The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Manchester Olympics

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview after IOC Olympics Announcement – 23 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview, made outside Downing Street on 23rd September 1993, on the announcement of the site of the 2000 Olympics.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you by the decision?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone is disappointed – in the United Kingdom – the Manchester bid was a very good bid, I don’t think they could have done it better. I’m very disappointed for them. That being said I congratulate Sydney. I think they’ll provide an outstanding games.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it’s worth having a second go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Manchester have had a second go. The question is whether they have a third go. That’s a decision they’ll want to take. I can only say I don’t think they could have presented the bid better. They may well wish to try again.

    QUESTION:

    Would you like to see another British bid in 4 years time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Most certainly.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, why do you think China didn’t get the Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    More people voted for Sydney.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think, Prime Minister, this is going to fuel Australian’s demands to become a Republic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t think it will make any difference at all. I really don’t think it will make any difference. I think this ought to be seen in a sporting context; that’s where I believe it’s best placed. Sydney produced an extremely good bid as well, and on the night they won.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be going?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what will your message be to the people of Manchester?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think my message would be they can be extremely proud of the bid Bob Scott and his colleagues put forward. Extremely proud. I think it’s given Manchester a remarkably good profile and I hope they’re not too downhearted.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Support of Olympic Bid – 23 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in support of the Manchester Olympics bid. The speech was given in Monte Carlo on Thursday 23rd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President and Members of the IOC:

    We are all here today in our different capacities because we care about the Olympic Games. We know it to be the greatest sporting festival in the world. You must decide where it will be and I wish to help you make that decision.

    The Millennium Games will be a unique occasion, a time of hope, optimism, the beginning of a new century, a time for looking forward, a time to bring together young people from every corner of the globe skilled in athletic achievements and striving every muscle to prove themselves the very best in the world and television will take that friendly competition before the largest sporting audience in history. I want you to see that unique occasion at that unique time in that unique city in my country, Manchester.

    The city may be Manchester, one of our great cities but this is a British bid, not just the city but the whole country stands foursquare behind it. It has the full and utter support of the Government.

    Twice in this century – in 1908 and 1948 – Britain has hosted the Games. Each time it did so at short notice to save the Games, otherwise they could not and would not have been held but my country has never been awarded the Games, never had the chance to plan for them but we hope to be able to have that chance at the turn of the century and why? Why do we want the Games in Great Britain in Manchester?
    My country has a passion for sport and it is a passion I freely confess to you that I share. Past sporting events are planted indelibly in our minds. I can close my eyes now and see the White City when Chataway went thataway and beat the seemingly invincible Vladimir Kutz; I remember that incomparable Bob Beaman leap, the Fosbury Flop, all of it across a whole range of athletics memories could close our minds and bring back pictures of the past.

    But it is not just the past; it is the anticipation of the future as well and anticipating future sporting events to me at least is one of the great pleasures of life. Scratch a Briton and you will find a sports lover. In my country, new sports are taking root, old sports are growing in popularity.

    I believe that sporting endeavour represents much of the very best of life – the will to win, the determination to compete and to finish; it is about individual efforts and team excellence; it provides drama, romance, pathos and memories. In such an environment, the Olympic Games will thrive but to do so needs more than enthusiasm, much more than simply a love of sport.

    Organising the Olympic Games is a truly massive undertaking. No-one doubts that Manchester can do that spectacularly well. It has the right communication links, the right international access, it can offer excellence in television and in communications. The sporting facilities already are superb and those still needed will be provided. Even as we speak, the construction of future Olympic facilities is under way.

    Mr. President, I spent some time at the Barcelona Games. I went there to look and to learn. Barcelona was a success for the Olympic Movement and a success for Spain and I was happy to play a small part in that in helping athletes from the former Yugoslavia to compete in those Olympics. Today, I am delighted to support the IOC in its bid for observer status at the United Nations and in its efforts to secure an Olympic truce and I do so because I want the Olympic Movement and the Games to succeed, to go as it has done from strength to strength from year to year.

    Sport binds together the best of friends and the worst of enemies but it binds them more securely than any other endeavour and the world should use that gift.

    Mr. President, Members of the IOC, you have a difficult task. I for one don’t envy you for one second in the choice that you have to make. You have candidates of high quality each wishing to host the Games in the year 2000. To do will be an immense privilege and a very great responsibility. Whatever you decide today, we will readily accept and play our part in making the Games a success. I hope you will decide to have that success in Manchester. If you do, I can promise you that a very warm welcome awaits you and I am utterly confident that a great Games lie in store.

    I am grateful to you for listening.

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Tokyo – 19 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing, held in Tokyo on Sunday 19th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [part of the questions and answers were inaudible, and those sections are marked by …]

    I much admire the fact that you all speak English since I have to tell you my Japanese is non-existent, but thank you for that helpful fact that you do, but nonetheless I will take things quite slowly rather than gabble in our usual British fashion in the hope that that will be a little easier.

    It does not seem very long ago that I was here for the G7, just a few weeks ago, but I am delighted to be back, I am looking forward to seeing the Prime Minister tomorrow and other colleagues and discussing the things that have happened since the G7 and more relevantly the things that are happening now and are going to happen in the future, there are a number of very important joint interests that we have.

    If I could just say a word about trading and political relationships. I think our political and economic links at the moment are better than they have been at any time that I can recall, they have grown very substantially over the last 10 years or so. Politically there are the bilateral links through the G7, there are a large number of bilateral contacts, there is a great deal of contact between us on international issues and I have no doubt that will continue.

    On the trading front we have a very substantial trade flow in both directions and a very substantial investment flow in both directions. I have brought with me on this occasion I think possibly the most high powered British business delegation ever to leave the United Kingdom together and I brought them to Japan because of the very substantial trade relationship that there is between us and frankly the excellence of that relationship. The companies that have come are all very large companies indeed and I think in their own fields they are amongst the world leaders. I emphasise that not just to praise companies but because it is a very clear illustration of the importance of the trade relationship.

    We have been delighted to receive a very substantial amount of Japanese investment in the United Kingdom, there is no such thing in the United Kingdom as a Japanese company, there are companies with Japanese owners in the United Kingdom but we regard them as British companies, they are treated as British companies and we extend their interests across the whole of the European Community in precisely the same way as if they were British owned. I think that has been most evident of course in the motor car industry but it applies generally, it has done in the past and it will do in the future. Despite the scale of our trade and investment relations there is room for further growth and I hope we will see it.

    Amongst the things I hope to discuss with the Prime Minister in particular tomorrow, but also I think with others, is the necessity, not lust the wish, but the necessity to reach an agreement in the Uruguay Round this year. Many people in the past have questioned whether: there really is a deadline this year and whether, if we miss it, as we have done before, we can just go on to a later date. I must say I do not believe that we can, for a range of reasons I think this deadline of 15 December is a deadline and if we are to get a comprehensive agreement then we will need to reach that agreement by 15 December. I think that is very much in Britain’s interest and very much in Japan’s interest, we are both by instinct free traders but more important than that I think it is very much in the interests of the whole of the industrial and non-industrialised world that we get a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay Round.

    A lot of progress was made when I was last in Japan at the Quad talks and I was very pleased about that. Every country, without any exception anywhere in the industrialised world, is going to have to make some concessions in the GATT Round to reach an agreement, some of them will be painful, some of them will be politically difficult, but the advantage of the overall deal is such that I think every country must do it.

    There is, as you may know, some dispute between the United States and the European Community over agriculture and Blair House. I can only tell you the British view, the British view is that the Blair House deal should not be re-opened, it was reached, it should be stuck to and it should not be used as an impediment to prevent the GATT round.

    We do have some specific issues on market access that I am likely to raise over the next day or so but I will leave you to ask questions about that rather than specifically mention them, you will not be surprised to hear which ones they are.

    I hope also we can look at a range of other international matters, I shall certainly want to ask the Prime Minister, about Cambodia, I am sure we will look at other trouble spots around the world like Bosnia, have no doubt we will exchange our views over Russia and Ukraine and a number of other international problems as well.

    I also want to talk to the Prime Minister about deregulation. I was very interested to see in his economic package the other day the proposals for a large amount of deregulation. We are about to produce legislation in the British Parliament for deregulation of business and I think we may well be able to exchange some experiences there.

    Just one final word, if I may, about the United Kingdom economy. Economies all round the world have been sluggish and difficult, you have had your own difficulties in Japan as well as we have. We have been through a recession, we are now out of recession, we are starting to grow, our growth this year will be modest but it will be the largest growth in the European Community. Our growth next year will be a good deal bigger and again it will be the largest growth in the European Community.

    We have inflation down to under 2 percent for the whole of this year, there is no sign that inflation is going to rise again, there is every sign that gentle and steady growth is going to continue. Our exports are rising quite substantially, our productivity is improving quite substantially. So I think we are in a position with low inflation, low interest rates, declining unit wage costs and accelerating growth and we can look forward to a much more clement economic climate over the next few years than we have had in the last few years.

    One thing we will not do is take any risks with inflation, I am determined that we should have steady growth with low inflation for the next few years because I think that is frightfully important for the industrial and commercial development that I hope to see in the United Kingdom.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, my first question is the issue of former POWs who have been claiming for compensation from the Japanese government, although Prime Minister Hosokawa made formal … for wartime atrocities of Japanese Imperial forces he said he thought that the case was closed under the San Francisco Peace treaty. When you raise this issue with the Prime Minister will you demand any compensation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is an issue that is very live in a number of countries at the moment, in Canada you will know the situation in Canada and you will know of the situation in Holland and it is a live issue in the United Kingdom as well. Britain and Japan are very close and friendly partners and I expect I shall raise the matter but I shall expect to discuss the matter in that spirit and I think it is one of those matters where it is best served if the Prime Minister and I discussed that matter privately rather than air that discussion in public, I think that is the right way to enter into the discussions and if you will forgive me I will say no more about it other than to confirm that it is a matter the Prime Minister and I will discuss.

    QUESTION:

    My second question is regarding the organisation of the United Nations. The United Kingdom seems to be rather … as far as the UN is concerned in that the UN Security Council as it stands has been functioning very well and both Japan and Germany … to send combat forces to the other side of the world. I think you will take up this issue with the Prime Minister, would you change the extent of the policies of the UK vis a vis the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out some comments on this when I was here in July at the G7. There is a debate on the reform of the Security Council which is now under way, it has been an embryo debate for some time and it has rather gathered pace over the last few months. The key point I think in any reform is to ensure that the Security Council is able to deal effectively with the global security problems that are its responsibilities and all the Permanent Members of course are expected to play a full role in peace-keeping. That debate on the Security Council is not going to go away, it is going to accelerate and you mentioned particularly Japan and Germany, but I think there are other countries as well that will want to play a particular role in that debate, I think it is very likely, for example, if this debate gets under way that the non-aligned countries will also say: Well we should have a Permanent Member as well. So I think the debate is a little wider than just the present Permanent Five and the applicants, there is a very large … from Japan and from Germany.

    As that debate continues, if you would like to know my personal view I will tell you. I personally would expect that Japan would benefit from any expansion of the Security Council, I think that will take a while because it is a very complex and difficult debate, it will not be easy to conclude but I think the reform process is now under consideration, it is not going to go away and at the end of it I would expect that Japan would benefit, but I could not put a time frame to that.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell me how the Russian President … do you think he can survive?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do think he will survive, he is a pretty robust character the Russian President, I believe, you may correct me, but I think there are plans for him to visit Tokyo at some stage in the future. There have been a number of occasions in the last couple of years where people have said: Is the Russian President going to survive? He has, he is an extremely robust character. Three or four years ago when President Gorbachev was there, there was always the alternative in the wings of a putative President Yeltsin, no such immediate alternative is there. Clearly he is going to have a lot of very difficult decisions to take, he is going to have a lot of opposition and a lot of criticism, but I do believe he will be able to overcome that, quite how he is going to handle the constitutional difficulties he faces with elections later this year or perhaps next year I cannot tell you, but if you want to know my hunch as to whether President Yeltsin will be there in 12 months time, my hunch is yes he will.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two points, quality coordination is one; I think the other point reverts back to a topic of a few moments ago, if one asks oneself what is the single ingredient that the world economic situation lacks at the moment I suspect the answer that most people would give you is confidence, people are not confident about the sustained economic period of growth in the future. And what is the single ingredient that is most likely to engender confidence? I think I would argue quite strongly that the single ingredient most likely to engender confidence is a satisfactory completion of the Uruguay Round, I think that would make a very powerful difference.

    On the question of the European Community you are absolutely right, the United Kingdom is out of recession but a number of the other European countries are going into recession. I do not know how long that cycle will last, there are two views in Germany, Germany is the most powerful economy in Western Europe, one view is that the Germans will be coming out of recession in a matter of months, another that it will be longer. I hope it will be the former view because they, Japan and the United States are the three great powerful motors in the world economic system.

    As for policy coordination generally we discussed that at the G7 and I think it was generally agreed what needed to be done – the Europeans need to reduce interest rates, they are starting to do that, events have enabled them, there have been a number of interest rate reductions across Europe, nobody foresees interest rates rising in Europe, they see them declining, that is very welcome indeed. The view also is that we wanted to see a fiscal stimulus in Japan, there has been a fiscal stimulus in Japan and we must wait and see whether that is satisfactory and will … the Japanese economy. And in the United States we want to see continued growth. I do not think the United States is growing as fast as we thought it was a few months ago, it seems to have slowed down, I think that is now becoming clearly evident, but it is still growing.

    So the three components that we set out at the G7 are all under way, the United States is growing, Japan has injected a fiscal stimulus and interest rates are declining across Europe. So I think that is the first time for 3 or 4 years that each of the three economic blocs have got policy moving in a direction that will engender growth and I think that is welcome.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am a multilateralist rather than a bilateralist and I want to see multilateral deals and multilateral growth, not bilateral growth, I think that is very clearly what my view is.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The International Olympic Committee will decide on Thursday I think, all the bidding has pretty much been done. I very much hope that Manchester will get it. A year ago many people would have said Manchester was an outsider, I do not believe they would say that today, the Manchester bid is a very powerful bid now and I think we have every chance of winning on Thursday but whether we will or not, who can tell. As for Beijing, I will just restrain myself to saying Beijing is not my choice.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to raise the issue in public now, I am going to discuss it with the Prime Minister. I think this is the sort of matter that is most likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion if it is discussed privately, I do not believe in what one might crudely call diplomacy by megaphone, if I have something to say I prefer to say it privately, you may regard that as a novel British approach but it is very much the one that I prefer. So without wishing to be discourteous, if you will forgive me I will reserve what I have to say for my private meeting with the Prime Minister,

    I am sorry not to be more forthcoming.

    QUESTION:

    Turning to European issues, the European Monetary System has virtually collapsed, as one of the main artists to the Maastricht Treaty do you think that the European leaders should be … of the European declaration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Are you talking about the Exchange Rate Mechanism or full economic and monetary union?

    QUESTION:

    I understand that the European Monetary System is the cornerstone of the future economic and monetary union, in that sense if you look at the confusion of the monetary system …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the Chancellor came out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism I said then that I thought there were serious fault lines in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, I still believe that, I believe there are serious fault lines and until those serious fault lines are put right there is the danger of the same sort of difficulty again. The Exchange Rate Mechanism for some, not all maybe, but for some would … towards full economic and monetary union and a single currency, the timetable was set out for achieving that. My view quite clearly is that that timetable is no longer remotely realistic, not remotely realistic, and my fellow Heads of Government in the European Community know that is my view. At the time of the Maastricht Treaty I declined to accept the full economic and monetary union proposals of my colleagues, I had what was known as an opt-out so that the British parliament could decide at a future date if it wanted to go into economic and monetary union. I believe that the events since Maastricht have proved that that judgment of mine was right and I personally do not consider the timetable set out in Maastricht, to which some still hold, to be remotely realistic.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In terms of timescale, most certainly, and I think in other ways too, yes. I think one can see looking around the European Community, I think there are other more pressing issues that the European Community should turn its mind to and I shall be trying to persuade them to turn their mind to What should be bothering people in Europe most is how to re-engender growth and create jobs. In the European Community there are 17.5 million European adults out of work, that figure is going to go up in the next year or so to around 20 million adults. That is an astonishing figure in an industrial society. In Japan mercifully you have not had serious unemployment problems for decades, but 20 million unemployed is not a problem that will be solved by long distance … monetary union, the European economies have got to look at the much shorter problem of how to engender sufficient growth, to have sufficient deregulation to put people back to work.

    I think there are three things they have got to do: they do need policies that will engender growth without inflation; they do need to deregulate, the European markets are much too heavily regulated, the United Kingdom is perhaps the least too heavily regulated and yet I believe we are over-regulated; and the other problem in Europe is their social costs are infinitely higher for companies than social costs in Japan, in the Pacific Basin or in the United States and the European Community, if it is going to thrive in the long term, has got to realise that it is not a question of France competing with Germany, competing with Spain, competing with Britain, it is a question of the whole of the European Community competing with Japan, with America and with the rest of the world so they have got to cut their social costs as well and those are the issues I believe they should concentrate on.

    QUESTION:

    My last question is regarding what you said in your opening remarks, when you said … need assistance to bring around a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round, does it mean that you are going to say to Prime Minister Hosokawa …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will certainly discuss all the outstanding elements of GATT, all of them I would think, and I daresay that Prime Minister Hosokawa will say to me that I have got to make sure the European Community … some gains over agriculture too, I would expect him to say that and I will agree with him about that. But I will raise the GATT Round, some things we will deal with specifically others generally.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no recent information, one has seen all the rumours there have been of Scottish lawyers being briefed by Qadhafi but I have nothing concrete on that that I can confirm, I very much hope so, I think it is necessary that the people who are believed to be responsible for this atrocity should face trial and find out whether they are guilty or not and the sooner that happens the better and I very much hope such a trial will take place.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is possible but we do not know yet. It is perfectly possible for a trial to take place in Scotland but in order for that to happen the accused have to be delivered up by the Libyans and I do not yet know whether that is likely to happen, I hope it will, we have not heard.

    QUESTION:

    You have no hard evidence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have no hard evidence at all, we have seen the reports that you have seen but as is sometimes the case in the world you are as well informed as we are and I have no hard evidence at all.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will, I am stopping in Kuala Lumpur en route and then I am going on to Monte Carlo and I look forward to seeing you all in Manchester in the year 2000.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bermuda

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Bermuda Government about bringing the law on consensual sexual relations between adult men in private into line with the legislative position in Britain.

    The Prime Minister : This is primarily a matter for the Government of Bermuda.

     

    Ministerial Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 November, Official Report, column 216, if he will publish the current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for, the date of their appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser attached to a Minister.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 July 1993] : There are currently 41 special advisers attached to Ministers. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for, the date of the appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser is as follows :

    Name |Minister(s) served |Date of appointment |Previous employer

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–

    1. Adams |Secretary of State for the Environment |28 May 1993 |Rt. Hon. John Gummer
    2. Barnes |Secretary of State for Social Security |3 May 1993 |Boston Consulting Group
    3. Blunt |Secretary of State for Defence |15 February 1993 |PI Political Consultants

    Sir R. Braithwaite* |Prime Minister |1 June 1992 |Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    1. Burke* |Secretary of State for the Environment |10 April 1992 |Green Alliance
    2. Caine |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |17 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office
    3. Cameron |Jointly to the three Ministers of State and |21 June 1993 |Conservative Central Office

    the Under Secretary of State in the Home Office

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |27 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. W. Eltis* |President of the Board of Trade |1 January 1993 |National Economic Development Office

    Sir C. Foster* |Secretary of State for Transport |1 June 1992 |Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

    1. Fraser |Minister of State for Overseas Development |10 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
    2. Grantham |Secretary of State for Education |11 April 1992 |Westminster Briefing
    3. Gray |Jointly to the Ministers for Local |27 May 1993 |GNI Ltd.

    Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside and Housing and Planning

    1. Green |Prime Minister |1 June 1992 |Business Television

    Professor P. Hall* |Secretary of State for Environment |27 May 1993 |University of California

    Mrs. S. Hogg |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Daily and Sunday Telegraph

    Ms S. Hole |Chief Whip |13 April 1992 |Lord Rothschild

    1. Kemp* |President of the Board of Trade |28 May 1992 |CDP Nexus Ltd.

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Chancellor of the Exchequer |28 May 1993 |Cluff Investments and Trading

    Mrs. E. Laing |Secretary of State for Transport |13 April 1992 |Shopping Hours Reform Council

    1. Leggett* |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |21 June 1993 |National Farmers Union
    2. Loehnis |Secretary of State for National Heritage |7 November 1992 |Sunday Telegraph
    3. Mackay |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |Pieda plc
    4. MacLay |Secretary of State for Foreign and |19 July 1993 |The European

    | Commonwealth Affairs

    1. Marsh |Secretary of State for Health |21 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    Ms S. McEwen |Chief Whip (House of Lords) |29 June 1992 |Namara Cowan Ltd.

    1. McManus |Secretary of State for Employment |28 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. J. Nicholson* |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |1 September 1992 |John Nicholson Associates Ltd.

    Sir I. Pearce* |Secretary of State for Transport |16 June 1992 |Richard Ellis and English Estates

    Lord Poole |Prime Minister |13 May 1992 |James Capel

    Mrs. K. Ramsay |Prime Minister |2 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    1. Rock |Home Secretary |28 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office
    2. Rosling |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Hanson plc
    3. Ruffley |Financial Secretary |28 May 1993 |Clifford Chance
    4. Salmon* |Secretary of State for Transport |18 January 1993 |Cuff & Co. Ltd. and Fund Holdings Ltd.
    5. Stewart |Lord President |27 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    Lady Strathnaver |President of the Board of Trade |21 April 1992 |Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd.

    1. Swift* |Secretary of State for Transport |18 January 1993 |Barrister
    2. True |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Public Policy Unit
    3. Wilton |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |27 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
    4. Young |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |-

    * Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an asterisk.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

    The Prime Minister : This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Olympic Bid

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many times (1) he has met the leaders of Manchester city council to discuss the bid to stage the Olympic games; (2) how much financial support the Government have committed to the Manchester bid to stage the Olympics; and how much money has so far been paid over.

    The Prime Minister : I have met the leader of Manchester city council with other members of the bid committee three times to discuss the British Olympic bid; I launched the formal bid document with the committee at Downing street on 17 February; and I have met them informally on a number of other occasions.

    Up to £75 million has been made available by the Government for the bid itself and for the construction of key facilities. Of that, some £22 million has been spent to date. If the bid is successful, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities are built by a mixture of private and public finances and that the funding necessary to stage and organise the games is provided.

     

    Meetings

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met (a) Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi and (b) the Pakistan high commissioner to the Court of St James.

    The Prime Minister : I last met Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi on 25 July 1989 when I was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I last met the Pakistan high commissioner on 29 March this year.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister what pressures Her Majesty’s Government are putting on the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina to attend and fully co-operate with the peace talks in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We are encouraging the Bosnian presidency to engage in direct negotiations with the other parties under the auspices of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. We have repeatedly made clear that a lasting and equitable peace can be achieved only by a negotiated settlement freely agreed by all three parties. We will not accept a territorial solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims.

     

    Wild Birds

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to discuss the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds at the forthcoming United Kingdom/French summit; and if he will make representations to the French Government over the fulfilment of the directive’s protection for migratory birds from netting, shooting and trapping; (2) what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of France concerning the requirements under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds to control the hunting and shooting of wild birds.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any proposals by the French Government for the amendment to the birds directive. Nor do I expect the matter to be raised at the meeting between Heads of State currently planned. There have been discussions by EC Environment Ministers on proposals by the Commission to amend annex III of the directive, but no agreement has yet been reached.

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Allason : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the directive circulated to former members of the security service regarding the biographer of the late Sir Dick White.

    The Prime Minister : There is no authorised biographer of Sir Dick White. Although the Government have recently taken a number of significant steps towards greater openness for the security and intelligence services, they continue to attach the highest importance to maintaining the principle that members and former members of those services are under a lifelong duty of confidence to the Crown in relation to information deriving from their employment.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce – 2 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, held on 2nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your warm welcome. I am delighted to be here. 250 years ago Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”.

    Today it is a great city of Europe. That is not politician’s wholesale civility. This is the city of English commerce. This is Brindley and Crompton country: where faster transport met an eightfold increase in yarn and cloth production. Together that sparked the Industrial Revolution and sold shirts to the world!

    But why is it a great city? Because leading not following, Manchester has changed with the times. We all face a similar challenge. “The times, they are a’ changing”. In our interests we must lead that change and fast.

    The captive market is an inscription on a headstone. And the lordly assumption that it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history. Japan and the countries of the Pacific rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set to become a huge industrial power. That’s the competition; so let’s not flinch, let’s not run. Our job is to beat the competition.

    So we must not make the mistake of falling for the alternative to complacency, the British gift for graceful despair. We can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market place. Step back a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today. Listen, please, to the scores Britain chalks up and you don’t hear enough about:

    – we have inflation below 2%, better than most of the European Community and most of the G7;

    – we have a highly competitive exchange rate;

    – interest rates are the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years

    We have not seen that combination for nearly 40 years. I believe industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others:

    – manufacturing output is up, so is investment;

    – productivity is rising fast;

    – you have kept wage costs competitive – doing better than Germany or Japan, better than any time for a generation.

    As the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for two years or solid growth, growth that is the fastest in the European Community big league. We have every reason to be confident about our economic prospects.

    We said low inflation would bring recovery. We brought inflation down. Recovery is now following as we said it would. Yesterday’s news that unemployment has fallen, fallen for the second month running is very welcome news. Welcome that it has fallen in every region. Welcome for the 50,000 people that Britain has put back to work this year. More businesses are beginning to take people on again and job vacancies are rising. All that can only add to confidence.

    The recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy. A diversified and successful base that is represented here so well tonight. Your region’s service sector is vital to the nation as a whole – and, as an employer, your financial and business services alone provide work for nearly a quarter of a million people. More, now that Mercury is bringing an extra 500 jobs.

    And Manchester is the student capital of Britain, leading the way in the sciences and technologies we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world-renowned business school, UMIST, you name it.

    That’s not just an investment for the future. Education is a key part of the service economy of today. A service economy that is also showing its paces abroad.

    The North West Chambers show that service exports have sharply improved over the last quarter. I applaud that. If the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place. Vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on them alone. We need a vibrant, thriving manufacturing base.

    So, Mr President, I want to say a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success.

    The British have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export market we operate like Jeeves – we just shimmer silently! We export discreetly. We don’t tell anyone; it might give offence. But I think we should.

    We British export £400 per person per year more than the Japanese: £1,800 for every man, woman and child, compared with £1,400 for the Japanese. What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say British industry is crumbling? Listen, in financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drinks industry, garments, aerospace and defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, biotechnology and international construction, we lead the pack.

    British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And though the trade gap is still too wide, we are seriously engaging with the competition. We export televisions to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French, cars to Japan, and with a brass neck which would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we sell pizzas to Italy! The balance of trade in the motor industry will be revolutionised over the next few years; in partnership, of course, rightly in partnership, joining and beating!

    What about the future? Well, I’m a fairly tolerant soul. But I’ll tell you one thing I don’t like. I don’t like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. I don’t like to see imports monopolising markets. I don’t like to hear defeatists say that radios or kitchen equipment just can’t be made in Britain. Some people said Britain couldn’t stay in computers. Yet today, more than one in every ten PCs made around the world is actually manufactured in this country. We sell £400 million worth of computers a year to the USA; and our software businesses are recognised everywhere. Britain’s car industry has turned retreat into triumph.

    Other industries can do the same. And retailers can help them – by looking for good British products and offering them to consumers. Not in rejection of good imported products – but in proper competition with them. Defeatism is most damaging when buyers and retailers won’t even look for a good British source of supply. Now British industry is becoming ever more competitive, there is every good business reason to seek out the home talent.

    And why is it so many people have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of this comes from the outdated image of manufacturing as an employer of large numbers of unskilled people, in sprawling plants, doing heavy manual work: – the ancient, mythical world of the Cloggit and Thump brass hammer works! That’s not a low view of manufacturing, it’s a low understanding. Reality, manufacturing reality is more like the British Aerospace works I saw today; or the factory just 30 miles from Manchester I saw the last time I was here, a factory spinning optical fibres. Modern, expanding, sharp, the biggest producer outside American and selling to the world. These are great symbols but we want more than symbols. We want fast-breeder replication – more, more, more!

    The Need for Competitiveness

    Improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we’ve manufactured we can sell. As recovery picks up we must make sure there are more and more British goods for customers to buy of the quality and price they want to buy.

    There is one other danger waiting. Time and again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandoned the export drive for the warm, debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time. We’re determined to build on our export success. That is why, in the Autumn Statement and the Budget, the Chancellor increased export credit and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting. We’ll keep supporting.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement. We cannot let up. Manchester knows something about this. The fourth generation mill-owners who bought shooting estates, lived in Surrey and wouldn’t replace old machinery, the soft and selfish gentlemen-manufacturers, very nearly destroyed Lancashire. Let us remember them in order not to be like them. Chance not decay must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear. I believe that the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry meet the challenge. Not Whitehall picking winners, the winners picking themselves and Government helping them heart and soul.

    Everything we do has to be supportive of you. We want less of a tax burden on the profits that you need for investment. That’s why we’re pressing down on public expenditure.

    It is why we have to give priority within that spending to infrastructure projects which spell business. Manchester’s own Metrolink is a very real example. So is the Channel tunnel rail link, so is the Forth crossing in Edinburgh.

    It’s why we were reforming education. That’s what tests in schools are about: to find out what the children know and what they don’t. Because we need to know what they don’t know so we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the test. You need the best, working for you.

    That’s why we’re doing more than ever before for good vocational training. To give our youngsters the best possible start in the best possible jobs. A recipe for the best possible success for Britain.

    It’s why science is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brainpower backs industrial success.

    It’s why in the Budget we’re given extra help to Britain’s exporters, why we’ve cut businesses’ rate burden and cut ACT to boost business cash flow by £2 billion.

    And when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and in the Gulf. British firms had done the work. Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion worth of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come. I saw the fruits of the partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at BAe, Warton. I and my colleagues will give that backing. So must all our Embassies throughout the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Pour them out the gins and tonics by all means, but then sell them both bottles.

    Winning back lost markets is the only long term policy for British industry – for the whole economy. And manufacturing is the soldier in the front line of that struggle.

    Making a Success of Europe

    Mr President, over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. Let me set out my position clearly.

    Commercial success starts on our own doorstep. And our doorstep is Europe.

    When Europe walks, it walks in shoes exported from Manchester. The new rail terminal at Charles de Gaulle is work done in Bolton.

    The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed ith Maastricht, when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are such people living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is about. What made possible the vast expansion in small and medium sized businesses and new jobs in the 1980s? Where did they find their main export markets? In Europe, overwhelmingly. An example: a Leyland company went into Europe a few years back with one Chesterfield in the back of an estate car. In the single market it now does a million pounds of business.

    Have your reservations, by all means. No-one says Europe is perfect. But that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 per cent faster than those of our old EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, 20 exports billions worth of jobs. No wonder the Scandinavians and the Austrians wish to join the Community. What an irony that a nation which sought trade when Tuscan merchants bought raw wool in the Cotswold in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of them all.

    The Chambers of Commerce understand the importance of Europe to Britain’s trading strategy and of the Maastricht process to that strategy. The President of your Association, Christopher Stewart-Smith – who is here this evening – wrote to me recent specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote:

    “Those who suggest we have gone far enough with the single European Act are making a mistake that British business cannot afford. Businesses do not want to see the clock turned back, nor would they welcome the reintroduction of new non tariff barriers. Britain needs the commitment to subsidiarity to avoid unnecessary interference in domestic issues”.

    That, Christopher, is it – between the eyes! That is the message business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community we want. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the single market without the drawbacks. At the end of the inky labyrinth of Treaty sub-clauses is a trading Europe. First and last and especially here in Manchester, that is what we want, a trading Europe.

    Yesterday, in the House of Commons, we finished the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. Let us now finish the Bill and get on with the job of building prosperity for Britain in Europe.

    One Stop Shops

    Let me say a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members win markets. But I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help for businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like Government to develop the same relationship with the Chambers as with the CBI. The One Stop Shop Initiative is a tangible sign. And naturally, Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots.

    Manchester’s Olympic Opportunity

    Here in Manchester this evening one other issue commands me like a referee’s whistle – the city’s bid for the Olympics.

    Manchester’s bid goes beyond pleasing discus-fanciers. Building the Olympic facilities and hosting the games should generate £4 billion of new spending in the region and make 11,000 jobs. But better yet, it will be a shop window beyond dreams. The world would see what North West England has to offer. Manchester is already 8th in the European league of Best Cities in which to locate a business. But it can move up. I know, and everyone here knows, that Manchester has ambitions to be top of the league.

    So the Government is shouting (and finessing) for Manchester’s bid. We have put up £75 million for the bid and for the initial construction programme. That starts with the Olympic Arena and the National Cycling centre. We are providing some £40 million funding towards the regeneration of East Manchester this year. And we are backing Manchester’s bid by enduring that all the necessary facilities can be built. A state of the art Olympics for the start of the new millennium: where better than here in Britain, in Manchester?

    I am honoured to play my part. Together with Craig Reedie of the BOA and Bob Scott – who has done wonderful things for Manchester – I pressed the city’s case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what will lie in the minds of the IOC when they vote to decide the location. Because of what has already been done, Manchester is one of the three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch, but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone.

    This bid and the great works that accompany it, are just one sign that Manchester has kept all its flair. Much of the rest of the world may still be going into recession. We are coming out of recession. And we have the edge: low inflation, rising competitiveness. We need the Manchester touch for the great things which are pending.

    It was Manchester which took raw cotton from Smyrna, sold it to the fast-bobbin men in Oldham, and the power-loom men in Preston. Then it sold cheap cotton cloth to the world. Manchester knows what must be done. So does the Government. United, we can do it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Olympics Bid – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Manchester Olympics bid, held during an interview in London on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was supporting the Manchester Olympics bid].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For several reasons really. Firstly, I would very much like to see the Olympic Games here at the millennium. I think it would be a marvellous start for the next century and I think it offers tremendous opportunities were we able to achieve the Games. But secondly, Manchester has worked extremely hard. They have tried before to get the Olympic Games there. On this occasion, they had the full support of the Government and I believe they deserve it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Government would be helping to fund the bid].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In order for the bid to go forward we have to guarantee that the facilities will be provided. Nobody wants to get to the year 2000 and find the Olympic Games facilities aren’t there. I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be a very substantial private sector commitment – that is already becoming apparent – but there is a large Government financial commitment as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about who would fund any shortfall].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one needs to put this in context. We are talking of expenditure that builds up to the millennium over the next eight years or so. It isn’t an expenditure just for one single event. At the conclusion of the Olympic Games, not only will there be the tremendous gain of having the Olympic Games here, we will also have seen the renovation of the whole of East Manchester. Much of that expenditure would have needed to be undertaken in any event and in addition to that of course, we will have the enduring legacy of some first-class sporting facilities in the north-west available to people in the north-west and indeed across the country as a whole.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in London – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in London, given on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I first welcome you all here this afternoon for this press conference. Last February, I announced that the Government was going to back Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Today, I can present to you the bid document. This is the bid document that was handed over to the International Olympic Committee on 1 February. It is a detailed presentation of why Manchester in our view should be the Olympic City for the year 2000. It is a very comprehensive document; it ranges over every aspect of the Games from sports venues to security and it demonstrates that Manchester has plans to provide world-class facilities.

    The Manchester bid is a good deal more than just a superb technical achievement. It is a vision that people have in Manchester both for the city’s future and for the future of the whole region and the Government share that vision. The Manchester bid is the British bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. It is a national undertaking and it has the very strong support of the Government. I believe there could be no better start to the next millennium than to have the 2000 Olympics here in Britain at Manchester.

    Last February, I pledged £55 million of Government funding to back the bid up to the time when the International Olympic Committee takes its decision. We have kept that promise and rather more; we have gone further by providing up to £20 million more from within existing spending programmes, making a total of £75 million.

    The Olympic arena is now under construction. Work is starting soon on the national cycling centre and the acquisition and clearance for the Olympic stadium site is now well under way.

    I said last year that this bid would spearhead the regeneration of East Manchester and let me say to you today that we have honoured that commitment as well; the Government will be providing some £40 million funding for East Manchester in 1993/4 on top of the direct Olympic investment.

    We have also undertaken in this bid document that if Manchester is chosen the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities will be built partly by private finance and partly by substantial public funding. I am confident there will be no shortage of private finance available as we have already seen in the case of the Olympic arena but the Government is committed to ensure that the funding necessary to stage and organise the Games will be available and we also intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the Organising Committee for the Games has the necessary powers to plan and implement this event.

    Most people in our country love sport but I believe that the Olympics will bring a good deal more than sport to the country. Manchester and indeed beyond Manchester – the whole of the north west – will benefit from the legacy of world-class facilities and from a huge economic boost to the area. Between now and September, we will be showing the world what Manchester can offer. We will be showing the world what Britain as a whole can offer. I myself will be visiting Lausanne in April to see the President of the International Olympic Committee, the Marquis de Samaranche, and I will take that opportunity to promote Manchester’s bid.

    I believe in this document we have a winning plan and we will seek to demonstrate to the IOC that there could be no better site for the millennium Games than here in Britain at Manchester. I believe that with the enthusiasm and support of the people of Manchester – and I have no doubt we have that enthusiasm and support – that we are going for gold in this particular bid and I believe later this year we will get it so I am delighted to you for being here this afternoon.

    I will ask Bob Scott, the Chairman of the Bid Committee, to say a few words and then there will be one or two other comments to be made and we will then take your questions.

    1. BOB SCOTT:

    I would just like to say that when we came back from Tokyo in 1990, we knew we had to do two things; we had been beaten by Atlanta but we had not been disgraced and what we had to do was to ask for the Government’s support. We had to get the Government behind us and secondly, we had to get new facilities coming out of the ground before the IOC members voted.

    Thanks to the Prime Minister and the Government, both these things are now absolutely plainly achieved and triumphantly going forward. It feels like today it is the bell of an 800-metre race. We have got to the bell in a very good position and it is smashing that Seb Coe is here with us today; we are second or third; we are on the shoulder; we are beginning to leave four and the others behind and we are making very good progress. We hope that from now right through to September the bid will always delight people, will always interest people; we will be a bid on the move; we will be a bid that creates good stories for Manchester and for Britain but above all, if we win it will be because we got everybody behind us, we created this partnership and we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister for his personal support as well, of course, the Government’s support.

    1. GRAHAM STRINGER:

    As the Prime Minister said, the bid was always more than just creating Olympic facilities and bidding for the Olympic Games; it was to spearhead urban regeneration in Manchester. The £75 million that the Government have put into the scheme is leading to £200 million-worth of investment but in some ways those figures don’t tell the complete story.

    I talked to the contractor who is building the indoor arena at Victoria Station last week and they have signed up to our employment and construction charter which is a charter designed to make sure that benefits from the construction of those facilities go to local people and already on the Victoria Station site people from Moss-side and the rest of the inner city area in Manchester are being employed and that is just a small part of what we believe will be a highly successful urban regeneration based on a successful Olympic bid which will bring more than 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs to Manchester.

    CRAIG READIE:

    Prime Minister, the British Olympic Association is delighted to be with you here today in No. 10. Our governing bodies look forward to helping this bid; we look forward to helping this bid; our sportsmen look forward to using the facilities that will be built; and we look forward to the challenge of presenting a British Olympic team in Manchester in 2000 that will allow our competitors to be a credit to themselves and a credit to the country. To use your phrase, we believe that sport enhances all our lives and we would be very happy to enhance that development.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Craig, thank you very much. I also have with me here Peter Brooke, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and Michael Howard the Secretary of State for the Environment. Both of them have taken a very direct interest in this bid and will have a separate and continuing interest right the way through to the conclusion of the bid.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a question about the extent of your personal interest. Will you take the bid to Monte Carlo and support it there do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is yet to be decided. I don’t know whether it will be practical but I certainly wouldn’t rule that out. I had the opportunity of seeing many members of the Olympic Committee when I went to Barcelona last year to see the Games. I took the opportunity of having a reception there and meeting many members of the International Olympic Committee. I will be going to see the President. I have seen the President here. I will be meeting others so I don’t think there need be any doubt about my commitment to seeing Manchester win.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I understand that this is only the second time that a news conference has been staged inside here. Is this the case and if so, how would you like that to be interpreted?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not that we are coming second, that is for sure! I am not sure whether that is correct or not. I have certainly held a news conference in here before. I am not quite sure what my predecessors may have done – you may be correct – but it should only be interpreted in the light of the importance that we give to this particular bid both for Manchester and for the country as a whole. I genuinely can think of no better way to start the new millennium than to have the Olympic Games here in our country. Manchester have tried before; they weren’t successful. They have had the enormous courage to try again; a tremendous amount of work has been put into it by many people in Manchester, some of them here today – Bob Scott, Graham Stringer and others. I believe that effort deserves the support of the Government and they have the full support of the Government.

    QUESTION:

    A question, if I may, about Manchester’s rivals, particularly Beijing. Would you think it would be appropriate to hold the Olympics in Beijing after Tienanmen Square?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to promote the bid from Manchester, not to damn the bid from anywhere else and I think it will be on the basis of showing the Olympic Committee that Manchester is the best place for the Games that we will endeavour to win.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, which city would you prefer to watch the Olympics in, Manchester or Sydney?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I might ask you the same question with that accent! [Laughter].

    SAME MAN:

    I’ll go for Sydney! How about you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I’ll go for Manchester.

    SAME MAN:

    What are the features of Manchester that are particularly attractive?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many features in Manchester that are very attractive. It is a very ancient, very vital city. It has a very modern communications centre. It is going to have some of the most modern Olympic facilities that we will have ever seen at any stage. Contrary to legend, Manchester is actually rather dry in the appropriate months, drier I may say than Atlanta where the next Olympic Games will be held and a good deal drier than Paris, to take another capital purely at random so the circumstances and the climate for good athletics, for world record-breaking athletics, will almost certainly be there in Manchester in 2000.

    SAME MAN:

    Many people of course go both to watch the Games and to see somewhere new. Apart from what is happening at the Olympics, what does Manchester have to offer them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think both Manchester and Great Britain have a great deal to offer. We have one of the highest numbers of tourists who come to the United Kingdom each year than any country in the world so I think there is no doubt with the communications and the size of the United Kingdom one comes to Manchester and one can see the United Kingdom. I don’t have to point to the future; I can look in the mirror and see the number of people who found it attractive to come here.

    From the point of view of staging the Games and beaming the Games around the world of course the time zones are particularly important to beam the Olympic Games by television across the world from Manchester at appropriate times,

    QUESTION (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

    If Manchester doesn’t get it, would you prefer to see them in Beijing or Sydney? [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t admit your premise and we look forward to welcoming both you Australians here in the year 2000.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, about the finances, you have almost given an open-ended commitment there including up to £2 billion in capital investment. What is the limit that the Government will put in, the maximum amount?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We estimate the total cost to be about £1.5 billion at the moment, not £2 billion. It was something like £4 billion of course in Barcelona but they didn’t have the facilities in place that are already there in terms of Manchester. There are a large number of facilities, not least the communications network in Manchester, that are in place that on previous occasions have had to be put in place by the bidding towns and cities so our present estimate is around £1.5 billion. A good deal of that will be raised in terms of private finance and of course the funding will be needed over the period between now and the year 2000 so it is a substantial sum in cash, that is certainly true; how much of it will fall on the taxpayer is as yet unclear but it is spread over many years and much of it, of course, isn’t money that is going to be spent for a single event and then gone because an integral part of this bid is the regeneration of the whole of East Manchester and that is something that I would have wished to do in any event and so not only will we have the regeneration of East Manchester, not only will we have the memory of having had the Olympics in East Manchester, but we will also have the continuing use of some very remarkable sporting facilities that will be available for many years after the Olympics in an area of the country that has long had a reputation as being sport-loving. I think it is a good bargain for all of us.

    QUESTION:

    What about using some of the money from the national lottery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is possible that the Millennium Fund will make a contribution, that is as yet undetermined but it is certainly possible.

    QUESTION:

    Picking up the point made by my colleague in front, there will be some people who think that taxpayers’ money maybe in the current climate would be better spent on things like hospitals and schools. How can you argue to them that this does represent good use of their money?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We balance our public expenditure this year at around £260 billion in a single year. We are talking of a sum total of expenditure of £1.5 billion over eight years, only a portion of which will be met by the taxpayer, much of which would have been spent in any event through the urban programme and in other ways and that will leave an enduring legacy.

    What it will do, of course, is lever-in a lot of private finance that wouldn’t otherwise have been available that will be there as a permanent bonus both for the people of Manchester North-West and in terms of the sporting facilities for people right across the country.

    If I can add a point to that, that is the financial case perhaps for doing it but I will confess to you another instinct that I have. We are one of the greatest sporting nations in the world. It seems to me that if we are to throw our hands to one side, a nation of our size with our reputation, with our love of sport, to say that we are not going to seek to bid for the Olympic Games or any major sporting event like that, that would be a very remarkable position for us to take. I have no reservations whatsoever about supporting this bid.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As for the last point, I wish I knew. I think Manchester is very well placed now. Many people would have said twelve or eighteen months ago perhaps that Manchester was a rank outsider. As a result of the work that has been done by the Bid Committee and secondly as a result of the clear support given to Manchester by the Government it is self-evident that this is a national bid and we will be able to meet the commitments the Olympic Committee expect us to meet and I believe Manchester is now amongst the most favoured cities for winning this remarkable event in the year 2000. We can’t guarantee victory but I do believe Manchester deserves it and we will do all we can ensure they achieve it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would certainly say so.

    QUESTION:

    In the unlikely event of us failing to win the nomination for 2000, would you think that it would be a good idea to go ahead and build the Olympic stadium on the grounds that that may well swing the vote for next time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may repeat what I said to the gentleman from Australia, I don’t admit the premise but if that were to come about we would clearly consider what had to be done, but I am not entering into that now.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said that you will be [indistinct] in April. I wonder whether you can give us some other indication as to when and where you will be meeting IOC members? I am sure that Manchester have told you it is absolutely essential that you as the leader of the bid shake the hand and persuade them. For instance, will you be at the FA Cup Final because I understand that a large number of IOC members are expected there and if so, would you seek them out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Is that an invitation? I think the opportunity to meet the IOC members will come in many ways and I will certainly meet them but I don’t think for a raft of reasons I can give you details of when and how now. Many of them, of course, I have met already.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, to hark back to the financial aspects of the bid, if Manchester were to win the Games and the cost of providing facilities and operating the Games were not to be provided from particularly the private purse, would the Government be prepared to underwrite the cost, the deficit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated in the bid that we will ensure the facilities are provided. I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever about a very large contribution coming from the private sector but in order to ensure that the bid can go forward it is necessary to underwrite the facilities.

    QUESTION (TIMES OF INDIA):

    Another sports-related question if I may ask. Do you have any comments on the performance of the Indian cricketers [laughter] and on the rather unsporting types of controversy which are going on in the two countries relating to the match?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know how India will do in the 2000 Olympics but she has certainly played very well in the test matches so far and congratulate India on her wins.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, going back to the previous question, you are not only ensuring that the facilities will be built but according to the bid document you are also going to ensure that the money to stage and organise the Games will be provided so you are underwriting the further money in addition to building the facilities. That is correct, is it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is correct.

    QUESTION:

    Could you please tell me why we haven’t had a discussion on who has won the competition for the stadium? I believe that was due on 29 January.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me ask Bob Scott to respond to that.

    1. BOB SCOTT:

    I think you are being very greedy actually. I think you are having quite a lot today without having that as well. We like to spread our good news. You will be hearing very shortly.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about the disadvantage of Asia in terms of time zones and broadcasting but isn’t it true that in a way that it is Asia’s or even Australia’s turn considering that it has been in Barcelona and now in Atlanta?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I seem to recall it was at Seoul not all that long ago. I also recall that the United Kingdom has never actually gone through a bid procedure and won the Olympic Games. Twice the United Kingdom have held the Olympic Games – I think in 1908 and 1948 – and on each occasion we picked up the Olympic Games when other people had let them fall at the last moment and saved Olympic Games that otherwise would not have taken place. I think it is time for us to have the Olympic Games in our own right and I hope that time is the year 2000.

    QUESTION:

    The IOC is well known for its liking for glamour and spoiling itself. Do you honestly believe that for instance a boating afternoon on the Ship Canal can really compete with a bathing afternoon on Bondi Beach? [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Wait and see! Come to Manchester and you will see for yourself.

    Does anyone want to add anything? Is there anything really pressing that we haven’t covered?

    QUESTION:

    What I am wondering, Mr. Prime Minister, is how you feel about the Olympics other than as a sporting event, what they add or what they give the world and is it important in that context for Britain to participate at this level and try to get these Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Olympic Games do give added value to the world. Very few people can watch the Olympic Games with athletes from all parts of a country trained to the peak of their physical fitness, performing to the best of their abilities without thinking they are seeing some of the better sides of human nature so I think the Olympic Games, quite apart from the delight of taking part and the delight of winning, is something that is of intrinsic value to everybody who watches it. I think it is of intrinsic value actually to have the Olympic Games. We would be privileged to present them in this country and I hope we will.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Launch Manchester Olympics Bid – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to launch the Manchester Olympics Bid, held at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last February I announced that the Government was backing Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Today, I can present to you the Bid Document which was handed over to the International Olympic Committee of 1st February. It is a detailed presentation of why Manchester should be the Olympic City for the year 2000.

    The Bid Document ranges over every aspect of the Games, from sports venues to security; it demonstrates that Manchester will provide world class facilities.

    But the Manchester bid is more than just a superb technical achievement. It is a vision that the citizens of Manchester have for the City’s future and for their region.

    I share that vision. The Manchester bid is the British bid. It is a national undertaking, strongly supported by the British Government. There could be no better start to the next millennium than hosting the 2000 Olympics in Britain.

    Last February, I pledged 55 million pounds of Government funding to back the Bid up to the time when the International Olympic Committee takes its decision. We have kept that promise, and gone further by providing up to 20 million pounds more from within existing spending programmes – making a total of 75 million pounds.

    – The Olympic Arena is now under construction
    – Work is starting soon on the National Cycling Centre
    – And the acquisition and clearance of the Olympic Stadium site is well under way.

    I said last year that the bid would spearhead the regeneration of East Manchester. We have honoured that commitment too. The Government will be providing some 40 million pounds funding for East Manchester in 1993-94, on top of the direct Olympic investment.

    We have also undertaken in the bid documents that if Manchester is chosen, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities will be built, partly by private finance and partly by substantial public funding. I am confident that there will be no shortage of private finance available – as we have already seen in the case of the Olympic Arena. But the Government is committed to ensure that the funding necessary to stage and organise the Games will be available. We also intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the Organising Committee for the Games has the necessary powers to plan and implement this event.

    Most people love sport. But the Olympics will bring more than sport to the country. Manchester and the North West will benefit from a legacy of world class facilities and from a huge economic boost to the area.

    Between now and September we will be showing the world what Manchester can offer. What Britain can offer. I myself will be visiting Lausanne in April to see the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Samaranch, and I will take that opportunity to promote Manchester’s bid. I believe we have a winning plan. We will seek to demonstrate to the IOC that there could be no better site for the Millennium Games than Manchester. With the enthusiasm and support of the people of Manchester we are going for gold and I believe we will get it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Manchester Olympics – 16 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Manchester Olympics, held at the Manchester Olympics Exhibition in Strasbourg on 16th December 1992. Parts of the speech were inaudible and are marked with ….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Christopher, I think one of the few things that … contribution in British politics is the support for the Manchester Olympic bid for the Olympics in the year 2000. Manchester has tried before, of course, to become the Olympic City. It failed. I do not wish to see it fail this time. We want Manchester to win, we want it to go for gold, we want the Olympics to be in the United Kingdom in the year 2000.

    To that end I have indicated to Manchester, indicated to Bob [Scott], indicated to the whole of the Manchester Organising Committee, that they have the government’s complete support in organising this bid and preparing for the selection of the city that will host the Olympics in the year 2000. No-one should be in any doubt about it, the venue is Manchester but the bid is national.

    Why Manchester? Where better? I think that makes sense. If one looks at the heart and centre of the United Kingdom you will find Manchester. If you look at the great sporting traditions of the United Kingdom, you can, if you have strong legs, within walking distance of Manchester walk to some of the greatest football and other stadia you will find anywhere in the world. Work has begun already on the provision of an Olympic site, on the provision of a velodrome.

    Resources have been made available for that, the work is going ahead, sites have been identified for all the Olympic sports, the preparatory work is in hand, much of the transport infrastructure is already safely in the programme for developing in and around the Manchester area and a great deal would need to be provided, but would be provided, to ensure that Manchester is there to host what I believe would be one of the most remarkable sporting occasions the world has seen – the Millennium Olympics.

    So there should be no doubt at all about my commitment, about the government’s commitment, I think about the national instinct in Britain as a commitment, to bring those Olympic Games to Manchester in the year 2000. There is a lot to be done, there is tough competition, there are other countries who feel very passionately, wrongly but passionately, that the Olympics perhaps ought to be somewhere else in the year 2000. It is our job to persuade them that that is not the case, that Manchester is the right place for the Olympics, that Manchester is the place that will produce the Olympics to the highest standard.

    And there will in many other ways be … most convenient for the Olympics these days are international events, they are seen all the way round the world, the communications infrastructure, the timescale between one part of the world and another in terms of beaming those remarkable events we all watch on television to every corner of the world. All those are important components and upon all those I believe Manchester stands up as well as any other country anywhere in the world.

    So no doubt about our commitment, no doubt about our intention, no doubt about our hope, and we will work with the leadership that Bob Scott has shown so magnificently over recent months very hard to make sure that we bring those Olympic Games to Manchester.

    But that is a tough job, I have an easier job and it is just to unveil this plaque which in these days of extremely complex technology I believe is extremely simple, I will endeavour to do it without bringing the whole of the house down.

    May I declare the exhibition open and Manchester moving just that touch nearer to the decision that will bring the Olympics to Great Britain.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Manchester Olympics Bid – 3 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Manchester Olympics bid, made on 3rd July 1992, but embargoed until 18th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Manchester led the world into this century with its industrial strengths and innovation. Now it can lead the world into the next century through its commitment to the Olympic ideals. Sport enriches our lives, yours, mine, everyones. I believe that hosting the Olympic Games would not only be a magnificent honour for our country, it will also leave a precious legacy of sport for generations to come.

    That is why the government has already given 53 million pounds for the immediate construction of new sports facilities in Manchester. If Manchester is successful, I have every confidence that a combination of public and private finance will ensure that the facilities for the Games are provided.