Tag: Speeches

Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Singapore at 50 Conference held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore on 3 July 2015.

It is now over 40 years since I first came to Singapore as a young Banker, and frequent visits since then have kept me abreast of the remarkable way in which it has developed.

It has been an extraordinary evolution since independence, and especially since Singapore broke free of its relationship with Malaysia.

It is sad that Lee Kuan Yew – such a magisterial figure in your history – is not here for your 50th Anniversary, but I’m delighted to share a platform with his successor – my good friend and colleague of many years, Goh Chok Tong.

In this session we are looking at some of the new challenges faced by democratic governments. In the brief time available to us, I can only skim over the surface, but I hope to say enough to provoke debate.

First, some context. We live in a new age, in which electors demand openness, freedom of information, and a swift response to public concerns. They are not remotely passive; they react swiftly and sharply to policies they dislike – sometimes even when they know those very policies are in the long-term interests of the country.  

This points up a structural change – in politics and government. As individuals become more assertive, it is far more difficult for the political parties that form governments to obtain – and then retain – support.

Partisan allegiance to political philosophies is fading in many countries and, as unquestioning philosophical support falls away, governments must rely on popular and successful policies to retain support.

In principle, this is excellent – thoroughly democratic – but it has a downside: success may take a long time, and holding on to public affection can drive government to short-term policies. This is the antithesis of what Singapore has always done – and an unwelcome trend.

An even bigger problem is that market forces are becoming more powerful and national governments less so. This is the effect of a truly global market. Globalisation has implications for domestic governments.

If a country is to compete in our global economy, external rules and regulations may have to be adopted; every nation’s currency becomes more sensitive to events – sometimes events on the far side of the world; inward investment must be attracted in the face of global competition; the price of essentials to everyday life – food, energy – may rise or fall as a result of external factors. All this is unsettling.

And international agreements can demand unpopular action in a Nation State – on climate change, for example. Singapore illustrates this: as a low lying island State, Singapore needs sensible policies on global warming from nearby States: notably China, India and Indonesia. But such policies are often unpopular in those countries.

We could all extend this list in our world of inter-dependence. The plain truth is that – more now than in the past – governments are not in control of events – but are driven by them. Sometimes, election promises – made in good faith – have to be abandoned for reasons outside any national government’s control.

All this can make for an uncomfortable democratic legitimacy. And it will not get any easier in the future.

These dilemmas arise from a world changing faster than we have known. They leave governments struggling to keep up with new challenges – both domestically and in the wider world. They are expected to understand events, then analyse, and respond to them, but with the 24 hour professional media – they are rarely given much time to do so.

This dilemma is more difficult for democracy than autocracy. Autocracy can make decisions and implement them speedily.  Democracy is slow, often painstaking, because it has to obtain consensus and agreement.

This may be less efficient management, but it is what the majority of public opinion demands. In the longer-term, democracy – the imposition of public will – is bound to prevail in any country that has fair elections.

It is 25 years since Sir Tim Berners-Lee set out an idea at Cern that developed into the World Wide Web: it has changed our world. Moreover, it is largely uncontrolled by government – and, probably, uncontrollable in a free society.

The Web continues to develop in a manner that is bound to influence and change government. It is casting a light on how people think and what they do in their professional and personal lives. We know more about one another – our fears, our hopes, our quirks – than ever before.

The Web influences behaviour – for good or ill. It can offer truth or lies. It affects what people do. It might encourage some to take up charity work – or seduce others to become suicide bombers for an extremist sect, as it recently has a boy from Dewsbury in England.

It can post, as one foolish man has done, security information that puts governments at risk and lives in peril. Almost nothing is off limits. People react to peer pressure, and the Web enhances that pressure.

We can’t dis-invent the Web – nor should we wish to do so: it is a magnificent invention. The question for government is: can its misuse be controlled, and can it be used to improve the quality of life?

I believe it can – but controlling misuse begs the question: what is misuse? It can’t be misuse simply by embarrassing governments – but it must be misuse where it aids illegality and crime: governments cannot ignore that.

The plain truth is that social media has added a new dimension to the opportunities and pitfalls of government. It can either help or hinder. It can help because a direct form of communication can aid government in understanding public needs and attitudes and responding to them.

This is a valuable tool that governments have barely begun to explore – let alone implement. They should do so.

But it has a negative side, too. Social media can whip up opposition to decisions that are demonstrably necessary – but may be unpopular in the short-term: it is a medium that can force democratic politicians into an ill-thought-out response, or one that is, frankly, wrong.

It can put enormous pressure on governments for an early decision, and pre-frame public attitudes before facts are fully explored – or explained. This is a truly negative development for good governance.

We saw the power of social media in the Arab Spring. It supported and encouraged uprisings that brought down autocratic governments and dismissed long-term despots but – in the absence of order – left behind chaos that continues to destabilise countries across the Middle East.

Good government requires tolerance and understanding by Governors and Governed alike and, at the moment, that is not available in many countries. As it settles down – it is, at present, in its infancy – social media can enhance tolerance or inspire chaos:  hopefully, it will be the former.

And, of course, it has highlighted the growing problem of terrorism which poses some acute dilemmas for democratic governments.

Last year, there were over 13,000 terrorist attacks around the world – mostly in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. No other region had more than 1,000 incidents – but many countries were affected, and yet more will be.

As this happens, it will create a friction between measures to protect the citizen – and measures to uphold civil rights. There is a delicate balance here.

Secondary problems arise also for countries with no domestic terrorist threat – most obviously the problems of displaced persons and massive migration. No country dare be complacent.

To many people in Singapore, the problems of the Middle East, of Syria and Iraq, may seem far away, but the ugly truth is that they are influencing jihadist groups worldwide.

Nationals from the Philippines and Indonesia appear to be fighting in the Middle East. There are Maoist insurgents in Sri Lanka and jihadis in Pakistan and India. There are Muslim militants in Southern Thailand. The point is simple: no country is immune.

Even Singapore – although serious counter-terrorism plans are in place – has had impressionable youths radicalised by Islamic State.

A big question lies in front of government: how can they harness each aspect of modern technology – to improve governance and make life easier for the citizen.

Some answers are obvious: technology and digital tools can target and deliver services better. They can improve access to services, ensure better traffic control and parking, be better informed on shortcomings to be corrected.

All this is already being implemented in many parts of the world. “Smart” cities surely lie ahead – with digital advances enhancing urban living, using energy efficiently and engaging more actively with citizens. The scope here is obviously long-term – but almost infinite.

One aspect of modern technology – cheap and easy communications – is already affecting human behaviour. I come from the age of the quill pen – but even I have come across Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, which can bring people together from every part of the world: on one level, this is a benevolent development that increases familiarity and can reduce or remove tensions.

This is excellent – but again has risks attached to it: it can also be used to oppose, to frustrate, to magnify difficulties – all of which can complicate the exercise of government. And it can – indeed, is – being used to radicalise young minds.

But I am optimistic that long-term advantages can outweigh short-term problems. Governments can use technology – and especially the Internet – to improve governance. The technological uses are frankly too wide and pervasive to mention here – except to note that they exist and are increasingly being implemented across the world.

In nearly every aspect of our lives, technology can improve both business efficiency and services, although we have not yet remotely explored all the options.

But we do know that the internet and social media is a valuable tool to obtain clarity about what electorates need and want.

It can improve education enormously, and thus national economic wellbeing. The scope here – for young and old alike – is huge. The best lecturers – and minds – in the world can be available to everyone.

This raises a mischievous question: in fifty years’ time, will we need universities? I hope so – believe so – but know others who take a different view!

The internet can disseminate and receive information. “We didn’t know” – as an excuse for inaction by government or individuals – is on its way to becoming obsolete.

It can cherry pick best practice from across the world.

And, as it extracts information, it can spot trends – to plan policy for the future.

One worry for government is whether social media can undermine or diminish them. The answer to that is that it can – and will – unless and until government becomes sufficiently familiar with it to regard it as an ally and not as a threat. Then it can – and, I believe, will – be a worthwhile ally.

Let me summarise: in brief, social media will change the nature of government in ways we have not yet begun to realise. On the credit side, the information tools at its command will give government the ability and knowledge to target its policies more accurately, more inexpensively and more productively. It can help deliver better and more efficient government.

Conversely, government will be under greater pressure to succeed, to be in touch, to reflect the public will. I suspect the impact of all these changes will be to make government more complex, and the public more demanding.

One last question arises: why has Singapore – a small island State – been so successful in a world of many nations of greater size and with more resources?

There are many reasons. But, at their heart, it is because Singapore has always judged what is in Singapore’s interest and acted with determination to implement it.

Singapore looks to the future more rigorously than any nation I know. She has leveraged every opportunity to remain ahead of the curve: this conference illustrates that perfectly: each session celebrating fifty years of independence is geared to look to the future.

That is why Singapore has succeeded in the past; and – I believe – why you will continue to succeed in the future.

Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Hinton Lecture held in London on 10 November 2015. The speech was entitled “A Nation at Ease With Itself”.

I met Nick Hinton, but only briefly, so cannot claim to have known him. I wish I had. But this lecture, named in his honour, enables me to talk about what life is like for the poor and the near poor: and how civil society – together with Government – can help improve their quality of life. It is, I hope, a theme that would have appealed to him.

Twenty five years ago, at the door of Downing Street, I set out my ambition for “a nation at ease with itself”. At the heart of this was my wish to tackle inequality.

That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power.

Even so, the solution is not only money. Education is the high road out of poverty. I began to implement reforms that were at first discontinued by my successors, then reinstated and carried so much further.

I broke the binary link between universities and polytechnics – a divide that, to me, reeked of class distinction.

I introduced a Citizen’s Charter to improve the standard of public services and make it more personal. Since people paid for them, in advance, through their taxes, I believed they deserved the same quality of service as if they had paid in cash. Often, it seemed to me, the poorest – perhaps cowed by authority – didn’t receive this.

But these and other measures could not arrest the powerful forces that were – and are – driving inequality and so, overall, I failed.

With age comes reflection, and I have begun to reflect more and more on inequality. Sixty years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. But in a country now immensely more wealthy, life is still not easy for many others.

Let me first state what is obvious but often ignored: there is a gap between what our nations need in social provision and what the taxpayer can afford.

Rich as we are, our nation isn’t rich enough to rescue all those left behind while, at the same time, it has to meet the soaring social costs of a population that is living longer and growing in number.

For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work.

But, inevitably, there are gaps, and I wish to set out how we might bridge them – and why we must.

The why is easy: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are among the poorest in all Northern Europe.

Even in areas that are recognised as wealthy, there are families or individuals who have fallen behind.

And, in communities where traditional jobs have gone, too many are on low incomes – or no income at all. A minority can move elsewhere to find work. But the majority can’t: not through disinclination, but because – even if they have sufficient savings – it is tough to uproot to find a job and a home. For the penniless, or for those with families, or who act as carers, it can – literally – be impossible.

Policy-makers must understand how hard it is to escape from such circumstances. It is not inertia that keeps the unemployed immobile: it is simply that, without help, they are trapped.

And let us cast aside a common misconception. Everyone out of work is not an idler. Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and Governments are entirely right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not be only on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

Although borderline poverty is far less than it was, it is still more than it should be. And it cannot be ended by benefits alone. Where benefits are necessary – and they always will be – we should never begrudge them. But they are a palliative, not a cure. The cure, in areas left behind, is more jobs that pay a living wage.

We can raise living standards: we have been doing so for decades. At the turn of the 20th Century, millions struggled to eat. In London, one in three lived below the poverty line; in York, one in four ate less well than the wretches in the poor house.

Over the decades, mass poverty has shrunk back. The quality of life has risen across all income groups – but much less evenly than is healthy. Politicians and charities and churches and the free market can all take a mini-bow for what has been achieved. But there is no cause for complacency: a hard core of relative poverty still remains.

Among the many attractive qualities of the British is an enduring belief in fairness. As Colonel Rainsborough observed in the Putney Debates over 250 years ago: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he then, and so has he now. The Colonel was a Leveller – I am a Conservative. But, upon this, we agree. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

To do so, we need to level the playing field. We are not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood. Many are fit. Able. Intelligent. Lucky.

Others are not.

Many are vulnerable. Unequipped with skills. Trapped by circumstance. Often old. Perhaps sick or disabled. For them, a comfortable life seems a fantasy. Often the week lasts longer than the money.

I have never forgotten living in such circumstances. There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and it never leaves you.

In our society, we see poverty as a social evil – which, of course, it is: but it is far more than that. It is an economic evil. It wastes talent. It destroys ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair and communities in decline.

And inequality – poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. It undermines national cohesion. The human spirit can endure great hardship: but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

Poverty isn’t only about empty pockets. The poorest among us not only live meaner lives – but shorter lives. In some of our great cities – Glasgow and Westminster among them – the lifespan of the poorest is twenty years shorter than that of the most wealthy. I have no doubt that much of this disparity is caused by poor lifestyle, poor choices, poor diet – but poor environment, poor housing and poor education must surely be contributory factors. Whatever the reasons, this is a shocking situation in 2015.

Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence, overseas aid, industrial support and much else. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this just doesn’t work. It is simplistic and naïve.

The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they are a recipe for ruin. Easy promises, with no hard policy in place to support them, are unsustainable – and those who claim otherwise are simply posturing.

And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed. What does help is national wealth – created by financial, commercial and industrial success. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the repair of our national finances – which is clearly a Government responsibility – is the essential pre-requisite to ending poverty.

So – as the Rowntree and Fry families taught us so many years ago – are better living conditions. Housing is a huge driver of inequality. If house prices rise, so do rents. We need to stop stimulating demand and squeezing supply. This will require strong political willpower, but is absolutely necessary.

We have too few homes for a population that is growing. That’s a bad mix. Not only does it leave too many poorly housed, but a shortage of houses puts property prices up – and beyond the capacity of the young. Would-be home owners are frustrated, and – more relevant to my focus this evening – so are those whose aspiration is not necessarily for ownership, but simply for somewhere decent to live.

So, although they are controversial, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to accelerate low-cost building, ease planning on brown-field sites, and speed up our inefficient (and costly) planning system.

And surely it is right to bring unfit and neglected properties back into use: and where they are wilfully left empty for years, to use compulsory powers so that local authorities or the private sector can renovate them.

If we are to make up the shortfall in housing – and make social mobility a reality, and not an aspiration – then plans must include social housing and a vibrant private rented sector. Owner-occupation is an ambition for most, but not all – and we need homes for those for whom ownership is not an option.

I bow to no-one in my affection for the green belt, for our wonderful woodlands, moorlands and wide open spaces. We protect them for all to enjoy, and I hope we always will. But, as we do so, we cannot regard every piece of open land as sacrosanct, when so many are living in sub-standard housing, and there is a growing shortage of single-person accommodation.

Here we have a paradox. Although few deny we need more homes, many oppose new building. Sometimes their opposition is justified – but not always. We must decide to whom we listen: opponents of more housing, or those who hope – and deserve – a home of their own.

Job creation is crucial too: over recent years, we have seen surprisingly high employment growth, but often not enough in areas that have fallen behind. To correct this, we need continuing investment in better information technology, in roads, in airport capacity, in rail investment. And, as North Sea Oil fades, we need to accept fracking, so that on-shore energy can make us more self-sufficient – and competitive.

Much of this is underway, but many of these schemes are unpopular.

Some will instinctively oppose all of them. I do understand this. But such critics must understand there is a link between investment and jobs and well-being: if our infrastructure is not upgraded, we will condemn many to remain poor – now, and in the future. It cannot be right to deny the homeless or jobless the hope that better times are ahead.

*******

There are many things that make me proud of our country – but none more so than the scale of philanthropic, voluntary and charitable work that is the daily labour of many in every corner of the UK. Volunteers and the faith community can be proud of what they have done. We should all be proud of our open-heartedness: over 180,000 Charities, one million Trustees, and countless voluntary workers is incontrovertible evidence that the British soul and conscience is in good working order.

But – a reality check: we cannot be complacent about our charitable sector. There are negatives: we have all seen the publicity generated by bad fundraising practices and poor governance. I won’t dwell on these shortcomings, except to note that all charities have a duty to protect their reputation. Unless they are seen as efficient and well run, donations will fall away. Giving is not a given.

History tells us donations collapsed when the Fabians argued that social care was the – presumably sole – responsibility of the State.

In 1948, when the NHS was formed, 90% of the public told opinion polls there would no longer be any need for charity. The act of giving also falls when taxes are too onerous: as a former Lord Mayor of London put it: “much as I would like to give … The Government has taken all my money.”

This may seem perverse – but politicians should be careful not to claim too much success in meeting social need: if they do, they may cut off the voluntary impulse without which we would all be poorer.

Charitable activity has a long and proud history in our country. The 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses – together with its contemporary Statute for the Relief of the Poor – were intended to encourage the rich to supplement contributions from rate and tax payers. They have done so ever since. Had they not, our social conditions would be incomparably worse.

The House of Commons Library tells me the UK now has over 100 Sterling billionaires, and many thousands of millionaires. Is this growing wealth a source of additional funding? Almost certainly – whether it be lifetime giving, lifetime loans or legacies. I need not elaborate – fundraisers are well aware of the opportunities of tapping into rising wealth.

The role of charities has long been one of the glories of our way of life. They promote human nature at its best … care of the very sick; the terminally ill; research into cures; help for those with learning or physical disabilities … the list is both magnificent and almost unending. Our society would be very bleak indeed without them.

And charities can be innovative.

Take the Prince’s Charity, which has done so much to regenerate deprived areas. It has been the catalyst in bringing together a range of charitable organisations to work with both the public and private sectors. This approach was pioneered in Burnley in 2007, and has since spread to Burslem, Middlesbrough and Tottenham.

An independent evaluation by Dr Peter Grant of Cass Business School reports that this has been a hugely successful partnership. The pioneer of the programme, Burnley, was named in 2013 as the most enterprising place in the UK by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. During the past year, they have had the largest percentage increase in private sector jobs in the UK. Surely this form of approach could be more widely developed?

“Give us the tools,” pleaded Churchill, in a moment of national crisis, “and we will finish the job”. In our lesser crisis of helping the poorest among us, one essential tool is money: it is the root of much progress.

As Chancellor, in 1990, I sought to accelerate charitable income by introducing Gift Aid: since then, this tax change has generated £13.5 billion in additional revenue for charities, and is the gift that keeps on giving – at over £1 billion a year.

In the late 1980s – as Social Security Minister, with responsibility for the Disabled, and then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, responsible for the allocation of the public purse – I saw raw need, often unmet. I realised it was impossible for even the best causes to compete for public money against the demands of pensions, health, education, social security and defence.

So, as Prime Minister, my solution was the Lottery – money from the public … for the public, and – to protect the independence of charities – from a source other than the State. It was controversial.

Some denounced it for promoting gambling. The Church was restless, but underwent a miraculous conversion that enabled many a leaking church roof to be mended. The Treasury was conflicted. Officials realised that the Lottery would ease demands for public money – and approved. But equally, they knew it would be out of their control – and disapproved. Even worse, the Lottery promoted fun – which the community of killjoys absolutely hated.

The critics are silent now. As of today, the Lottery has distributed over £34 billion to good causes: nearly £8 billion to charities alone, and the balance to other causes – sports, the arts, heritage – that enhance the lives of everyone and, most importantly to me, those who have little else.

And, as intended, most of this money has gone to small local schemes: to village halls, arts centres, playgrounds for children, parks and open spaces, sports equipment, and instruments for orchestras and bands.

I admit to paternal affection for the Lottery, but worry for its future. It was designed as a National Lottery – in effect, a monopoly – to maximise returns for the designated good causes. But its success has attracted rivals. In recent years, so-called “Umbrella” society lotteries have emerged, that have circumvented the original legislation, and pay a far smaller proportion of their income back to worthy causes.

“Betting on lottery” operators have also expanded, blurring the line between lotteries and gambling. If these rivals grow or multiply in number, they will threaten the future of the National Lottery.

Charities should all be concerned about this.

In a nation at ease with itself, business, too, has a role. Of course, its main purpose is to make profits – but, as it does so, it can do more for social development than paying taxes and creating jobs.

In a recent visit to Liverpool, I learned that local building companies – Carillion were one – were actively seeking out former Servicemen and women, the long-term unemployed, the homeless and ex-offenders.

They are employing them and teaching them skills from which they can benefit for the rest of their lives. It is an idea that should be adopted more widely.

Business can – and does – help charities. I am the Chairman of The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, set up to provide a legacy for Her Majesty’s many years as our Monarch.

The Trust is seeking to end forms of avoidable blindness across the nations of the Commonwealth and our principal private sector supporter has been Standard Chartered Bank. Other Banks have dedicated departments advising on philanthropy. Many private sector companies sponsor named charities each year, or contribute to them, or collect for them among their employees. Some newly rich private sector benefactors are proving to be enormously generous: this, I believe, is an area that can and should grow dramatically.

Their contribution is in stark contrast to the activities of pay-day lenders that offer loans at extortionate rates of 1500% or more. They are not helping the poor: they are helping themselves at the expense of the poor. That’s not a free market, it’s an exploitative market. And morally reprehensible.

Let me offer some closing thoughts:

During my preparations for this evening, I have sought the views of many specialists on the work of civil society.

Some suggested that we have too many charities, and that it would be less wasteful, more efficient, and minimise duplication of effort, if they merged.

There is a logic to that suggestion – but I have reservations about how desirable it is. The urge to set up a charity is surely driven by the heart, not the head, and I would be disinclined to discourage that. In any case, I fancy small charities dip into a different pool for funding – and it would be folly to lose their enthusiasm. In my experience, they also offer small, anonymous acts of kindness, vital to the recipient, that may be overlooked by their larger brethren.

Others – with an eye to the reputation of charities – have argued there is a strong case for charities to make a sound business case before they are formally registered. This I do agree with.

As a general principle, I am not an admirer of regulators. I am therefore surprised to have reached the conclusion that we would be wise to expand the remit, and the funding, of the Charity Commissioners.

I believe, in so doing, we can improve the chance of eliminating malpractice and scandals in a charity sector that has an annual income of nearly £70 billion. I see advantages in the Commission engaging with more charities and encouraging “friendly” mergers. They could act as a catalyst for change by encouraging charities to become transformative as well as palliative. If this is beyond their remit and resources now, then we need to change their remit and increase their resources.

Today, I have no power and no public money at my disposal, but I care no less now than I did then. I also have a voice which – by and large – the poor don’t.

And I wish to say – 25 years on – that we are still not a nation at ease with itself. Much has been done – is being done – to ease inequality, but we can do so much more.

As the world becomes richer, inequality becomes less tolerable, and the case for reducing it more urgent. A crusade to widen prosperity more equally will not only ease hardship, it will build our national wealth – and health.

I grew up in a community that had very little. I have been lucky, very lucky. But not everyone is. And it is for us – all of us – upon whose lives good fortune has shone, to do whatever we can, big or small, to ensure it shines on others, too.

If you think this is a fanciful notion – and that nothing you can do will make a difference – think of Burnley. Think of Carillion in Liverpool.

Think of those left behind. And you will realise that much can be done if the will is there.

We have a choice. We can leave it all to Government – or we can all contribute, and ease inequality more comprehensively and more swiftly.

It is up to us. It is our choice and I, for one, am clear about what that choice should be.

Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech marking the 20th anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration. The speech was made in Dublin, Ireland, on Wednesday 11th December 2013.

It’s always a pleasure for me to come to Dublin – a city of which I have very fond memories, in a country for which I have great affection.  

Eighteen years ago, I was here to discuss a key piece of architecture in the Peace Process – the Joint Framework Document. That evening, in the margins of my discussions with John Bruton, Norma and I went to the National Concert Hall with John and Finola to catch the second half of Handel’s Messiah.  

On arrival, we received an overwhelmingly warm reception from the audience: This, I am sure, was due to John’s popularity, but it reinforced my determination to end the friction that had bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for too long. That night is one of the most treasured memories of my years in Office and it’s good, yet again, to be back here in Dublin.

Twenty five years ago it would have seemed improbable – to some inconceivable – that a former British Prime Minister would be invited to celebrate the anniversary of a political agreement that was a staging post in making the UK and Ireland more contented neighbours than at any time in their long and tortuous history.

Yet it is so – and British and Irish alike can now focus on our present and future relationship instead of all the disputes, conflicts, rights and wrongs of the past that poisoned it for so long. It’s time to put them behind us. Of course, the past will remain in the memory, but it mustn’t stand in the way of the future.

Britain and Ireland are the closest of neighbours. Our cultures intermingle: we share a taste for Shakespeare and Shaw;  for Milton and Beckett. We enjoy the performances of Judi Dench and Kenneth Branagh; of Maggie Smith and Peter O’Toole.  

Irish citizens with residency qualifications can vote in UK elections. Our trade and investment flows are huge. British exports to Ireland exceed those to India and China collectively or, alternatively, to the whole of Africa –added together: In return, Britain is Ireland’s largest market. We are both members of the EU and share sporting ambitions with the Lions, the Barbarians and in the Ryder Cup. We steal Eoin Morgan, Ed Joyce and Boyd Rankin to play cricket for England, and you send an unending stream of Irish jockeys to ride to victory in our classic races.  

When Ireland faced financial problems, the British Government was swift to help. It is a new (and better) relationship, sealed in May 2011 by the first ever State visit made by a British Monarch to Ireland. And next Spring, President Higgins’ State Visit to England will further enhance our mutual interests.

The gateway to this new partnership is the success of the Peace Process. This had no single architect, no single event, no single hero. Many people, known and unknown, contributed over a long period – including, above all, the men and women of Ireland who became impatient at the delay in resolving the troubles; angry at the senseless violence that marred daily life; and frustrated by the failure to resolve an essentially political dispute. Their voice and actions made the extremists in both camps realise that the Irish people expected something better from them and, in this, both Protestant and Catholic clerics played a vital role.

In December 1993, the Downing Street Declaration set out principles that both the British and Irish Governments were agreed upon: no-one could claim that it’s an easy read. In fact, to let you in on a secret, I did win an award for the Declaration which I failed to share with Albert Reynolds. It was a tin of rhubarb … from the Campaign for Plain English – their annual award for gobbledygook.

But language is important in the land of James Joyce, and the medium was part of the message. The Declaration pointed up agreements, set a direction, and opened up a future that had once seemed impossible to unlock.

“No heroes”, I said, and I shall stick to that. But I want to say something about my counterpart in agreeing the Joint Declaration. Albert Reynolds is not well now, and his illness is a cruel trick of fate for a man who gave so much to break the Gordian knot of Anglo-Irish distrust. Although I’m sad Albert cannot be with us this evening, I’m delighted that Kathleen is here – and it was a real treat for me and Norma to spend some time with the Reynolds family earlier today.  

I like and admire Albert very much. He is – quintessentially – Irish:  most at ease philosophically in the wearing of the Green. One of the most mortifying experiences I endured as Prime Minister was to sit between Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring – both howling like dervishes – at Twickenham in 1994 when Ireland won by a single point [13-12]. In negotiation, Albert fought like that rugby team – fought and fought again for the Irish point of view but, above all, he sought a way to end the bloodshed and open up a new future for the country he loved so much. He came looking for agreement, not an argument, and was prepared to take risks and make concessions to achieve that outcome. The more I saw of him – despite all the hurdles, despite all the frustrations – even the rows! – the more confident I became that we could and would find common ground.

Albert and I were both helped by some remarkable civil servants – most especially Martin Mansergh in Dublin and Roderic Lyne in London: their work behind the scenes – and with one another – was untiring. Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring were also crucial to the agreement, and I’m delighted to see Dick here this evening. There are, of course, many more names that merit recognition, but time forbids me from mentioning them all. But they knowwho they are and what they did – and that is the most important thing.

Of all nations, the Irish love history – and family. And Albert’s as-yet-unborn great great grandchildren can be proud of their ancestor’s role in building a momentum that gave peace a chance.  

Albert, I see you too rarely, but think of you often: I am proud to call you my friend.   

The agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments was crucial in putting pressure on the violent fringes in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities. It did box them in. It did cut down their support. It didbegin to cut off their financial lifeline. In the eyes of many of their former supporters, they were no longer seen as fighters for a political cause but, instead, as a barrier to peace, responsible for so much misery, so many deaths – often of innocent bystanders, unconnected to any political struggle.

By the early 1990s, a number of instincts were coming together that made a peace process more likely. War weariness was setting in – crucially, even among the Provisionals. Throughout their adult lives they had fought – and achieved nothing towards their cause. Without a political settlement, they foresaw their children and their children’s children facing an equally bleak and violent future.

Public opinion was swinging in the same direction. Moreover, British and Irish membership of the EU was throwing Ministers from London and Dublin closer together in a common cause. Against that background, Albert and I saw opportunities. He knew violence would not change British policy – indeed, it would only serve to harden it.  

I knew that a British policy of no talks until the Provisional IRA gave up their weapons and ended all violence would very likely mean that the dance of death would continue. And that dance seemed unending: 632 deaths from 1987 to 1993 – including Enniskillen, Ballygawley, Warrington, Shankill Road. It’s a roll-call of horror.

But the decision to proceed was not a comfortable one, for either side. Easy – because it was right – but notcomfortable. We both knew that we were taking a risk. We knew we would face opposition and the profound scepticism bred by two decades of stalemate. Many asked: “How can you possibly talk to an active armed militia?”. Many, looking at history instead of changing circumstances, forecast failure.  

Plainly, success depended on the leaders of the IRA engaging in the process. We believed they would, and were prepared to gamble on it. Let me now say something that may surprise you. Throughout the process, I was acutely conscious that IRA leaders were taking a risk, too: if Albert and I upset our supporters we might – as Albert cheerily put it – “be kicked out”. That was true – but the IRA’s supporters were more deadly than our backbench colleagues – and their leaders were taking a risk too – possibly with their own lives.

From the moment the process started, I spent countless hours trying to think myself into the mind and tactics of IRA leaders: what were their aims; their constraints; their motives? What would tempt them into agreement?  

We knew we had to agree objectives between London and Dublin. We had to address grievances and contradictory ambitions. We needed to offer an end-product, and reassure two communities that had different fears and different ambitions.

The Joint Declaration, agreed with Albert Reynolds, did so: it was the beginning of the end of conflict. For the first time, we had a set of principles on which not only the two Governments agreed, but also the leaders of the two largest parties of the day in Northern Ireland, the SDLP and the UUP. Much credit is due to the untiring efforts of John Hume and Jim Molyneux for the courage they showed in lining up with us.  

It was a set of principles strongly supported on both sides of the divide. It demonstrated that there really was an alternative to endless conflict.

The Framework Documents, agreed with John Bruton – who faced great internal opposition but overcame it – carried us forward – and our political successors continued along the same path. I congratulate them warmly upon what they did. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement condemned the past to history and opened a better prospect for both our countries. Let me now look to that future.

First, a word about Northern Ireland. While the success of the peace process has transformed life there, the task of building a normal society is still work-in-progress. The British and Irish Governments need to continue working together to help Northern Ireland become the tolerant, inclusive, shared society we all wish to see.

For too long the “Northern Ireland Question” was the only agenda item between the UK and Ireland: no longer. Last year, David Cameron and Enda Kenny agreed to a future of intensified co-operation across the whole range of Government business.

Work is progressing with a focus on jobs and growth – both vital for living standards and for the long-term future of both countries. Within a few days, Ireland will be exiting its IMF/EU programme which it has executed with great courage and skill. In her handling of the financial crisis, Ireland has been an example to all of Europe.

It hasn’t been easy – or painless. Tax rises and spending cuts are not abstract economic potions: they hurt people’s lives, and Ireland can be proud of how social cohesion has been maintained and the country prepared for a return to better times.  

But, in a global market, an open economy such as Ireland’s requires more than domestic economic virtue: in particular, it needs its main trading partners – the US, EU and, above all, the UK – to grow as well.

The US, despite her huge debt, is in growth and, despite her much vaunted “pivot to the East” will not neglect her Irish market: both logic and affection bind Ireland and the US together.

The UK, too, is beginning to recover and – I think – may do so faster than expected. For two decades, the swing towards either recession or growth has been greater than forecast, and I believe the present return to growth will out-perform expectations once again. As it does, the Cameron-Kenny agreement will help both economies.

Europe, I fear, will recover more slowly, and its future policy is less clear. Nonetheless, I do not expect the Euro to collapse – it has too much political will behind it for this to happen – but a Eurozone recovery may be slow and muted. One aspect of UK/European policy is, I imagine, of deep concern to Ireland: will the UK remain in the EU following the referendum on membership?

The reasons for Irish concern are potent. Would a UK withdrawal diminish UK/Irish mutual interest and undercut the improved relationship? Would the UK pay less attention to Ireland if the two countries were not working together on EU trade and competitiveness issues? And – above all, perhaps – would the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland harden with new border controls for the movement of goods or people? And, if so, would this unsettle the Catholic community in the North?

These are rational concerns but, I believe, they are phantoms: I do not expect the UK to leave Europe. It is not the moment for a complex explanation of why I take that view but – in brief – departure would hurt, isolate and weaken the UK, and diminish the EU. It’s easy to demonise Brussels. The EU can be irritating and frustrating: believe me, I know! But those in the UK who want us out have never articulated a viable alternative, let alone a better one.  

This is the black hole in their argument – because the truth is that the alternatives would be bleak. As for the EU – it would lose its second-biggest economy; the nation with the longest foreign policy reach; and one of only two member nations with a significant nuclear and military capability. Whilst the rest of the world is binding itself more closely together, if the UK were to leave it would fly in the face of commonsense, self-interest and the drift of history. I cannot believe we would be so foolish.

Let me touch on one further contentious issue where the UK and Ireland must put right an old injustice. Next year is the 100th Anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. That war prompted the suspension of efforts to introduce Home Rule. It was the backdrop to the Easter Rising, its military suppression, and the moves – eventually abandoned – to introduce conscription to Ireland in 1918;  all of which had a profound influence on the course of Irish history once the war ended.

As we mark this Anniversary, we must be prepared to face the past in as open and honest a way as possible, however uncomfortable some of it may be. As Santayana said, 150 years ago, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. So, in the UK, young people will be at the centre of these commemorations. Our hope is to build an enduring legacy, so that future generations remember the war and how it came about.

In Ireland, the challenge is slightly different.

Your former President, Mary McAleese, who did so much to promote peace in Northern Ireland, called the Irish soldiers of the First World War doubly tragic.They fell victim to a war against oppression in Europe. Then, at home in Ireland, their memory fell victim to a war for independence.

The failure to remember them in Ireland is all the more remarkable when one considers the huge numbers involved. Well over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the British army in the First World War and, of these, some 50,000 were killed.

Those figures mean that most Irish families will have had a grandfather or a great uncle who fought in the war.  It is therefore no surprise that, in these less inhibited times, there is so much interest here in Ireland in finding out more about this lost generation.

Our two governments in Dublin and London are working closely together on the Great War Anniversaries, which form part of a wider decade of commemorations of the events that led to Ireland’s independence.

As emotions have cooled with the passage of time, I am hopeful that these commemorations will provide an opportunity to reflect on the tumultuous events of a century ago in a calmer, less emotive way.

Of course, there is a risk that people of ill will might try to use this opportunity to re-open old wounds and deepen divisions. But we must not let our shared history be hijacked for nefarious purposes when the two Governments are working so closely together in a spirit of historical accuracy, mutual respect, inclusiveness and reconciliation. Twenty years ago, that might not have been possible. But today, thank God, it is.

Conducted in the right way – and the Taoiseach’s and Tanaiste’s presence at Remembrance Ceremonies in Northern Ireland last month were exactly the right way – these commemorations should allow us to honour different traditions, overcome any divisions that remain, and inspire harmony in our future relations.

Let me sum up my message with a quote from that great Irish author, clergyman and satirist, Jonathan Swift:

“A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying …. that he is wiser today than yesterday”.

At times in the past we have all been in the wrong. And today, I believe we are wiser than yesterday.  

That is why I have such optimism for the future, and why it gives me such enormous personal pleasure to be here twenty years on from those first steps towards peace. The full fruits of this peace may lie ahead, but the path has been set and, I hope, future generations in Britain and Ireland will enjoy a relationship that – although once thought to be impossible – is now fact.  

Ireland’s relationship with the UK and its future – both North and South – has never looked so bright as it does here this evening.