The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2006

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Worshipful Company of Farmers Livery Luncheon – 6 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Worshipful Company of Farmers Livery Luncheon, held at the Farmers Fletchers Hall on Tuesday 6th June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When Henry Plumb invited me to join you today, I was delighted to accept. I was the Member of Parliament for a rural constituency for 22 years and enjoyed a close relationship with the farming community.

    So, I wasn’t surprised to be told I could speak on any subject I wished – whenever I met farmers in Huntingdon, they were always happy for me to say whatever I liked, before they told me what they thought! I am glad to see Lord Plumb is upholding that tradition.

    In this private lunch, I would like to exercise a few hobby horses – starting with farming.

    In all its long history, farming has had many highs and lows – times of prosperity and hardship. But, in many ways, it faces more complex challenges today than ever before. Modern husbandry and all the implications of free markets has changed the industry fundamentally. As a result, farming will never be tomorrow what it was yesterday.

    But – when one looks at the macro position – some of the old truths remain:

    As a nation, we are foolish if we don’t maintain a full variety of agriculture and we must never make ourselves too dependent on imported food.

    In today’s world – so the free marketeers tell us – price rules. That’s it. End of story. I don’t agree. Price is important but supply is more so. If competitive pressures are permitted to turn farming profit into loss, then farmers will diversify and domestic supply of food will fall. Over time, we would be at the mercy of other Nations’ production – and price.

    In areas of manufacturing that may be unavoidable – but for food it is simply not sensible policy.

    We may argue and discuss about what needs to be done about CAP, about Single Farm Payments, about so much else – but unless the central point of supply is understood, and acted upon, then we are laying up problems in the future.

    In a micro way, farming has some weapons it doesn’t use. If individual farmers negotiate with supermarket chains, so be it – but the small supplier is at a huge negotiating disadvantage. The supermarkets are interested, first and foremost, in the price to their customers – that is their job – not the future well-being of agricultural supply, a decade hence. The farmers would do better to negotiate co-operatively and not individually and Government should help them exploit the quality and value of their produce. I hope the Competition Commission inquiry will address this.

    These days I am out of politics – but I observe it with interest.

    In our changing world, Government becomes more complex. Many decisions that were once the prerogative of Nation States are now made either collectively in wider fora, or predetermined by the impact of globalisation. Many of the levers of power available to Nation States twenty years ago are no longer there. As the free market grows in power, politics loses it. All this adds to the frustration the electorate often feels about the performance of Governments.

    I don’t wish to stray into partisan politics but, in the interests of the health of our political system, we do need to correct the present negative impression of politics.

    What the electorate sees today is a new approach in politics – more concerned with appearance than reality, less able to distinguish fact from fiction, more inclined to blame officials than themselves. Responsibility always lies elsewhere. This is an unattractive trait and one that adds to public dis-illusion.

    I have noticed, too, that whenever the present Government are in difficulties (and this seems increasingly often) they tend to trot out the familiar line that Margaret Thatcher and John Major had the same problems. Even if that were true – and often it is not – this playground response is hardly credible after nine years of government. These spats of blame attribution do no-one any good – and harm the perception of politics.

    Then, of course, there is spin. Spin is merely a polite term for deception – and the sooner it is brought under control the better. Of course, politicians will always put the best gloss on things: they would not be human if they did not. But there is a distinction between putting a gloss on politics and downright deceit – and, when the line is crossed, the whole political system is the loser.

    Obsession with spin not only degrades politics – but obscures serious policy. Let me now shock you: I believe some of the things the present Government are doing – are right. They are right to look again at nuclear energy – which will, I think, prove inevitable. They are right to reform health and education, although I am bound to note that their reforms today are precisely those I was implementing over a decade ago that they reviled, rejected and have now re-adopted.

    I fear our political system may be about to suffer another blow. For reasons of electoral fairness we limit the sums that can be spent in elections. That is right. It would also be right to limit the size of donations to a party from any individual or company or union in a single Parliament. But, it would not, in my view, be wise to move further down the route of party politics simply being funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer should not be a bran- tub into which hard-up political parties can dip their fingers. By all means, change tax law to encourage widespread donations of modest size to our political Parties – even possibly some system of matching funding – but not straight-forward subsidy.

    Until then, parties should match expenditure to income – and if that means an end to expensive negative advertisements attacking their opponents – then so much the better.

    Many of the problems facing future governments will be long-term. Adversarial politics has served our Nation well but, for some issues, we may need consensus, even coalition government. We should not close our minds to that.

    There is one reform upon which I believe I may be an unreconstructed minority. Present opinion seems to be moving towards a reform of the House of Lords that would include a very large, if not completely, elected Upper House. I am very wary of this. I can – with extreme reluctance – accept a minority of elected Peers but I believe majority election would be a fundamental error. An elected House of Lords would be within its right to challenge the supremacy of the Commons. Moreover, this elected Lords would probably consist of new Peers who had failed to get elected to the Commons, rather than those with specialist knowledge who can bring their experience into what should be a revising Chamber. Much experience and dispassionate public service would be lost. I accept some reforms might be necessary and desirable, but a largely elected House of Lords seems – to me, at least – to be an option that owes more to the appearance of democratic principles than the reality of what produces good democratic government.

    Given my views on such matters, it is perhaps rather a good thing that I am no longer in politics – but, having been a Member of the House of Commons for 22 years, it is impossible not to care about what happens in our country; not to despair when things go badly wrong; and not to voice dismay when the electoral system itself malfunctions.

    In a world that changes, politics must change but – as a Conservative with a small “c” – I only wish to see change that is an improvement.

    I do believe we need a new, more considered, view of politics in future. A politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    And frankly, the sooner – the better.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Washington University – 19 May 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Washington University, St Louis, held on Friday 19th May 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Chancellor Wrighton, thank you for that warm welcome. I often come to St Louis but it is a special pleasure to be here for this wonderful occasion.

    I would like to direct my remarks specifically to the stars of today – the graduates who will soon be awarded their academic degrees.

    For all of you, today’s ceremony is not only the result of years of study and hard work – but also the beginning of the next phase of your life.

    I envy you. I never attended university. I left school at the age of 15. Circumstances compelled it. My father was sick and blind and bed-ridden. My mother was chronically ill. They had many needs – and no money. In 1959, the US $8 a week I could earn was crucial to our family finances.

    So the choice to leave was easy. But I can still see the tears in my father’s eyes when he realised there was no alternative.

    I began my working life with employment that had no future, while I studied morning and evening, in an Aladdin’s Cave of literature and reference books that served also as my bedroom.

    I gained some academic qualifications and joined a bank. Once there, I took a banking degree and applied to work overseas. My employers must have felt I was disposable, because they sent me to Nigeria during the Biafran Civil War. Whilst there, I witnessed scenes that I wish I had not. As a young man starting out in life, it made me realise how lucky I was to live in a civilised democracy.

    I mention my own background, only to point out that learning continues well beyond academia. In the University of Life, it never stops.

    My own experience has taught me that a good education benefits not only the recipient, but everyone influenced by them. It is a priceless asset.

    Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Three of the great minds of the ancient world shaped one of the great Commanders of history. In just such a fashion, knowledge accumulates and is passed on through the generations.

    That is one reason I am confident about the future, despite the myriad problems confronting our world. It is likely that many of today’s graduates will be tomorrow’s leaders. By leaders, I don’t just mean statesmen and women, or captains of industry, or military heroes. I mean leaders in the professions, our communities – in all aspects of life – who will look at the resolution of long-term dilemmas.

    “Soundbite” leadership will not do. You know what I mean by soundbites: a glib phrase that is supposed to cure a serious problem. Such statements are a fraud. If it’s a serious problem, it can’t be solved by a soundbite. And if it can be solved by a soundbite, it’s not a serious problem.

    It is an odd concept, leadership.

    There is no template for it. Abraham Lincoln was a leader who we revere. So was Stalin – a psychopathic monster – who we emphatically do not.

    Genghis Khan was a leader. He laid waste to half the known world. So was Mother Theresa – who laid waste only to poverty and hardship.

    As you take leadership roles you will discover leadership has many facets. It cannot easily be defined.

    Is it winning personally … or is it taking long-term action to benefit others – perhaps beyond one’s own lifetime?

    Is it achieving something worthwhile … or heading off something damaging?

    Is it defeating an aggressor, or preventing the aggression in the first place?

    It may, of course, be any or all of the above.

    Sometimes, successful leadership brings odium.

    Take Mikhail Gorbachev:

    Changed face of Russia. Hero in West. Not in Russia – very unpopular.

    Stood for election as President. Polled only 1% in election.

    [Indistinct, anecdote about Gorbachev].

    GLOBAL TERROR

    Two of the daunting problems we face today may need leadership beyond one generation:

    The fear of global war has gone; only to be followed by the fear of global terror. Terrorism has been with us since ancient times: but now it is globalising. Thus far, the worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo all bear the mark of terror. Moreover, terror has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of extreme religion, and a vehicle to oppose the free market.

    But we should put terror into a proper context: so far, it has failed to gain any of its political objectives.

    The threat before us is the attempt to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim by playing upon prejudice and by fostering hatred.

    This campaign can cause mayhem – but often it merely entrenches more securely what it most wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – ineffective. Gandhi had far more success at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    We will win this battle – but we will win it more swiftly if we work with other Nations threatened by terrorism … to deny terrorists safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. We must stop the free movement of terrorists; attack money laundering; reduce their supply of weapons; agree extradition; and penalise States that fund terror. Above all, democracy must deny terrorists their causes.

    Terrorism is not going to go away and, although it is tempting to ignore it – and hope that it will ignore us – we dare not do so.

    The Radicals case may be crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, we must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: we must accept obligations that show the morality of democracy.

    POVERTY

    One of these takes me back to what I saw in microcosm as a boy in Nigeria. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The rich nations do help: at present, they spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    Let me put that to you as the radicals – who wish to do us harm – put it to their audiences: America and Europe spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.
    Greater help is not simply altruism. It is in our interest to remove grievances. It is in our interest to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. It is in our interest to foreclose on misery and hardship to come. It is in our interest to undermine the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    And it is in our interest to build the alliances that will result – unless we want a bitter and divisive world.

    Moreover, if we do not, we may let fester a problem that will – quite simply – overwhelm us.

    In twenty years, 6 billion people will become 8 billion. Of that additional 2 billion, 97% is in that part of the world that live on less than $2 a day. I cannot think of a more potent recipe for an unstable, unsafe world.

    Some years ago, I was in Peru and visited a small shanty town outside Lima: a dismal place, which seemed to be entirely without hope. The local Priest invited me to breakfast. “There is”, he said, “something I’d like you to see”.

    I was intrigued. We ate early and, just as the church clock struck 8.00, went into the street.

    Almost in concert, the doors of the hovels opened and out poured children on their way to school. All were spotlessly clean, their uniforms immaculate. Their faces smiling in greeting at one another as they carried their rather well worn and bulging satchels towards the schoolhouse.

    The Priest stopped one little girl: “Tell me”, he asked, “what do you want to be when you grow up?”.

    She looked up at him puzzled – for she knew that he already knew the answer. But nonetheless, her eyes shining with optimism, she replied:

    “I want to be a brain surgeon”. I have never forgotten than moment: it was a soaring ambition for a child from the slums of Peru.

    That little girl will now be around 30 years old. I don’t know if she will ever realise her dream. I do hope so.

    The message from that little girl is unmistakeable for the educated graduates of a great university like Washington.

    Be ambitious. Aim high. Do today what your instincts tell you could wait until tomorrow. Never under-estimate what you can achieve. With luck and skill and effort there is no ambition that is closed to you.

    In your world of tomorrow, change will accelerate. In the late 18th century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year ….. we should send a note.” Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone. We have a global economy: In China, India and Asia, an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Around the world, every emerging economy is out-performing every mature economy.

    The political map is fluid: The Middle East is a powder-keg. Iraq, Iran, and the Arab-Israel conflict are inflammatory problems. Events in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, are all capable of de-stabilising the region.

    In our world, each day, there are ground-breaking new developments, and the speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services in infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed. The past may give us an idea of the scale of change we might see.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    Charles Lindbergh could never have imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in St Louis.

    In those days, the United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface. How things have changed. The Ottoman Empire has gone. The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone. The French Empire has gone. The British Empire has gone. The Russian Empire has both come – and gone. The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers. The impact of all this on our future is far beyond economics and politics. Those of you who graduate today will see the conquest of the stars.

    You will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. You will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond your wildest imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to your forebears.

    Today is a proud day for all graduates – and one you will never forget. But it is – believe me – an even prouder day for your parents and grandparents. For them, it is the day you have begun to achieve the high hopes and dreams they have always had for you.

    They will wish you many things: A happy life. A healthy life. A life of personal and professional fulfilment.

    On the early canvas of your life, you have today painted in a great achievement. May there be many more.

    I wish you ALL every success for the future.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Dinner – 16 May 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Dinner, held at the House of Lords on Tuesday 16th May 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We are lucky.

    Whatever problems we have, we have a roof over our heads. We are fed and clothed.

    So are our families.

    Our children and grand-children are cared for. Never lost or alone. We share their triumphs and disasters. We make provision for their future.

    The children Hope & Homes care for have none of these comforts. I am not part of the charity, but from the moment I learned about its work, I have been hugely impressed.

    The children face hardship for reasons that are not their fault. They are the victims – the flotsam and jetsam – of the failure of earlier generations.

    130 years ago – not far from here in the British Library – an elderly man who actually did care for the underclass wrote a book that changed the world – not – as he anticipated – for the better, but for the worse.

    Das Kapital attacked the failings of the world in which Karl Marx lived, and prescribed a remedy that led to misery for countless millions of people. Until only 30 years ago, one-third of the world lived under Marxist regimes, including many of the countries whose children now need the help of Hope & Homes. Marx did not intend this, but the perversion of his philosophy brought it about.

    Today the free market and democracy has won its battle with Marxism. Only North Korea and a handful of despotic states cling to that failed philosophy. As a result, our world is changing for the better – though not yet for everyone.

    ECONOMIC RELIEF

    But it is a world of change. In China and Asia an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Every time I visit the Far East, I come away with two emotions: admiration at their progress and foreboding about how competitive they have become.
    China is not alone.

    India is 15 years behind her – but with enormous potential.

    Turkey is industrialising. So are parts of Eastern Europe, although – as Hope and Homes knows as well as anyone – not fast enough for the victims of economic failure.

    Russia is energy-rich. Putin has made democracy worse – but the economy better.

    Today, the revolution in Latin America is as much economic as once it was military.

    Between 1986 and 1996 inflation was 180%, today it is between 6-7%.

    All these are advances.

    Over recent years every emerging economy in the world has outperformed every mature economy.

    This fore-shadows a different world:- for the last quarter of a Century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them. As a result, growth in the world economy will be better balanced than ever before.

    This is encouraging as it does offer long term hope for many of tomorrow’s children – but does not diminish the need for help now – and for decades to come.

    CHANGING WORLD

    Over a lifetime, you see a lot. Often, things you would have preferred not to see.

    Sometimes, what you see gives you hope:

    [Small section indistinct].

    In the midst of change, despite overall economic improvements, there are many millions of people who are falling behind. These are not mere statistics – they are individual human lives.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee on their way into work each morning.

    The rich nations do help: at present, they spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.

    The call for greater help is not simply altruism. It is in our interests to remove grievances, to cut away the resentment of the “have-notes” for the “haves”. It is in our interests to foreclose on misery and hardship to come and undermine the message of hate that fuels radicalism. And it is in our interests to build the alliances that will result from that.

    Wherever we look, change is accelerating. In the late 18th Century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year …. we should send a note.”

    Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. Each day, there are ground-breaking new developments.

    The speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services is infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    Science and technology is accelerating changing which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    The past may give us an idea of the scale of change we might see.

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – not had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the thought that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York.

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has both come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers.

    The impact of all this is far beyond economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    Most will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    But not for all children – and we need to ensure that those children left behind do not suffer the hardships of their forebears.

    That is what Hope & Homes is about. That is why it is necessary.

    That is why I support it.

    And that – I hope – is why we are all here tonight.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Lord Barber – 27 April 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to The Rt Hon Lord Barber of Wentbridge, made on Thursday 27th April 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    As I walked to the lectern – I fancied I heard the silent question – “Why him?” After all, I come from a later political generation than Tony Barber.

    The answer is that I worked for Tony after he left politics.

    I was a very young member of a large Bank. He was the Chairman. It made no difference. Tony offered me his friendship and wise counsel with the warmth that was his hallmark.

    I came to know a man to whom pomposity and self-regard were alien. I naively assumed – I was very young – that all politicians were as straightforward, considerate, courteous and loyal: this was a mistake.

    Tony Barber was special. Gregarious, with a real sense of fun – he would listen as well as transmit. Because of these human qualities – because he wore no mask of self-regard – it was easy to underestimate him – but a mistake to do so.

    Throughout his life Tony Barber showed a tenacity, a will to succeed and an ability to accomplish the unexpected. In 1976, he called me to his office. Standard Chartered owned Banks in California and he wished to mark the American Bicentenary.

    “Do you think” he asked, “we could borrow the Magna Carta and take it there?” I demurred: it was, after all, a seminal document in 1000 years of British history and only three copies were known to exist.

    “Lincoln Cathedral have a copy” he mused – here I saw him begin to smile – “and a lot of work needs doing on the Cathedral”.

    After much negotiation, all was agreed. It was a huge operation to protect the priceless document, insure it, transport it – but everything was put in place.

    Tony decided to invite the Dean of Lincoln, Oliver Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, and his wife, to accompany the document. But somewhere in the Bank this arrangement went awry. Instead of two, six airline tickets were booked. Two for Twistleton, Two for Wykeham and Two for Fiennes. “It made me”, said Tony, “check the insurance very carefully”.

    Tony had an exceptional War.

    He volunteered for the Army and, at first, was in a Royal Artillery anti-aircraft battery in Belgium and France. At Dunkirk, he was among the last to be evacuated having rowed back and forth from the beach, ferrying wounded men to the waiting ships. On his return home – undeterred by this experience – he managed to wangle himself an attachment to the Royal Air Force as a Spitfire photo-reconnaissance pilot.

    In 1942, he was flying home from Gibraltar – in thick cloud and against a head wind – when he ran out of fuel and was forced to bail out. He was captured.

    From a German point of view, Tony was a very bad Prisoner of War. He escaped several times, once travelling across Poland and Germany, before recapture. He was grilled by the Gestapo for a week and then taken outside – he believed to be shot.

    This could have been done with impunity, since no-one knew where he was imprisoned. But – even in the courtyard where he thought he was to die – he continued to resist interrogation and was returned to his cell. The threat to shoot him was what he later called – with characteristic understatement – “a ruse”.

    Tony did not waste his time in prison camp. When not planning escapes, he studied to obtain a law degree, and learned, when he was liberated by the Russians, that he had got a First.

    He then took another First in PPE at Oxford, won a scholarship to Inner Temple and was called to the Bar. His first client was a professional villain whose case was hopeless. Tony persuaded him to plead guilty. For this, Tony got three guineas. The old lag got seven years.

    When Tony was adopted as the Conservative candidate for the safe Labour seat of Doncaster he had two strokes of luck. First, he met Jean, his future wife, who was the candidate for the even less promising seat of Hemsworth. Their marriage was long and happy and they had two much-loved daughters. Louise and Josephine. With Jane, Tony’s half-sister, it was a close and loving family. The last words Tony spoke to me were of Roberta, his granddaughter – who, he felt, had no peer in her generation.

    And, second, the Boundary Commission re-shaped Doncaster into a near-marginal seat. In 1950, he narrowly lost, but won the following year: a key win in Churchill’s slender majority.

    As a reward, he was invited to second the Loyal Address to The King, a daunting prospect for a new Member. But war and a prison camp puts such ordeals into perspective and he rose to the occasion with aplomb.

    Tony was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Harold Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, and learned a lot from the old master. He treasured a tape recording made at an election hustings in 1964, when the floor of the hall degenerated into a fight. The tape reveals Macmillan’s commentary on the chaos: “Oh, look! He’s hit him again”.

    Three years later, Tony was appointed Chairman of the Party. In the 1970 campaign only he and Ted Heath really believed the Conservatives could win – but win they did. In Government, Tony was given responsibility for negotiations to enter the Common Market but when Iain Macleod tragically died six weeks later, he became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    As Chancellor, he was a reformer. He introduced VAT, abolished Purchase Tax and Selective Employment Tax. He simplified Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax and set his policies for growth and employment – the Holy Grail of every Chancellor.

    But events intervened. OPEC quadrupled the oil price, leading to severe and unpopular cuts in public expenditure. Inflation flourished and statutory controls were introduced to curb it.

    The Miners’ Strike and the 3-day Week culminated in the February 1974 election which the Conservatives narrowly lost. It was an unhappy period and – unsurprisingly – Tony accepted far more of the blame than was due to him.

    After retirement from politics, Tony was not interested in taking things easy: he became Chairman of Standard Chartered Bank; a member of the “Eminent Persons Group” which helped lay the foundations for the eventual end of Apartheid; he sat on the Franks Committee reporting on the Falklands War; and was one of a group of “international personalities” who made a pioneering trip to China as she emerged from isolation.

    He also took an active role as Chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and during his stewardship raised the extraordinary sum of £29 million. “It was” he joked, “his third career”. And, also – alas – his last.

    Some years after Jean died, Tony married again – to Rosemary – and was blessed again with another happy marriage.

    But in his latter years, Tony was cursed by ill-health and suffered from Parkinson’s Disease. Even so, his good humour never faded. As he shuffled around, he was hugely amused that his carer had once been a dancer at the Moulin Rouge. It was the sort of exotica he loved.

    He enjoyed anonymity but was amused when a taxi driver mistook him for Roy Plomley, and congratulated him on Desert Island Discs.

    Gentle, decent, thoughtful, kind. A lover of life with a generous spirit. A man of wisdom. A brave man. True to himself – and true to others. A man whose infectious humour remained with him to the very end.

    Tony Barber was a good man – one of the best – in politics and in life. I was lucky indeed to fall under his tutelage.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Sport and the Nation – 24 April 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech on “Sport and the Nation”, held at the Professional Cricketers’ Association Annual Business Conference at the Oval on Monday 24th April 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The theme of this Annual Business Conference is Building Partnerships. Sport and business have built partnerships and, I think, to their mutual benefit. More can be done – and I hope will be. But those of us who love sport should be grateful for the increasing involvement business has had. Long may it grow.

    But – it is in the interest of sport and the nation for other partnerships to grow in parallel.

    The essence of is two-fold: mutual dependency and the belief that the whole is greater than the component parts.

    That has been true of sport and business and of sport and the nation – the combination of the two adds value to both.

    Many historians would argue that the love of cricket in particular helped hold together an Empire and cement a Commonwealth. I saw some of this myself some years ago at a tricky Commonwealth meeting.

    A charity match was arranged. The Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke and I opened to gentle bowling and began to settle down with Bob stealing the bowling towards the end of each Over. I didn’t mind: it was a joy to be there. We tapped the ball here and there and ran our singles. After a few Overs the wisdom of the Hawke strategy was revealed: “Off you go”, said the Umpire, waving us off the pitch as he added, rather pointedly, “it’s time for the real cricketers”. A roar of applause greeted our departure.

    Hawke had scored over 20, whilst I had less than 10. “Did you know we didn’t have long?” I asked Bob as we trudged back to the pavilion.

    “Jeez, yes,” he admitted, “didn’t you know, John? Arrh, heck – I thought you did”. Not for the first or last time, I noted that Australians play hard.

    It was at that same Conference that Robert Mugabe talked to me about cricket. “I want Zimbabwe”, he said “to play cricket. It civilises people and creates gentlemen.” Subsequent events show that may not be entirely true!

    2,300 years ago, Aristotle regarded politics as the most interesting profession of all.

    No longer. Today, sport is more likely to be the consuming interest of the citizen. Indeed, as politics declines as a public passion, sport rises – and rightly so, for sport and recreation impacts powerfully on the lives of millions of people.

    Sport is an instinct. Centuries ago, a rustic living in or around the Weald plagiarised an ancient game like Club Ball, or Trap Ball or Stob Ball – and cricket was born. Some misbegotten historians have claimed that the traveller Adam Olearius saw the Persians play cricket centuries ago. It seems to me unlikely that the Ayatollahs of old were any more likely to be cricket lovers than the Ayatollahs of today and I think we can safely dismiss that possibility. Whatever Adam Olearius saw – it wasn’t cricket!

    Others have suggested that the French played cricket, referring to a particular text that, upon examination, turns out to say something quite different. Frankly, the concept of the French inventing cricket is double-dutch. On balance, I think it is safe to say that cricket is an English game.

    The first secure reference to it was in a court case in 1598, when a local coroner gave evidence that, as a child forty years earlier, he had played cricket on a piece of common land. I conclude, therefore, that together with the English language and English law, cricket is our greatest export to the world.

    People with stuffy minds may regard sport as a peripheral interest – but, of course, it isn’t. First and foremost, sport is fun. It brings enjoyment to millions. It promotes good health – physical and mental – and is a key component of a balanced life.

    It is also a core interest: far more people are interested in sport than politics. Freddie Flintoff’s fitness and David Beckham’s latest haircut is of greater national fascination than any debate in Parliament could ever hope to be.

    I have no wish to denigrate politics. It is of primary importance to our nation and our way of life – and, as such, it should be in the business of promoting sport, and never of disregarding it. As Prime Minister, I was concerned that leisure pursuits were being – if not ignored, sidelined – which is why I appointed a Cabinet Minister with specific responsibility for Sport, Arts and Heritage. I followed this with the formation of the National Lottery.

    The genesis of this was that, at the Treasury, I saw at first hand that leisure pursuits could never expect to receive sufficient money or encouragement from public funds: in any race for resources, the demands of health, education, pensions and defence would – and perhaps should – always come first.

    Yet sport mattered. So did the Arts: my solution to this was to supplement their funding through a National Lottery.

    I saw it as a way to raise additional money – free from the control of Government – that could be used to improve the enjoyment – and the lifestyle – of many millions of people.

    I had high ambitions of what could be achieved. Money is the route of all progress. I believed it could revolutionise leisure. I wished to nurture excellence and encourage the emergence of new icons similar to the Bothams, Beckhams and Branaghs who gave such pleasure.

    I saw also a huge opportunity to upgrade the national infrastructure that supported our favourite leisure pursuits. And, above all, I saw the chance of providing grass-roots sporting facilities throughout the UK to encourage active involvement by children and adults alike.

    It was – I planned – a partnership.

    A series of questions arise from this: should not commercial sport pay for itself or, if it cannot, fade away? Should not individuals bear all the cost of their leisure activities? In particular, should the taxpayer provide any funding for sport? Many thought not. I disagreed. I thought – beyond a doubt – the taxpayer should contribute … and not only because the Treasury receives far more in taxes from sport than it distributes to sport. Socially, the expenditure is good value. To me, the case for it seems to grow each year – not diminish.

    Taxpayer funding should continue and should be increased. But there is one aspect of media and public debate on funding that focuses on a more serious criticism: the independence of the funding. Direct Government funding is always going to have strings attached – taxpayer accountability ensures that. But when the Lottery Bill was wending its way through Parliament, the then Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of Government keeping an arms-length relationship from disbursement of the funds and, in particular, grant distribution. I agreed: I shared that view. I still do – but in Government, the Labour Party do not.

    From the moment they took power, they have diverted funding into areas away from sport that have, historically, been funded by the Exchequer. Their action has been explicit. Indeed, the so-called “Big Lottery Fund” has a specific remit to fund health, education and environment projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of these projects to be funded direct by Government. This may be worthwhile expenditure – I have never denied that – but they diminish funds that sport had reason to expect.

    This loss of revenue for sport leaves it vulnerable and forces it to spend more time and energy raising money from commercial sources. That is difficult at any time and will become more so when the economy turns down – as, I believe, it is. The Lottery should not be Ali Baba’s cave and the Government should not raid it like the Forty Thieves. If larceny of sporting funds continues; if sport – and other good causes – are continually raided in order to boost the Exchequer, there will be less and less available for schemes that can enhance the quality of life for many people.

    This is happening now. In 1997, 20% of Lottery funds went to sport. In 1998, it was cut to 16.6% when the New Opportunities Fund was established. When that fund was rolled up into the Big Lottery Fund, 50% of all proceeds were lost. Although this Fund can distribute money for sport, its record is poor.

    The overall figures for distribution to sport are opaque but we know Sport England’s share of Lottery Receipts fell from a high of £280 million, in 1997/8 to £125 million in 2004/5 – and is projected to fall further. As a result – today – Sport England can meet only a fraction of worthwhile applications – and often with only partial grants.

    Is sport a frivolous expenditure or is it socially justified? I have no doubt it is justified.

    What gives more pleasure than sport? Very little.

    Does sport give a love for life? Yes, it does.

    Does sport enhance fitness? Yes, it does.

    Does sport provide interest and involvement for young people? Yes, it does.

    I could continue – but there is no need. The nation benefits from sport – imagine no Test Matches, no soccer or rugby, no athletics, no Wimbledon, no golf – what a dreary outlook.

    Let me turn to a partnership every one in sport should lobby to bring about.

    Sport in Schools and the establishment of Sporting Academies can be a great benefit socially and to sport. Socially, the case is compelling. Children benefit from sport in many ways – not least in improving their health in these days of sedentary entertainment such as computer games. Obesity is becoming a serious problem. I want children to be fit not fat. We should be encouraging a generation of team players, not home-aloners. Even more, we should be helping children enjoy themselves on playing fields, not misbehave on street corners. School sport should, once again, become an integral part of a child’s education.

    My intention had been to divert money from the Millennium Fund (which wound up in 2000) to the Education budget to put sports teachers back into mainstream schools. It would have delivered around £300 million a year – sufficient to provide a sports teacher at every Secondary School and a peripatetic teacher covering several Primary Schools. Instead – sadly – the money was siphoned off for other expenditure.

    I believed – and still do – that such an initiative is essential if we are ever to force physical recreation back fully on the school syllabus. I bitterly regret that I did not legislate to this effect before 1997 but, of course, even if I had, it could have been negated by the incoming Government. Their alternative priorities certainly suggest it would have been. Even so, I regret my oversight – and I shall lobby to put it right.

    School sport is part of a wider canvas. Schools can be the base of a pyramid of sporting opportunities. The love – and need – for sport does not stop when pupils exit the school gates for the last time. If we are to maximise the role of sport, we need partnerships all the way up: school links to Clubs and Club links to higher levels through all the tiers of ability up to national level. I set up such a scheme in the mid-1990’s with Colin Cowdrey but it fell away after 1997. All this is achievable – and should be achieved. It does need money – and enthusiasm – but the latter is available and the former should be.

    We need a change of culture at Whitehall: it does undervalue sport – but that mindset can be changed. Sport should lobby harder, more frequently and use national icons to highlight their case. Governments respond to stimuli. Sport should provide that stimuli.

    And the case is good: on health grounds, on social grounds, on educational grounds, on grounds of national pride, on grounds of providing pure enjoyment – the case for more people playing sport, being coached in sport, watching sport, on grounds that are well-equipped – is overwhelming.

    Our nation loves sport: so do many politicians. So do many policy formers. Use them. Tempt them to help. To do so would not only be right: it would be popular!

    That is a campaign that must be fought – and can be won.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Papworth Trust Appeal Dinner – 7 April 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Papworth Trust Appeal Dinner, held at New Hall in Cambridge on Friday 7th April 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is a long time since Mike Bloomfield invited me to this dinner and I am delighted to be here.

    Gastronomically, it’s certainly been more enjoyable than dinners I’ve attended elsewhere.

    I recall sharing –

    Pigs bladders with Helmut Kohl in Badhofstein

    Unspeakable part of a sheep with King Abdullah in a tent in the desert

    And a dinner in South Korea that would have been more wholesome had it been prepared by Lucrezia Borgia.

    There were no such problems this evening.

    More enjoyable was dinner with Bill Clinton in which everyone else in the restaurant was from the Secret Service. And an in-flight breakfast of vodka and eggs with Boris Yeltsin. Two eggs, three vodkas.

    These are precious memories. Very few of those who are disabled have the chance to live a life which has such moments.

    Twenty years ago, I was Minister for the Disabled and saw at close quarters the inability of the State to provide all the help that is needed.

    Without charities such as the Papworth Trust many disabled people would live a miserable life.

    This evening, we are raising funds for the Saxongate Learning Centre which will be a marvellous resource for the whole area. It will draw the town together. And – far beyond Cambridgeshire – it will be a model of how fully integrated services and facilities can be provided.

    It’s an intriguing concept … a learning centre. For people who are disabled, learning often means painful striving to do things most of us take for granted – but which are vital for dignity and self-dependence. We have learned a lot about disabilities in the last twenty years. It has been a process – as learning often is. 2,400 years ago, the great teacher, Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. It was a process of learning and, through learning, all four of them changed the world.

    Plato’s great contribution was to develop the science of – logic. He might have despaired of our modern world?

    Is it logical that the richer we become as a nation, the more we rely on private philanthropy to help charities?

    Is it logical that the richer the world becomes, the more the overall burden of poverty seems to rise?

    Is it logical that – as the world shrinks and we become more inter-dependent – violence and terror rises, too?

    I think not. Tonight, gathered here, are people who act to alleviate the miseries of disability. That is wonderful – but on a bigger stage, there is so much more to do.

    350 years ago, John Donne wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    That truism is even more relevant in today’s world.

    For in Donne’s age, events from one far corner of the world did not have an impact on another. Today, they do. There is no hiding place.

    Nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.

    Twenty years ago, we lived in a world of two super-powers. The end of Soviet Communism changed the world. If it had not collapsed, I doubt we would have seen the horrors and genocide of Bosnia and Kosovo. Or the second Iraqi War.

    Nor would the free market be so dominant or such a target for terrorist groups.

    Today, we live in a world that is economically liberal – and yet the free-market is very controversial. But why should that be so when it is geared to promoting wealth and well-being? Why should economic freedom and radical militancy have both grown at the same time?

    For two reasons, I think: the mal-distribution of that growing wealth, and because the free market disturbs the absolutism of old faiths. Here – exposed immediately – are the twin roots of terror: fear and hatred.

    History is instructive here. When Britain had an Empire, we were universally detested. Hundreds of millions resented our power and wealth.

    Even as they paid lip service to our face, they rejoiced if we were discomforted. Today, those same hostile emotions are directed against mature democracies by terrorism.

    Sometimes, there is a tendency to think of terrorism as if it were a global conspiracy. Certainly, some groups have widespread tentacles.

    Sometimes there is co-operation between terrorist organisations.

    But there is no worldwide conspiracy. Mostly, terrorist groups are close-knit, relatively small organisations, with their own perverted causes.

    These may overlap but they are not joined together in an over-arching organisation.

    But, since the rise of Al Qaeda, there is, however, a layer of peripheral groups who share the same ideology, seek the same ends and use similar tactics.

    We must understand what they are about.

    Al Qaeda’s objective is the unification of the Islamic community around the world; its purification and the imposition of the most literal translation of strict Sharia Law.

    They wish to see the world divided between Islam – and everyone else. It is an isolationist philosophy, wholly out of tune with moderate Islam and the rest of the world.

    Their tactics we know: distortion of the Koran, indiscriminate terror; and the call for a Holy War against all who oppose them.

    The threat of terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now terror is globalising – led by groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as their minds are closed.

    Nor is Terrorism targeted only against the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide.

    Here is – an oddity. Most people find violence abhorrent and yet terrorism has never been short of apologists. Over many years, it has grown bolder and more deadly. But not more successful.

    When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped Fascism – it was not because of terrorism.

    When Communism collapsed – it was not because of terrorist pressure.

    When Apartheid ended – terrorism played no part in its demise.

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: and – it fails. Gandhi was far more successful in changing minds than Bin Laden will ever be.

    Always, the effect of terror is to create chaos. To de-stabilise markets. To interrupt the flow of commerce. To undermine Government by consent and civil order.

    Terrorism and democracy are fundamentally opposed. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to survive, terrorism must fall.

    Therefore – one question arises: can a war against terror be won at all?

    My answer is – Yes, it can.

    It will not be a short conflict. But, over time, terror can be beaten and the potency of its threat removed.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so?

    To win, all nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes. And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    We must ask ourselves – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable.

    In much of the world ideological radicalisation has fed the untruth that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this every day.

    Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant to fuel their cause. Events such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fed this perception as has the failure to bring the Middle East Peace Process to a successful conclusion.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of morning coffee at Starbucks.

    It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people, with the life of someone in richer countries – even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support. The rich nations do much to help – and have pledged to do more. I welcome that. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.

    In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we increase demand, we begin to create tomorrow’s market – and we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion.

    Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish to sustain a free market in a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if the world acts early, acts now, acts out of conscience – not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, is such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    For in a shrinking world, the problems of others cannot be shrugged aside as someone else’s responsibility.

    And the changes – in this shrinking world – are accelerating.

    In the late 18th Century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Foreign Secretary: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year – we should send a note.”

    Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone. Politics – and business – now operate at a frenetic pace.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. Each day, technology and communications move forward.

    The speed of medical advance is already as bewildering as the demand for medical services in infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    There is a pattern here in all aspects of our life. Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    What might this mean for the new century? What scale of change might we see?

    Consider this: first, how the pace of change is accelerating ahead of us; and second, the sheer scale of the change behind us.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the news that Count Zeppelin was designing a machine that would fly. At that time, could anyone have ever imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York?

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French Empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has both come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with the two most populous nations – China and India – on course to become great economic powers within the next three decades.

    The impact of all this is not simply on economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    In that world, we need to look – in our own way – at how we can help the disabled. That is what we are here for this evening.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Rotary Club Lunch in Florida – 30 January 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech held at the Rotary Club Lunch in Florida on 30th January 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Delighted to be here. The United States and the United Kingdom have been close allies for a very long time.

    Once, America was British – until George III was foolish enough to let her go. Although we British regard that as only a temporary setback.

    Some time ago, in the late 18th Century, the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador to Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from our Ambassador in another year …. we should send a note.”

    Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone.

    Except, in many parts of the world, the privation and primitive life that existed in Pitt’s time, still exists today.

    The work that Mercy Ships does is invaluable. No-one else does it so well – and few even attempt to do so. Don and Deyon Stephens have seen Mercy Ships grow from the seeds of what was once only a dream – into a global reality. The lives of many hundreds of people – in far away lands – have been changed in ways that to them, quite simply, seem a miracle.

    And among the miracle-makers are great benefactors like Charlie Towers. Charlie – as you know of course – is a one-off. But we need others like Charlie to help.

    Let me tell you why.

    HAWA’S STORY:

    Hawa was born deformed in a tiny village in Sierra Leone, arguably the poorest country in the world.

    A common toothache as a child turned into a severe noma and ate away her nose and upper lip. She was scarred. Hideously deformed. Other children ran from her in fright. Hawa stayed hidden away. She hated the constant stares and provocation when she ventured out. No Prince on a white charger came along to rescue Hawa from her misery. And so her young life continued.

    At 16 – despite her deformity – she was married off for a dowry. Her first children, twins, died at birth – cursed, villagers thought, by their mother’s own ugliness. Two other children came along but generally she was ignored – and ultimately rejected – by her husband.

    Rebel forces invaded and attacked Hawa’s village. She fled with her young children and spent three years in the bush – isolated and alone.

    None of the other refugees she came across would give her any support of shelter. They did not hide their repulsion at her physical appearance and wanted nothing to do with her.

    Finally, Hawa found her way to a refugee camp but even there her children were constantly taunted and bullied by the other children at school due to their strange looking mother.

    At the end of the war Hawa and her children returned to her home village only to find it destroyed. Hawa’s house had been burned to the ground. Absolutely nothing remained.

    They scraped by together until the day Hawa’s son heard of a Mercy Ship coming into Freetown. Somehow, the family found the money for transport and Hawa attended a clinic.

    She was accepted as a patient. Her treatment took many months as her face was slowly rebuilt. During all that time, her mouth was sewn tight together but she still managed to communicate an indomitable spirit and a sense of humour that had remained hidden so deep for so long.

    Hawa’s eyes spoke volumes whilst her healing mouth could not. The pain finally lifted from her face – not just the physical pain but also the inner pain she had been suffering from over forty years of rejection.

    At the end of her treatment, Hawa was keen to return to her village to show off her new, healed face. As she left the Mercy Ship she managed to whisper out of the side of her mouth: “No-one has ever shown me so much care and concern. No-one has made me feel that I belong. Now I do. Please tell my story so that others can learn to be loved and accepted too.”

    So I have.

    That is what Mercy Ships does. Their ships treat both trivial and major ailments. They cure pain and hurt. They change people’s lives. They bring hope where there is none. That is why, when I was invited to become their Patron, I accepted without hesitation. It is why I am here today: in the hope that you can help Mercy Ships continue and expand their work.

    We are privileged. We live in a world Hawa would not recognise.

    In China, India and Asia an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Every time I visit the Far East, I come away with two emotions: admiration at their progress and foreboding about how competitive they have become. No-one can ignore this new Leviathan.

    Nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.

    Amid these shifting sands, we are wise to look with care at the future. Russia has become more attractive economically, but is showing worrying signs of slipping back politically. The Middle-East is a powder-keg.

    I am not just talking here about Iraq, Iran, or the Middle East Peace Process although each of these is potentially disruptive. Other countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria – could also de-stabilise the region. Elsewhere – in the Near East and Latin America – growing economies are beginning to flex stronger economic muscles.

    No-one should be surprised. There is no immutable law of economics to say that growth must always be led by the industrial West.

    Historically, it was not: for 1800 years China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.

    Now, once again, the growth of China holds centre stage. Can she overhaul the industrial West? Well, yes – she already is, but not as a phoenix rising; it is more an old nation re-asserting herself. The Chinese were making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before ancient Britons built Stonehenge.

    They perfected suspension bridges, when the British still lived in mud huts and the only citizens of North America lived in wigwams.

    It is a wondrous sight and one I never thought I’d see: a once closed Communist economy marching out into the Capitalist world.

    But not all is rosy for China. Adopting quasi capitalism means she must face the problems of the free market such as unemployment and the migration of labour from rural areas into the cities. It means confronting problems of pollution, water scarcity and energy needs.

    Ironically, 9½% growth per year brings its own problems. Economic wellbeing leads to greater expectations: to resentment of a growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; to an appetite for more self-government. Shanghai does not wish to be micro-directed from Beijing.

    It means China must overcome a paradox that will challenge Communist rule: to retain popular support, the Government need successful economic growth, but to obtain that they must loosen their grip on the regions. This is alien to their philosophy, but essential to China’s well-being.

    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them. As a result, growth in the world economy will be better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news economically – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread.

    The threats our nations face are different too. Once, nuclear confrontation. Now, it is terrorism.

    Terrorism has been with us since ancient times: but now it is globalising. Thus far, the worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Moscow, Tokyo all bear the mark of terror. Moreover, terror has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of religious groups and a vehicle to oppose the free market system.

    Terrorism can cause mayhem – but often it merely entrenches more securely what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – an ineffective way to bring about change. Gandhi did far better at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will.

    The threat we face is the attempt to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim by playing upon prejudice and by fostering hatred.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    To ensure that, we need policing action against terror groups now, as well as political action to undermine their message … and make it difficult for them to spread their contagion in the future.

    We need to work with other nations threatened by terrorism … to deny terrorists safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. Democracy must deny them their causes. And, to defeat the ideological threat, we must understand the motives that drive them if we are to win over the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We will win this battle: but we will win it more speedily if democracies work together to stop the free movement of terrorists; attack money laundering; reduce their supply of weapons; agree extradition; and penalise States that fund terror. So much, I think, is obvious – although not all of it is done.

    In much of the world radical ideology tells us daily that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this as an article of faith.

    Radicals use this fiction as a recruiting sergeant.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must lessen the opportunities for demagogues to exploit hardship to promote Terrorism. We must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: we must accept obligations that show the morality of democracy.

    Mercy Ships does that. So do other charities.

    But Governments need to do so as well.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. The rich nations do much to help. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those with no food in their bellies at all.

    I believe that common humanity suggests that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    And it is in our interests to remove grievances, to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we foreclose on misery and hardship to come and undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    Unless we act in our generation, we will bequeath a problem to the next generation that they cannot solve.

    They will have enough problems – on energy, environment, pensions – in a world changing faster than ever before.

    Our children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears. A world with new and ever more complex problems. Let us not leave them to solve ours as well.

    [Small section indistinct].

    Mercy Ships is the “Good”.

    That is why it has my support – and I hope yours too.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in The Spectator on Terrorism – 14 January 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s article in The Spectator on terrorism, published on 14th January 2006. The article was entitled “Terrorism – Policing Alone is Not Enough”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    If the world is to succeed in combating terrorism, then politicians and statesmen must strip away old prejudices and think afresh. That will not always be a comfortable thing to do, for at times it will mean trying to see things from the perspective of the terrorist. I remember how uneasy I felt as prime minister when I spent many hours trying to think myself into the mind of the Provisional IRA. What I had to do then others must do now – but on a much wider scale.

    The fear of global terrorism has replaced the fear of global war. But though terrorism is bolder and more deadly than ever, it has so far failed in its objectives. When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped fascism, it was not due to terrorism. When communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it was not due to terrorist pressure. Gandhi was far more successful at effecting change than Bin Laden will ever be.

    What is the purpose of terror? For many terrorist groups the aim is to radicalise Islam, to set Muslim against non-Muslim, to play upon prejudice, to foster hatred. Al-Qa’eda’s objective – a perversion of mainstream, moderate Islam – is the unification of the Islamic community around the world, its purification and the imposition of the most literal translation of strict Sharia law. Bin Laden and his associates wish to see the world divided between Islam and everyone else. Their tactics we know: distortion of the Koran, indiscriminate terror, and the call for a holy war – a jihad – against all who oppose them.

    Other terrorists – those in Northern Ireland or Thailand, for example – pursue specific political agendas by unsettling democracies. But always the aim is to create chaos. The economic impact of terrorism is the destabilisation of markets; the political impact is the undermining of civil order and government by consent.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. As they confront one another, we must ask: is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated? Yes, it can, though we must bear in mind that terrorist groups are rarely entirely destroyed: smaller groups, sometimes made up of the hardest of hardliners, replace them. But, over time, terror can be beaten and the potency of its threat removed.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so? The answer is complex. One thing we must do right away is rid ourselves of the notion that there is a worldwide terrorist conspiracy. Certainly, some groups have widespread and growing tentacles. Sometimes there is co-operation between several organisations, for some terrorists are mercenaries for hire, unconcerned by any particular cause and motivated only by hatred and greed. But there is no worldwide conspiracy. Most terrorist groups are close-knit, relatively small organisations with their own causes, however perverted, and their own ambitions, however ill-conceived. Their causes may overlap – and occasionally merge – but they are not joined together in one single organisation.

    The key here is to recognise that we must take action against existing terror groups today, and implement political measures to prevent the contagion re-emerging tomorrow. To achieve this, all nations threatened by terrorism have a role: a coalition of the willing must embrace every country that wishes to be democratic. These nations must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing and stem the flow of recruits. They must also, and above all, deny them their causes.

    And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and seek to re-educate those who sympathise with them. We must accept that we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    To win, many nations must be engaged in what will be a complex and protracted battle, not least of minds. International co-operation is vital: we need to co-ordinate action against terror, inhibit the movement of terrorists, attack money-laundering, penalise nations that fund terror, reduce their supply of weapons and agree worldwide extradition of terrorist suspects. Yet rendition can only be counter-productive. It is not wise policy.

    But these measures alone, though vital policing actions, are not enough to bring victory. We must go further. We must ask ourselves: what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists tacitly to support them? What can we do to make terrorism so abhorrent as utterly to isolate the terrorist?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable. Radical ideology has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al-Qa’eda asserts this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have done much to feed this perception that Islam is under attack. So has the failure to bring the Middle East peace process to a successful conclusion.

    The radicals are wrong, but their propaganda is effective. To rebut it, democracies must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do; they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy. They must seek to alleviate poverty, disease and injustice.

    The wealthy industrial nations must show that we care about the flotsam and jetsam that trail along behind globalisation. We must be concerned at the maldistribution of growing wealth. We must be aware, too, that the free market is bringing about changes that disturb the absolutism of old faiths. We must be aware of the destabilising effects of imposing modern liberalism on ancient tribal cultures.

    Economic liberalism and radical militancy have grown side by side. Why? One answer is that economic liberalism leaves some people behind – and social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation. The rich nations are not without conscience on these issues but, overall, they do too little. It is thus all too easy to portray the large democracies as uncaring, and every radical voice is keen to recruit converts by doing so.

    And the democracies are not entirely blameless. For years, Europe and the United States have been spending broadly seven times as much subsidising cheap food for their own people – who are already well fed – as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger. To combat radicalism we must remove grievances, cut away resentment. By doing so we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    At the same time we must realise that specific events or conflicts will continue to be used to promote the cause of terror. The Arab–Israeli dispute is one. Palestine has become the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations between Islam and the rest of the world. The strong support given to Israel is based on admiration for a talented nation forged from a whole history of persecution. Support for Israel does not imply an anti-Palestinian bias. And yet, in the eyes of the Muslim world preoccupied with the truly pitiable living conditions in Palestine, support for Israel rankles.

    Israel will never be truly safe without acceptance by the Arab states; but Palestine too needs a future. An active peace process is vital for everyone, otherwise there is a vacuum which terror and mayhem will fill. Too often, hope has been dashed for Israelis and Palestinians alike. The continuing dispute has created a playground for the terrorist and, over the years, has so unsettled the political climate in the Middle East that trust has gone and a lasting solution has proved elusive. This plays into the hands of the terrorist, for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse, allowing it to be used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    At times it is difficult to see how there can be an end to the intransigence, how there can ever be a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief, but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward. And that progress requires greater understanding of what drives the terrorists; we must, as I stated above, think ourselves into the minds of the gunmen and bombers.

    There is much we can learn from experience. We can learn that economic revival is an ally in promoting democracy, and that in lands without hope resentment has a fertile breeding ground. But no one should expect trust to replace suspicion quickly or easily: it is always difficult to wring compromise from entrenched positions. Denouncing terrorists is all very well, and politically safe, but to save lives it may sometimes be necessary to engage with terrorists as well. And, where trust has collapsed, international diplomacy may be needed to supplement national effort. These lessons are eternal.

    What else can governments do? A great deal. Islamic governments can speak out about the true nature of Islam, in order to counter the message of the radicals. All governments can work together to encourage inter-faith dialogue. Schools which preach extremism should be pressed to modernise their curricula. Above all, Islamic and other governments can address marginalisation in their societies.
    All this – and more – must be part of the anti-terrorist campaign. If we are to repel terrorism and not merely suppress it temporarily, we need to reach out far wider than military and security action alone. Politics and diplomacy must join with policing to capture minds as well as militants.

    Nothing less will succeed.