The text of the statement issued by Sir John Major on 9 September 2020.
For generations, Britain’s word – solemnly given – has been accepted by friend and foe. Our signature on any Treaty or Agreement has been sacrosanct.
Over the last century, as our military strength has dwindled, our word has retained its power. If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained.
Below is the text of the interview with Sir John Major on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 27 June 2020.
MARTHA KEARNEY
There’s a focus on the terrible problems, the tragedies, caused by the pandemic. But we should also remember that there have been some positives too?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
There have been quite a few and there may be a lot still to come. Most crises throw up opportunities and I’m sure this one will. For example, they can change what was merely possible into something that becomes inevitable – because it is unavoidable.
So among the losses of the virus, there will be gains. Some are apparent already. We’ve seen one with rough sleepers. This has been a problem for 20, 30, 40 years and yet for health reasons, it has been absolutely necessary to take rough sleepers off the streets. That has happened, is very welcome, and is great progress. We now need policy to keep them from returning there. That’s one illustration, of which there will be many more.
MARTHA KEARNEY
It’s an indictment that it’s taken a pandemic to address a problem like that and to have this sort of urgent action?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
There are some things that tend to do this. It’s likely, not certain though, that the lessons of this pandemic will lead to a tipping point in our value system. The virus has showcased inequalities, and as a result of that public opinion and priorities may change.
If I can give some examples, everyone is aware of the remarkable job done by the National Health Service and the NHS is clearly going to have an even greater priority in funding, in research and in training than ever before. I think that the country as a whole will welcome that, and will want people who work in the NHS to be fairly treated.
But beyond that, we’ve learned that there are many unglamorous jobs in our economy, often lowly paid, that are crucial to our way of life. I have in my mind care workers, who are generally lamentably paid – but also cleaners, porters, the refuse collectors who protect our health by collecting our rubbish, shop assistants, a huge number of people who we depend upon in our daily life. I think that has become clearer, and will have an effect on policy. It has become evident that a lot of people have been left behind by the changing nature of modern life. That has been happening over quite a long period and it hasn’t been sudden, but the shock of the virus has made that crystal clear.
MARTHA KEARNEY
So many of those people have borne the brunt haven’t they in terms of their health and lives?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Some have lost their lives, some have lost their health. Many of the people who have cared for the sick have themselves been living in fairly deficient accommodation. Many of those who supported them have done so too, and common decency suggests that this has to be put right. I think that the national conscience post-Covid may well demand it.
MARTHA KEARNEY
It’s not just a question of national conscience is it? It’s a question often of Government policy, such as care-workers and we’ve seen terrible situations erupting in our care-homes. Social care has been an issue that has been neglected by many Governments hasn’t it?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I agree with that. I think that it has been under-valued, and I don’t think it’s possible to under-value it any longer – and that may be an advance. I’m very conscious that it is easy for me, who is not in Government and doesn’t have to enact policy to point these things out. These are very big issues, and they are very complex for any Government. The solutions will be expensive and some of them will have to be long-term. But some are immediate. I don’t know if I speak for others when I say this, but it seems to me that ending dependence on food banks is essential. It’s truly shocking that we have food banks in 2020.
Then there are the much bigger issues. Clean, healthy homes for example. We know that’s necessary, and steps have been made towards that by Government after Government. We don’t just need a policy for issues such as housing and those left behind by modern life. If we step back, we are still the fifth or sixth richest nation in the world and we have to acknowledge that. We need a crusade to improve the living standards of those people who have fallen behind.
If this Government, and its successor Governments (because this is a very long-term project) tackle hardship consistently and enthusiastically – a crusade for a decade as it were – then it will do a great deal to end divisions in parts of our society.
MARTHA KEARNEY
You’ve acknowledged that that crusade would be expensive and you think that there might be more of a public appetite for this, but what are you talking about? Are you talking about greater Government intervention? We were looking back at some things you’ve talked about in the past, in 2015, you said some people think the solution is easy, penalise the rich, cut defences, cut overseas aid, borrow more and spend more. You’ve said that that argument is simplistic and naive. So what should the Government be doing?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
None of this is easy for any Government of any political ideology, but it seems to me that it is going to be inevitable that the Government takes a greater role in what happens in terms of the future, in terms of social care, simply because there is nobody else who can do it. The attractions of small Government are always ideologically obvious, but the practicalities, from where we are at the moment, are that the Government is going to have to take the lead in policies that deal with many of our social problems.
I said that this is going to be extremely expensive, but there are other positives that are not as expensive. So how does the Government handle this? Let me make one point first, I think to put up taxes before the economy has recovered, which may take a while, would in my view be a mistake. Over time, there is little doubt that taxes are going to rise. For the moment, because interest rates are so low, and likely to remain so, it’s possible for borrowing to take the strain in a way it couldn’t have done a quarter of a century ago.
MARTHA KEARNEY
So even though our debt levels are now more than 100% of national income, which is eye-wateringly high in historic terms, you think there is still a case for more borrowing?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think it will be inevitable in the short-term. It would be politically impossible for any government not to deal with these problems. They will neither wish to, nor will be able to ignore them and I don’t think that, at this moment, they can tax. So I think there is scope in the short-term. Not forever – and there is no magic money tree, let me make that clear – but for a period, until the economy has recovered and taxes for some people can then go up.
MARTHA KEARNEY
The money would be spent on the left behind people? Continuing perhaps with the furlough scheme in some sense after it’s due to end?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t want to be prescriptive about what needs to be done. There is a whole range of options and priorities may become clearer as we move out of lockdown. But clearly the Government is going to have to borrow a great deal, and there are one or two imaginative things that previous Governments may have been against, which they may wish to look at. As an example, I think you can use borrowing as a social tool. For decades, our nation has been told to save for retirement and, over the last few decades, many people have done so in order to be secure in their retirement.
With interest rates now at their present level, which is in some ways helpful, the people who have saved and who have done what Governments have asked them to do, are now earning nothing on their savings. This is causing resentment and embarrassment.
One option might be to offer very long-term bonds, say twenty years, to UK nationals at a slightly higher rate of interest, and perhaps with the added advantage that if the investor dies during the period of the investment, then the sum they invested is excluded from inheritance tax. There are lots of variants, investment in bonds for hospital building or social housing. Of course, the Government can borrow more cheaply from the markets, but that often means a foreign commitment rather than a domestic commitment. I think there would be an appetite for domestic investment from many people in the UK.
MARTHA KEARNEY
I wanted to move onto another very important area and one which I know you care a great deal about, the future of the United Kingdom itself. We’ve seen different parts of the United Kingdom, different countries, moving in different directions and at different speeds over coronavirus measures. How do you see the future?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
The priority in the future is, in my mind, to keep the United Kingdom as a single entity. I believe every part of it is better off within the United Kingdom rather than split away, for a range of complex reasons that I and many other people have made clear in the past.
As policy develops, it would be much more difficult for the Scottish Nationalists, for example, to win a referendum in the short-term, because of the economic difficulties that they, too, will face as a result of Covid. In that period, the UK Government should work very hard to try and reconnect to a greater extent with the way the Scots think and act, and try and persuade away the arguments for breaking away from the United Kingdom.
There may be a breathing space to do that, and we should hug the regions closely and make sure they are properly consulted – as they should be. They need to be given a great deal of freedom as they are now, but we must do everything we can to keep the United Kingdom as an entity. Without it, we are all much weaker.
MARTHA KEARNEY
And finally, we’ve been talking about the kind of lessons to be learned in social terms and in economic terms? What about the way that the pandemic has been handled so far? Do you think that there’s an urgency that we look at what has been happening in recent weeks in order for us to be able to handle any potential second wave more effectively?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
In due course there will be a full-scale Inquiry, but the time for that is not yet. It might be practicable to have what you might call a “quick and dirty” look to see what lessons can be learned in case it returns in the winter, or next year. But we mustn’t overlook, and I hope we won’t, the many positives there have been across the country that have arisen solely because of the crisis that we’ve passed through.
MARTHA KEARNEY
Sir John Major, many thanks indeed for talking to us.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Thank you.
Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the National Archives Trust in Kew, London on Tuesday 11 February 2020.
I would like to begin by thanking the Clore-Duffield Foundation for their very generous grant to the Trust. I have no doubt it will be wisely used to extend both the knowledge of – and love for – our history.
The reason for my confidence is because the Trust has an experienced and talented Board – which is Chaired by Anthony Seldon.
Anthony has not only spent a lifetime in education, but is himself a leading historian: to him, the success of the National Archives will not only be a professional responsibility, it will be a personal crusade.
The timing of this initiative is especially apt.
A few days ago we formally left the European Union; and two months ago the General Election produced a result that changed the political face of our country.
Many people have set out their explanations for these two outcomes and, in due course, the National Archive will cover them.
But, the election result – or at least the scale of it – was not remotely forecast; and leaving Europe was considered extremely unlikely. Until they both happened.
So, what made them happen?
Beyond the superficial answers about policy and personality lies a much deeper cause: national identity.
Our national identity is about who we are; what we are; and from whence we came. It’s our history, our legacy. It’s about us. We, today, are the history of tomorrow.
But yesterday’s history is about our forebears. Over recent years, researching family ancestry has become something of an industry and, to my mind, a very welcome one.
Because our history is not just Monarchs and Governments and Politicians. It’s about the lives of every single citizen. It’s about how our ancestors lived – what they thought – what they did.
Consider: who fought at Agincourt? Henry V, of course – and his senior barons. But their foot soldiers were there too – our ancestors: farmers; weavers; blacksmiths; ordinary, everyday people.
Similarly, the War of the Roses was fought largely by everyday people: retainers, supporters and tenants of the Dukes of York and Lancaster and their allies.
If all that seems long ago and far away, more recent stories tell the same tale.
The pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain were often little more than boys fresh from school or university. With precious little training, they took to the air and faced fear and mayhem that few can possibly imagine. Any one of those war heroes could have been your father or grandfather.
Many might say: “I’ll never discover anything startling about my own ancestors.” But don’t be so sure.
The history of our land is not just the story of the “great and the good”, but of all those who stood beside them in times of turbulence or tranquillity; hardship or prosperity; war or peace.
We are today – in part – what they made us. To know ourselves is to know our history.
Of course, it continues to evolve. Every generation puts its own mark on it.
Today, we are living through an accelerated period of change which, for many people, is moving too fast for comfort. But our past is stamped on our actions as surely as our features resemble the faces and forms of our ancestors.
We ignore history at our peril. We need to heed it, learn from it, and build on it.
And that takes me directly to the ambitions of the National Archives Trust, which are extensive.
Above all, it’s to open up our history to our nation. To make it accessible, understandable, and informative to all. And, yes, to make it fun too.
This ambition stretches far wider than the study of historic documents from ancient and modern times – fascinating though they are.
The Trust is planning interactive exhibitions; education programmes; theatrical performances of events relating to history. Their treasure-trove of knowledge will not be imprisoned at Kew: the Trust will tour the country; seek partnerships with local archives; and, in due course, set up National Archive Centres across the UK.
The People’s History will be taken to the people.
And it’s long overdue – for everyone, especially children – to see original documents from long ago, and sense their own place in history.
Imagine holding in your own hand a letter from Elizabeth I; or Jane Austen; or Wellington; or Nelson; or Mrs Pankhurst. In different ways, they all changed our lives. And the Trust will bring all their documents to life.
One exhibition is on view this evening: a replica of No 10’s Cabinet table and chairs.
I remember a group of visiting schoolchildren sitting around the actual Cabinet table ….. as I recall, they were far less trouble than the real Cabinet!
The Trust has big ambitions for the long-term but – even in a world that demands instant results, the best of outcomes takes time – not least since the Archive history extends to over 11 million records, covering one thousand years.
It also takes money – the root of all progress.
The National Archives Trust is a new charity set up to serve the public, whose funding will come in part from the Treasury, but also from private donations.
Based on experience – and the size of our national deficit – I have no doubt that fundraising will be a vital part of the engine for expansion.
*****
As so often before, our country is passing through a period of division and disillusion. But we will come through it, because we are a nation with a history of which – mostly – we can be proud.
By pride, I don’t mean thoughtless jingoism. That is simply an embarrassment. No-one should be proud of that.
Our pride should be about our national contribution to the rule of law; to science; to engineering; to health; to civilised behaviour; and so much more …..
As a nation, we know the difference between right and wrong, and history flags up many warnings of what can happen if any nation loses sight of that.
The natural instincts of our country are kindly, decent ones of tolerance, compassion and co-operation. I know of no other country in which so many of its citizens work voluntarily for – or donate to – charitable causes. That is decency in action.
It is now a quarter of a century since I first met Anthony Seldon. Soon afterwards, his two young daughters – then very young – joined me for tea at No 10 and, as if to prove their lineage, asked far more probing questions than I ever got in Parliament.
Those two young girls did not become historians like their father …. they became civil servants, and are now, themselves, contributing to the National Archives of the future.
I hope they – and millions of others – will embrace the important work of this Trust; it may be about our past, but that past is the essential building block to our present and our future.
So do visit the Archives and learn from them: you will all be very welcome.
And – enjoy it: after all, it is our story.