his discretion, be able to verify all? Anything less is simply a lottery, unsettling to the players and infuriating for the spectator who sees within seconds on the slow-motion television replay whether the correct decision was made. In the last year, several Test Matches have been won or lost by decisions we know to have been wrong.

    Some will argue that a reliance on technology belittles the authority of the umpire. I disagree. What belittles authority is a decision that is self-evidently wrong. The best of umpires – say David Shephard or Steve Bucknor – give a high percentage of fine decisions – but even they are not infallible and with around two dozen camera positions around the ground, replays in close-up, stump cameras, microphones, snickometers and tramlines, any wrong decision is soon given massive exposure. It would take but seconds for the on-field umpire – and again, I re-emphasise at his discretion – to confer with the third umpire to cut down the majority of errors. The game, I think, would be the winner and spectators and players alike far less frustrated. It should also cut out the unattractive sight of on-field dissent and attempts to pressurise the umpire.

    Elsewhere, the on-field umpires might be given more unfettered power: Are the laws on bad light fair? Should the choice of whether to leave the field continue to be offered to batsmen – since it is exercised, more often than not, upon the state of the game and not the light. Or should the umpires be given absolute discretion?

    Similar considerations apply in limited overs games where the side fielding first may be penalised for a slow over rate by having overs deducted from their batting time. Should not the umpires have some sanction upon the side fielding second if their progress is tardy?

    And should we not also look again at infringements to the spirit of cricket? Ball tampering, sledging, over-aggressive appealing – often downright, dishonest appealing – pressurising of umpires, all of which are the small change of unsportsmanlike behaviour. In these days of greater financial rewards for success, some cricketers regard such behaviour as acceptable. I don’t: at its worst, it’s cheating and I believe it costs cricket support.

    So, more vividly, does evidence of corruption. The impetus for corruption is fraud: to fix bets for financial gain. We shouldn’t pretend this is new. Betting, together with breweries, were the prime motors for the growth of the game in England in the 19th century and no doubt there was a lot of malpractice then. But, until recently, we believed cricket was clean and it has been shocking to discover that it is not.

    All this is fatal to a game where the spirit in which it is played is as important to its most avid followers as the result. To retain those followers, cricket must root out those who mar the reputation of the game. And, as they do so, cricket authorities must beware of being too loud in their criticism of the misdemeanours of “foreign” players, yet too “understanding” of those committed by members of their own teams. The ICC needs to rule upon this problem, publish penalties for misbehaviour – and insist they are enforced, irrespective of the identity of the miscreant.

    Once, cricket was an English game. Now it belongs to many countries. Around the world, one in every two spectators is an Indian – a less startling statistic than it seems when one considers the massive population of India compared to other cricket-playing nations.

    The West Indies are an important part of cricket history and cricket has returned the compliment: cricket has been an important strand in the self-determination of the West Indies Islands.

    The game of cricket today is a far cry from the age of humbug when W.G. Grace pocketed large fees for playing cricket at the same time he symbolised and promoted the concept of the Gentleman Amateur. We have moved on from the age when, in England, the Captain, the Amateurs and the Professional players all used different dressing rooms and stepped onto the pitch through separate gates. Somehow, these images symbolise days now past.

    CONCLUSION

    In our more egalitarian age, cricket can still hold up a reflective light upon our times: we must ensure it reflects the best of our times, not the worst.

    As we strive to do so, the life of Frank Worrell still has much to offer us. Although it was cruelly cut short his memory is as potent as ever.

    Tonight, so close to his final resting place, we can say that Frank Worrell isn’t truly gone while we can talk of him and re-live his exploits.

    He isn’t gone while his example remains with us; whilst he lives in the memory of those who knew him; whilst there are still those who can see him as if he were still here and conjure him up for a new generation.

    Frank Worrell is part of the West Indies gift to cricket history. With George Headley, Leary Constantine and George Challenor. And latterly with Malcolm Marshall and Conrad Hunte.

    All of them could only have been West Indian cricketers: they played themselves into the very core of West Indies life and culture and, as they did so, changed the face of cricket far beyond their own Islands.

    We owe it to them to protect the game they loved with such a passion and enriched with such skill and charm. For that, and for much else, we are forever in their debt.

  • Mr Major’s Article in the Wall Street Journal – 25 March 2002

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article in the Wall Street Journal, published on 25th March 2002.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    All wars are uncertain but some predictions about the outcome of the present conflict can be made safely. When the fighting is at an end, the US and her allies will have won the military conflict. America is the most powerful military force the world has ever seen and the large, but ramshackle, Iraqi defence capability cannot stand before it. Saddam Hussein will be dead or fled or awaiting trial for his many crimes. His sons and other senior advisers will share his fate. The whole apparatus of the Iraqi Government will have gone, together with the upper echelon of the Republican Guard.

    Iraq herself may – dependent upon how the war evolves – be in chaos: at best, she will be in confusion. There will be a shortage of food, water and medicine, and a potentially huge refugee crisis. Civil insurrection is a real risk if the Shias and other victims of Saddam seek to exact retribution on the remnants of a cruel regime that has repressed and murdered them for years. Coalition troops may enter Baghdad as liberators but events may force them to remain as peacekeepers. Ahead of them lies a messy, uncomfortable – and potentially hugely expensive – task.

    And yet, in many ways, even these difficulties pale beside those that must then be faced: How will Iraq be governed? How can the rifts in the UN, the EU, NATO and the transatlantic alliance be healed? And – most delicate of all – how can relations be repaired with a large part of the Islamic world that, by the day, becomes ever more suspicious of the motives of the US and Britain?

    Such suspicions are misguided and foolish but potent. They are a hymn of hate for the US and Britain and their echo can be heard in market places throughout the Moslem world. The common belief is that the coalition has an agenda to dismember Iraq and control its oil; that the war has more to do with Imperialism and aggression than liberation and self-defence. Nonsense though this is, it is a fear which will not be dispelled by words alone which is why the actions of America and Britain will be scrutinised so carefully in the months ahead.

    Whatever the immediate post-war arrangements for governing Iraq may be – probably a Military Governorship – it is desirable for the UN to be involved as swiftly as possible in any interim Administration. Some sounding board for local opinion – perhaps a Consultative Council representing the main tribal interests – should also be put in place. This will be uncomfortable and rancorous since the views of the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are unlikely to be as one, but the effort must be made – and be seen to be made. It is important, too, that Arab opinion accepts beyond any doubt that the present territorial borders of Iraq are sacrosanct and that the management and ownership of oil will remain in Iraqi hands.

    The establishment of any longer-term Government in Iraq is fraught with difficulty. Iraq is not a natural democracy. The depth of bitterness between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds is such that any “grand coalition” is improbable to the point of absurdity. Yet, unless Military Governorship or UN Administration is to be lengthy we must anticipate a legitimate Government that may reflect the numerical dominance of the Shia tribe who make up over 60% of the population. Such a majority Government would install a Shia Iraq beside a Shia Iran which is an uncomfortable omen. Saudi Arabia is one of many countries that will look uneasily at the future if collaboration between these two countries were to become likely.

    One of Saddam’s more baleful legacies will be rifts between the coalition partners and France, Germany, Russia and China – as well as with mainstream opinion across the Islamic world. It will require Statesmanship, and a generosity of spirit, to quell the fears that give rise to these divisions. But it would be foolish to let them fester: an effort at reconciliation must be made or we will all come to regret it.

    There is a menu of healing actions from which we can choose. We must be generous to post-war Iraq in her travails. We would be wise to consult Arab opinion – the Arab League and the Gulf Co-Operation Council for example – about how to reconstitute a free and democratic Iraq. We should discuss our plans with the EU, China and Russia and seek their active political support: we may, after all, need them to open up their wallets as well. As we do so, we should not neglect the views of our allies, Australia, Spain, Japan prominent among them. In victory, magnanimity may heal many wounds.

    President Bush has already announced his intention to move forward on the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations with Islam: Palestine.

    The strong support that the US and Britain has given to Israel is based on admiration for a talented nation that has overcome many ills with courage and fortitude yet still finds herself in a hostile environment. And yet, that support rankles with many in the Moslem world who see it as one-sided and look on with dismay at the truly pitiable position of the Palestinians.

    In the post-Saddam era, Israel will be safer and it is time for President Bush to take Mr Sharon and Mr Arafat by the elbows and demand progress.

    Both sides need a settlement. Israel needs security and Palestine needs a future. An active Peace Process is vital –for without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem steps too readily.

    After the Gulf War in 1991, the Madrid Conference held out hope for the future. It faded. Now, something similar is needed. The forthcoming “Road Map” offers hope once more, but this will only be realised if it is accompanied by action and a route to political progress. There will be a need, too, for economic assistance for the embryonic Palestinian State, for a land without hope breeds only resentment. There are many donors – in and beyond the Middle East – who might be expected to contribute.

    No-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. It will not be easy to wrong out the compromises that both Israel and the Palestinians must make. But, perversely, war over Iraq provides an impetus for peace in Palestine: the prize is very great indeed.

    The removal of Saddam’s odious regime could change the face of the Middle East, but a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute would assuredly do so. It will be a tragedy if such an opportunity is not grasped with an open heart and a ready will.

  • Mr Major’s Article in the Wall Street Journal – 25 March 2002

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article in the Wall Street Journal, published on 25 March 2002.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    All wars are uncertain but some predictions about the outcome of the present conflict can be made safely. When the fighting is at an end, the US and her allies will have won the military conflict. America is the most powerful military force the world has ever seen and the large, but ramshackle, Iraqi defence capability cannot stand before it. Saddam Hussein will be dead or fled or awaiting trial for his many crimes. His sons and other senior advisers will share his fate. The whole apparatus of the Iraqi Government will have gone, together with the upper echelon of the Republican Guard.

    Iraq herself may – dependent upon how the war evolves – be in chaos: at best, she will be in confusion. There will be a shortage of food, water and medicine, and a potentially huge refugee crisis. Civil insurrection is a real risk if the Shias and other victims of Saddam seek to exact retribution on the remnants of a cruel regime that has repressed and murdered them for years. Coalition troops may enter Baghdad as liberators but events may force them to remain as peacekeepers. Ahead of them lies a messy, uncomfortable – and potentially hugely expensive – task.

    And yet, in many ways, even these difficulties pale beside those that must then be faced: How will Iraq be governed? How can the rifts in the UN, the EU, NATO and the transatlantic alliance be healed? And – most delicate of all – how can relations be repaired with a large part of the Islamic world that, by the day, becomes ever more suspicious of the motives of the US and Britain?

    Such suspicions are misguided and foolish but potent. They are a hymn of hate for the US and Britain and their echo can be heard in market places throughout the Moslem world. The common belief is that the coalition has an agenda to dismember Iraq and control its oil; that the war has more to do with Imperialism and aggression than liberation and self-defence. Nonsense though this is, it is a fear which will not be dispelled by words alone which is why the actions of America and Britain will be scrutinised so carefully in the months ahead.

    Whatever the immediate post-war arrangements for governing Iraq may be – probably a Military Governorship – it is desirable for the UN to be involved as swiftly as possible in any interim Administration. Some sounding board for local opinion – perhaps a Consultative Council representing the main tribal interests – should also be put in place. This will be uncomfortable and rancorous since the views of the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are unlikely to be as one, but the effort must be made – and be seen to be made. It is important, too, that Arab opinion accepts beyond any doubt that the present territorial borders of Iraq are sacrosanct and that the management and ownership of oil will remain in Iraqi hands.

    The establishment of any longer-term Government in Iraq is fraught with difficulty. Iraq is not a natural democracy. The depth of bitterness between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds is such that any “grand coalition” is improbable to the point of absurdity. Yet, unless Military Governorship or UN Administration is to be lengthy we must anticipate a legitimate Government that may reflect the numerical dominance of the Shia tribe who make up over 60% of the population. Such a majority Government would install a Shia Iraq beside a Shia Iran which is an uncomfortable omen. Saudi Arabia is one of many countries that will look uneasily at the future if collaboration between these two countries were to become likely.

    One of Saddam’s more baleful legacies will be rifts between the coalition partners and France, Germany, Russia and China – as well as with mainstream opinion across the Islamic world. It will require Statesmanship, and a generosity of spirit, to quell the fears that give rise to these divisions. But it would be foolish to let them fester: an effort at reconciliation must be made or we will all come to regret it.

    There is a menu of healing actions from which we can choose. We must be generous to post-war Iraq in her travails. We would be wise to consult Arab opinion – the Arab League and the Gulf Co-Operation Council for example – about how to reconstitute a free and democratic Iraq. We should discuss our plans with the EU, China and Russia and seek their active political support: we may, after all, need them to open up their wallets as well. As we do so, we should not neglect the views of our allies, Australia, Spain, Japan prominent among them. In victory, magnanimity may heal many wounds.

    President Bush has already announced his intention to move forward on the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations with Islam: Palestine.

    The strong support that the US and Britain has given to Israel is based on admiration for a talented nation that has overcome many ills with courage and fortitude yet still finds herself in a hostile environment. And yet, that support rankles with many in the Moslem world who see it as one-sided and look on with dismay at the truly pitiable position of the Palestinians.

    In the post-Saddam era, Israel will be safer and it is time for President Bush to take Mr Sharon and Mr Arafat by the elbows and demand progress.

    Both sides need a settlement. Israel needs security and Palestine needs a future. An active Peace Process is vital –for without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem steps too readily.

    After the Gulf War in 1991, the Madrid Conference held out hope for the future. It faded. Now, something similar is needed. The forthcoming “Road Map” offers hope once more, but this will only be realised if it is accompanied by action and a route to political progress. There will be a need, too, for economic assistance for the embryonic Palestinian State, for a land without hope breeds only resentment. There are many donors – in and beyond the Middle East – who might be expected to contribute.

    No-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. It will not be easy to wrong out the compromises that both Israel and the Palestinians must make. But, perversely, war over Iraq provides an impetus for peace in Palestine: the prize is very great indeed.

    The removal of Saddam’s odious regime could change the face of the Middle East, but a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute would assuredly do so. It will be a tragedy if such an opportunity is not grasped with an open heart and a ready will.

  • Mr Major’s Letter to the Daily Telegraph on Foot and Mouth – 1 August 2001

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s letter to the Daily Telegraph on the subject of Foot and Mouth, published on 1st August 2001.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Dear Sir,

    The cull of some 4,000 sheep at Brecon is a depressing reminder that Foot and Mouth is far from over. A second cull has now been ordered. More culls seem possible, perhaps even probable.

    After the BSE epidemic I took advice and demurred at the prospect of a Public as opposed to a Private Inquiry. In 1997, the new Labour Government decided differently. In the event the Public Inquiry produced – albeit after a long time – an excellent Report with valuable lessons for the future. In addition it knocked down much of the lurid scapegoating that had caused so much anguish to Officials and Ministers struggling, as they were, with unknown science.

    With Foot and Mouth, of course, the science is familiar, yet we now have the longest and worst outbreak in our history. The Government seems to believe that a full Public Inquiry is not necessary and that, if they delay committing themselves to one, the demand for it will subside.

    I disagree. It is evident that the recommendations given and lessons learned following the 1967 Inquiry have not been applied to the present epidemic and that Ministers’ and Officials’ advice has repeatedly proved to be wrong. This alone is sufficient justification for a Public Inquiry: why has so much gone wrong?

    It is becoming the set belief of many country dwellers that action on Foot and Mouth has been geared more to the political interests of the Labour Government than to the economic interests of farmers and the rural community.

    There was to be a General Election on 3rd May. It was essential, we were told, to avoid Britain being seen as “closed for business”. I warned there should be no election until we were certain Foot and Mouth had been eradicated, not least since the Government’s term had a further year to run. As public disquiet mounted, the proposed election date was shelved. We were told the Prime Minister was acting in the “national interest”. The Prime Minister took personal control and told us we were on the home straight. It was a glaring example of mis-information. The only home straight we were on was the one that led to the 7th June election.

    If political self interest did predominate – and I stress if – then it was indefensible. This is a further reason for a full and comprehensive Inquiry to determine what solid fact and expectation underpinned those public assurances that have, in the event, proved to be so worthless.

    We need to learn fresh lessons from this outbreak. How did it occur? Why did it spread so widely? Why is it lingering so long? Why were troops used so late and the carcass disposal instructions so confused? Why was vaccination thought of, rejected, and now under consideration again? This is by no means a comprehensive set of the questions to be answered: there are so many more.

    I am content for the Prime Minister to take advice on the precise nature of the Inquiry but he should commit himself to it without delay and ensure that it will be held fully in public. Our rural communities – both present and future – deserve no less.

    Yours faithfully,

    JOHN MAJOR

  • Mr Major’s Letter to the Daily Telegraph – 1 August 2001

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s letter to the Daily Telegraph on the subject of Foot and Mouth, published on 1 August 2001.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Dear Sir,

    The cull of some 4,000 sheep at Brecon is a depressing reminder that Foot and Mouth is far from over. A second cull has now been ordered. More culls seem possible, perhaps even probable.

    After the BSE epidemic I took advice and demurred at the prospect of a Public as opposed to a Private Inquiry. In 1997, the new Labour Government decided differently. In the event the Public Inquiry produced – albeit after a long time – an excellent Report with valuable lessons for the future. In addition it knocked down much of the lurid scapegoating that had caused so much anguish to Officials and Ministers struggling, as they were, with unknown science.

    With Foot and Mouth, of course, the science is familiar, yet we now have the longest and worst outbreak in our history. The Government seems to believe that a full Public Inquiry is not necessary and that, if they delay committing themselves to one, the demand for it will subside.

    I disagree. It is evident that the recommendations given and lessons learned following the 1967 Inquiry have not been applied to the present epidemic and that Ministers’ and Officials’ advice has repeatedly proved to be wrong. This alone is sufficient justification for a Public Inquiry: why has so much gone wrong?

    It is becoming the set belief of many country dwellers that action on Foot and Mouth has been geared more to the political interests of the Labour Government than to the economic interests of farmers and the rural community.

    There was to be a General Election on 3rd May. It was essential, we were told, to avoid Britain being seen as “closed for business”. I warned there should be no election until we were certain Foot and Mouth had been eradicated, not least since the Government’s term had a further year to run. As public disquiet mounted, the proposed election date was shelved. We were told the Prime Minister was acting in the “national interest”. The Prime Minister took personal control and told us we were on the home straight. It was a glaring example of mis-information. The only home straight we were on was the one that led to the 7th June election.

    If political self interest did predominate – and I stress if – then it was indefensible. This is a further reason for a full and comprehensive Inquiry to determine what solid fact and expectation underpinned those public assurances that have, in the event, proved to be so worthless.

    We need to learn fresh lessons from this outbreak. How did it occur? Why did it spread so widely? Why is it lingering so long? Why were troops used so late and the carcass disposal instructions so confused? Why was vaccination thought of, rejected, and now under consideration again? This is by no means a comprehensive set of the questions to be answered: there are so many more.

    I am content for the Prime Minister to take advice on the precise nature of the Inquiry but he should commit himself to it without delay and ensure that it will be held fully in public. Our rural communities – both present and future – deserve no less.

    Yours faithfully,

    JOHN MAJOR

  • Mr Major’s Letter to The Times on his Huntingdon Successor – 9 June 2000

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s letter to The Times, written on 8th June 2000 and published on 9th June 2000.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir,

    You reported last week (June 2) that I was seeking to influence the Huntingdon selectorate in their choice of a new candidate.

    I would like to say that this is totally untrue. The selection is entirely in the hands of my constituency party and I have played no part in it.

    Yours faithfully,

    JOHN MAJOR,

    House of Commons.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 24 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 24th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of the comments made by Leon Brittan].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a policy of negotiating and deciding. That has been our policy for a long time and Leon Brittan has supported that policy. I didn’t ask him but I understand he did so again this morning. What we have been focusing on in the last few days is the economic criteria as to when and whether it might be safe to consider this properly. We have reached the judgement it is highly unlikely that the condition will be right for Europe itself – whether or not we are in it – to go ahead on 1st January 1999. The Cabinet reached that conclusion yesterday and self-evidently, if it isn’t right, we are not going to go ahead on that particular date. That is perfectly clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was surprised that this policy hadn’t won over the Euro-sceptics in his party].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make an assertion that I don’t intend to comment upon. We have set out our policy for a long time. Our policy is in the national interest. We have set out a national interest policy and set it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. We have now looked at what the economic conditions are across Europe and reached a judgement on whether it is likely to be safe for our European partners or anyone to go ahead with the single currency on 1st January 1999. And upon the available evidence to us at present, we think it is unlikely, very unlikely, that they could safely proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if forty Euro-sceptics could defect after the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is completely off-beam – a story that has emerged from time to time, usually without any names and one that has usually been denied in the past. It seems to have re-emerged, it’s completely off-beam. As far as I’m aware there is nothing to justify it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s Amsterdam speech].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t read the details of everything the leader of the Labour Party plans to say but from what I know of what he plans to say, for example, after-school clubs for children, they have been our policy for some time. We have devoted many tens of million of pounds to them. I visited one very recently. They are a very good idea. They are our policy. I am afraid this is another example of the jackdaw tendency of the Labour Party, but if we leave a good policy lying around they will certainly scoop it up, shine it brightly and claim it as a brand new policy for themselves. But it isn’t. It is our policy, but I strongly suspect he has a watered down version of it. Beyond that, I understand what is in his speech will involve a good deal of expenditure and exclude private sector involvement which we would seek to include, so I expect there is not a good deal in the speech except for some copycat policies of ours.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the return of Alan Clark].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alan Clark is an original. Everyone in the House of Commons knows he is an original. And he will being a dash of colour. It’s not just the question of the dash of colour and the originality of Alan Clark. There’s a very shrewd, clever, intelligent politician returning to the House of Commons and of course I welcome that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would give Alan Clark a Governmental role].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I’m not going to carry out my next Government reshuffle now, but I’m delighted you acknowledge there is going to be one.