The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Manchester

  • PMQT – 5 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Ms Primarolo: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to his own Government’s statistics, the average family living in council housing has been £3 a week worse off since the last election? Is not the main reason for that the fact that the Government have increased taxes 22 times since the election, and put VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady is worried about the net cash position of council tenants, she might look to see who runs the highest tax rates across the country. The highest band D tax rates are imposed by Labour councils: Coventry, Salford, Hartlepool, Manchester, Islington, Redcar, Hackney–I will not continue the list; the hon. Lady knows them. If it is a Labour council, the council tax is high.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing everything in their power to help with the rebuilding of Manchester city centre following the terrible damage inflicted by the IRA bomb, while using some of the existing initiatives to help to regenerate our inner cities?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, following the bombing in June last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that a task force would be set up to oversee the city’s recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the sponsor Minister for Manchester, announced in Manchester today that EDAW had won a competition to redesign the city centre. That is an important step forward in the redesigning of Manchester, and, I hope, towards a greatly improved future Manchester city centre. Money has already been allocated from European funds, and it is quite possible that, if appropriate application is made, further funds will come forward.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister admit what he denied just two weeks ago: that, with casualty departments closing and waiting lists up in many parts of the country–and with some hospital trusts technically bankrupt–the national health service is indeed in a state of crisis?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept most of the misleading statistics that, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have used in recent weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned about funding, perhaps some time ago he might have matched our pledge to increase funding in real terms each year.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now accept what his own Government’s statistics show: that, although they have spent an extra £1.5 billion on the national health service, it has gone into bureaucracy and administration rather than proper patient care. That is why there are 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses since the Tory internal market reforms.

    I ask the Prime Minister to talk to people who use the national health service and who know when they go to a casualty department that something is seriously wrong; who know, when their appointments are cancelled and they are told that they are better off going privately, that something is wrong. Why does he not talk to women who had children in the national health service a few years ago and have had children recently and know the difference in the standard of facilities? Would it not be better for him to admit the existence of this problem and try to solve it rather than deny what everyone knows: that something is seriously wrong in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about management and bureaucracy in the health service. Perhaps he can explain to the country why he opposed the abolition of a whole tier of bureaucracy–regional health authorities–saving £100 million a year? The right hon. Gentleman’s party opposed that. If he thinks that a £43 billion service does not need proper management, perhaps he might remember what the Socialist Health Association said:

    “The NHS was traditionally under-managed and the party”–

    Labour–

    “should avoid bureaucrat bashing.”

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that it needs to be properly managed, that it is now being properly managed and that, as a result, money is being allocated to where it should go. He knows that waiting lists are falling, that the number of operations being performed is increasing, that a wider range of treatments is being produced and that the national health service is something that this country should be proud of, not something to be used as a political football by the right hon. Gentleman whenever that is appropriate.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. If any of the Whips have anything to say, let them come to the Front Bench and say it.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister understands. This country is very proud of the national health service, but it is not proud of what the Government have done to the national health service. Is not the fear that any extra resources that are put forward now are just sticking plaster to see the Tories through to the election? Why will not the Prime Minister admit what the country knows: that there will be a crisis every year in the national health service while this Government remain in office?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that it was a Labour Government who closed hospitals, cut nurses’ pay and genuinely created a crisis in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give up these kindergarten soundbites and concentrate on reality. NHS spending will be more than £34 billion this year–more than £720 for every man, every woman and every child. That is an increase over and above inflation of about three quarters since 1979. There were over 9 million episodes of hospital care in 1995-96–25,000 every day, up 46 per cent. in 10 years.

    As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the acid test is whether more people are being treated. They are, and they are being treated better and offered a wider range of services. The right hon. Gentleman knows that but he will not admit it: he is more concerned with his politics than with the reality of improving treatment.

    Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the statement made last week by the railway franchising director in which he states in clear and unequivocal terms that, over the next few years, taxpayers will be saved more than £2 billion as a result of privatisation? If we add to that better punctuality, service and customer care, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Opposition prophets of doom and gloom recanted and accepted reality–that privatisation is good for the railways and good for the taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not long ago, the Opposition were trying all sorts of scares about privatisation–safety on the railways, services being cut–all of which have been shown to be utterly and comprehensively wrong. The reality is that new rolling stock is being introduced, the service is being improved, there is more investment than before and extra services are being run on a range of lines throughout the country. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) may shake his head, but all he is showing is that he is ignorant–not that he has any knowledge.

    Mr. Ashdown: We have said what we would do to provide extra funding for the health service, both next year and now. If the Government have decided to commit more money to the health service for next year, that is a good thing. If they have decided that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the former Foreign Secretary, was right when he said that cutting taxes would be rejected in Britain if it was bought at the cost of closed hospital wards and sacked teachers, that is even better. But does the Prime Minister not realise that the crisis in the health service is not next year–it is now. Wards are being closed–now. Operations are being cancelled–now. Waiting lists are growing again–now. That money is needed–now. Will he provide it and, if not, what will he do to avert the national health service crisis and to prevent any further hospital ward closures this coming winter?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on health service funding. It will be made clear at the time of the Budget. I have nothing further to say to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon except this: it was the right hon. Gentleman who, just a few days ago, was lecturing us about spending and debt. Now he is advocating extra expenditure. Whatever happens to be his tune for the day, he will shift to it. We have said–and we have kept the promise throughout 17 years–that we will provide extra resources for the health service to ensure that it is able to match the needs of the people of this country. That is why more people are being treated, and better treated, than ever before. The growth in the health service over the years has outstripped every other area of government, and I have made it clear that, in future, it will beat the inflation rate year after year after year. That is a pledge that people do not have to look in the mirror to see. They can look at our record. We have done it.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the present Government’s great success stories is the fact that they have brought about a growing economy with low inflation and falling unemployment? Will he now accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, where all those facts are amply demonstrated–where we have a Conservative-controlled authority, where unemployment is falling and where we have an area that is proud to be Tory?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that Macclesfield is doing so well. Throughout the country, we see falling unemployment, increasing growth, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. That will continue to be the case while we retain a Conservative Government following the policies that we have followed in the past few years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 40 per cent. of retirement households in these islands depend entirely on the state pension–and that for a single person it is only £61 a week? Is he further aware that, if the link between pensions and earnings had not been broken in 1980, the pension would be £83 a week? On what basis can the Government deny pensioners who depend totally on the state pension any share at all in the increase in prosperity over that period?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. That is why we have always recognised the significance of the state pension as the cornerstone of income in retirement, and ensured that it has kept up with the increase in prices. In addition, of course, I accept that for many people the state pension is not intended to be the sole income. That is why, in preparation for the future, we have encouraged personal responsibility and additional pension provision and why, for the present, we have targeted additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits for people who have no resources other than the state benefit. That is apart from the entitlement that they would certainly have to council tax benefit and housing benefit, so we have targeted a great deal of additional resources to ensure that people who do not have a substantial income and who perhaps depend entirely on the state pension have additional help.

    Mr. Carrington: As my right hon. Friend knows, millions of ordinary people own shares in privatised utilities. Does he agree that a windfall tax on those utilities would damage those investments and push up prices for the consumer?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about that. It is no good promising on the one hand to cut VAT on fuel while, on the other, proposing a windfall tax on the utilities which would put up the price of fuel by more than any potential reduction in VAT. Thus far, the shadow Chancellor seems to be spending the windfall tax on a number of different things, including helping the long-term unemployed back to work, improvements in child care provision–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]–new environmental tasks, small business VAT relief–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]. I am glad to hear Labour Members cheering. How much will the windfall tax be, and upon whom will it be levied? What will it do to the price of the utilities, which are used by everybody in the country? The more Labour Members cheer the spending, the more we know that the windfall tax will rise.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Ewing: On this historic day when a certain individual tried to set fire to the House of Commons, will the right hon. Gentleman give some serious consideration to the thousands of pensioners and disabled people who, this winter, will be afraid to put on the fires in their houses? Will he give serious consideration to a reduction of VAT on fuel, a review of the home energy efficiency scheme and an automatic payment, thereby giving us a better reason to remember 5 November?

    The Prime Minister: I have always rather fondly hoped that we celebrated Guy Fawkes day because he failed to blow up the House of Commons. The hon. Lady’s point is similar to that raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that I can rest on that answer.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Manchester (II) – 30 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview after leaving the Arndale Shopping Centre in Manchester, held on 30th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of his visit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen an area which is beginning to recovery and which is very resilient.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had seen a positive city].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, a very positive city, good gracious of course it’s a positive city. It was the city that tried to get the Olympics not very long ago. It’s one of the most positive cities there is.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Manchester (I) – 30 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at the Arndale Shopping Centre in Manchester, held on 30th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about lottery announcements for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There will be something over three million pounds to help re-build the theatre that will be announced today and there will be some more money from the Government for the Lord Mayor’s Hardship Fund. But I’m principally here not to make those announcements but to have a look at what has happened in Manchester and what needs to be done to rebuild it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the 15 million pound football transfer of Alan Shearer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He’s a very good footballer.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Berry: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had “a bellyful” of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours–with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

    Mr. Faulds: More, more.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

    It is certainly true that we have at the moment the most competitive economy in western Europe, that we are in a very good position on inflation, and that unemployment is a good deal lower–and we are at the top of the growth league. That, as my hon. Friend says, is an enviable position, and I know that it is envied by many of my European partners.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday’s bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right. The time has come for Sinn Fein to make up its mind. Either it will be a democratic organisation taking part in democratic politics or it will stay side by side as the reverse side of the coin to the IRA, with intermingled membership, in which case it has no part in democratic politics whatever. I believe that, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the moment of truth is here, it is for Mr. Adams and his colleagues, and everybody wishes to hear precisely what their views are–and let us have no more of the measly nonsense that we have had from them in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: I join with that entirely.

    Does the Prime Minister also agree that there has been progress in Northern Ireland? The British and Irish Governments are agreed on the way forward; all nationalist parties in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, are agreed on peaceful means to achieve their ends; and the United States and others abroad may have been given a telling lesson on the realities of the IRA. Is not the only course now open to Sinn Fein to ensure that the IRA ceases its violence? If it cannot–or will not–the process should proceed with the democratic parties, and an agreement should be reached and put to a ballot of the people.

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

    If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility–but the talks will continue.

    Mrs. Roe: In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

    The Prime Minister: Both the premise of my hon. Friend’s question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

    We have made substantial progress in recent years in raising standards, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that we wish to do to ensure that the quality of education for all our children is the equal of the quality of education anywhere else in the world. That is our intention, and we will continue to pursue it, despite the failures of so many Labour-controlled education authorities whose records have held back many children in inner London and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: “Seventeen years.”] It is no good hon. Members below the Gangway muttering in this fashion, when it is their party, in control in local government, that could act now to improve education, but does not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Livingstone: Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today’s statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE’s regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister see last night’s “Panorama” programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland’s hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I did not waste my time watching “Panorama” last night–[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from “Panorama”. We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right–I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

    Mr. Litherland: The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week’s incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

    The financial implications for local authorities are not yet clear. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider carefully any application for assistance by an authority affected by the incident, and he will certainly do so. In Manchester in the past–and I am sure that this will be so in future–an effective partnership between the Government, the private sector and the city council has delivered remarkable regeneration in many parts of the city. That partnership provides an excellent basis for rebuilding, and we look forward to working with the people concerned.

     

    Q5. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire–from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito’s partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep on Commonwealth Games Success – 3 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, on 3rd November 1995, following the success of Manchester’s bid to hold the Commonwealth Games.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am absolutely delighted that Manchester have won and they certainly won on merit. They have been trying for a long time to get a major sporting event in Manchester and they thoroughly deserve this win.

    Economically, this means long-term advantages for Manchester. All the publicity the city will get is bound to result in long-term gain.

    QUESTION:

    Will this result in Manchester getting the Olympics?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so. They tried very hard to get the Olympic Games and I tried to give them whatever support I could. Unfortunately, they were not successful despite having a well-constructed and very innovative bid.

    I would very much like to see the Olympic Games take place in the UK, perhaps in Manchester.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Manchester – 23 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in Manchester on Friday 23rd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like first, Gill, to thank you for your budget submissions, a little early perhaps but I will take very careful note of them. A curious fact, Gill, very curious, I noticed it particularly when you were speaking, but when I was in Wales they asked me for an airport like Manchester’s.

    Can I say, firstly, how delighted I am to be back here in Manchester. It is always a delight to escape from the hot house of Westminster and see what is happening in the real world, so it is a great pleasure to be back here today. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”. No longer true of course. Today Manchester is no longer a village but one of the great cities of Europe. And I say that this evening not as a politician’s wholesale civility but this is the city of wholesale English commerce, and you should be proud of it. This is Brindley and Crompton country where faster transport set an eight-fold increase in yarn and cloth production and together that did spark the industrial revolution and sold shirts to the world.

    But what over the years has made it from a village to a great city? I think the answer to that is quite clear. Because leading, and not following, Manchester has changed with the times. Today we all face a similar challenge, as Bob Dylan sang many years ago in my youth – the times they are a changing. They are certainly changing now, rapidly perhaps, more rapidly in this decade than any decade, even the most venerable amongst us can remember in their long life. In our interests, our cold self-interest, we must make sure in this country that we lead that change and lead it fast. Captive markets for our goods around the world no longer exist, the captive market these days is an inscription upon our headstone. And the Lordly assumption that somehow it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history.

    The world has changed. Japan and the countries of the Pacific Rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set increasingly in the decades ahead to become a huge industrial power. That is the competition that we need to face in this country in the future. That is the competition, so let us not flinch, let us not fear, our job is quite simple and quite clear [inaudible] and train and prepare and export and beat that competition for our own domestic prosperity in the rest of the ’90s and in the new century.

    So we do not need to make the mistake, and dare not make the mistake, of falling for the alternative to complacency, that British gift for graceful despair. In this country we can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market places.

    Just contemplate, just step back for a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today and just listen, please, to the scores that Britain chalks up and that you do not hear often enough. we have inflation below 2 percent, better than most of the European Community and better than most of the G7. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. We have interest rates, the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years.

    We have not seen that combination of remarkable trading circumstances for nearly 40 years. And I believe that industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others. Manufacturing output is up, investment is up, productivity is rising fast, you have kept wage costs competitive and we have sought to do that in the public sector as well, doing better than Germany or Japan and better than at any time for a generation.

    And as the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for 2 years of solid growth, growth that will be the faster in the European Community big league. As we meet here this evening, after what I know have been difficult circumstances for some time, we have every reason to be confident about our future economic prospects.

    We said two years ago that low inflation would bring recovery. We have brought inflation down, recovery is now following, as we said that 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 now 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.

    That recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy, a diversified, a diversified and successful base that is well represented in the attendance here this evening. 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, indeed even 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 that we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world renowned business school, UMIST, you name it, you have got it here in Manchester.

    That is 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. Good, good, but if the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place in the service sector and beyond the service sector. Because vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on services alone, we need a vibrant, thriving, manufacturing base and I hope every part of this country will recognise that for the future.

    So, Mr President, I hope our friends in the service sector this evening will forgive me if I turn from them to manufacturing because I want to say this evening a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success. And where better than here, in Manchester, in this hotel where Mr Rolls met Mr Royce in 1904. We British have done something typically British and wholly remarkable, we have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export markets how do operate? We operate like Jeeves, we just shimmer silently, export discreetly, we do not tell anyone, it might give offence. Well I think we should tell people about our successes in taking export markets right the way across the world, it is about time the British beat the drum for British successes and let know what we are doing right.

    Ask people around the world – who are the great exporters? And they will speak with respect and admiration of Japan. That is right, they are a great exporting nation, the Japanese. But what about us? We British export 400 pounds per person per year more than the Japanese – 1,800 pounds for every man, woman and child, compared with 1,400 pounds for the Japanese.

    What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say that British industry is crumbling? I think people should listen. In financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drink industry, garments, aerospace, defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, bio-technology and international construction, we lead the pack in this country and we should continue to take that message right the way around the world.

    British companies are big companies, powerful companies, successful companies. British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability, and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And although the trade gap is 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 that would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we now sell pizzas to Italy. One day will speak of Salford as the world’s centre of pizzas – Italians will never speak to me again.

    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.

    But what of the future? Well I am a fairly tolerant soul. But I will tell you one thing I do not like, I do not like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. The British car industry has turned retreat into triumph, other industries can do the same.

    And why is it that so many people seem to have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of that view comes from the out-dated 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 hammerworks. That is not a low view of manufacturing, it is a total misunderstanding of modern day manufacturing. 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 America and selling right the way across the world.

    These are great symbols, but we want more than symbols, we want fast reader replication and we want it now in ever increasing numbers. And improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we have 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 the price that they want to buy, available at the time that they want to buy it.

    There is, I have to say to you, a danger that nags in my mind time and time again, it is always there waiting. Time and time again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandon the export drive for the warm debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time, in our own interests we must not permit that to happen again. We are determined to build up our export success and that is why in the Autumn Statement and the Budget the Chancellor increased export credits and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting and we will keep supporting and between us we will bring prosperity to this country.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement, we cannot let up. Manchester I think knows something of 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 – they very nearly destroyed Lancashire for you. Let us remember them in order not to be like them in future. “Change not decay” must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that I believe the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry to meet that 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 is why we are 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 that Gill mentioned earlier is a very real example, so is the Channel rail link, so is the Forth Crossing in Edinburgh. That is why we are seeking to reform education. That is what tests in schools are all about, to find out what the children know and what the children don’t know because we need to know what they don’t know so that we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the tests; you need the best working for you and the vital importance of our education system cannot be overstated. [Applause]. That is why we are 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 is why science these days is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brain power backs industrial success.

    It is why in the budget we have given extra help to Britain’s exporters; it is why we have cut businesses’ rate burden and cut Advance Corporation Tax to boost businesses’ cash flow by £2 billion a year and when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and the Gulf. British firms had done the work, Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come.

    I saw the fruits of that partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at British Aerospace. I and my colleagues will give that backing, so must each and every British embassy around the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well-suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Let them by all means pour out the gin and tonics but then let them sell both bottles to the opposition [Applause].

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

    Mr. President, you touched delicately upon the point – a number of points as I recall but certainly this one: over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. [Laughter]. 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 terminus at Charles de Gaulle Airport is work done in Bolton. The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed with Maastricht when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are those cocktail chatterers living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is all about for our future. [Applause]

    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? Overwhelmingly in Europe. An example not far from here: 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 that Europe is perfect but that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 percent faster than have those of our own EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, twenty export billion poundsworth 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 brought wool in the Cotswolds in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of all time.

    I believe that 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 recently specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote from his letter. He wrote as follows:

    “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 smack between the eyes, a bull’s-eye beyond a doubt! That is the message that business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community that we want to see. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the Single Market without the drawbacks and at the end of the inky labyrinth of treaty subclauses is a trading Europe. Especially here in Manchester that is important to us, a trading Europe in which we can send our exports in the future.

    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 and put these squabbles behind us. [Applause].

    Mr. President, here this evening perhaps I will be permitted to say just a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members with Maastricht but I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help the businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like in the future to see Government develop the same relationship with the Chambers that it has developed with the CBI. The one-stop initiative is a tangible sign and naturally Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots of this new and I believe utterly worthwhile initiative.

    Here in Manchester this evening there is perhaps one other issue that 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 eighth in the European league of best cities in which to locate a business but it can move up. I know and everyone here knows – and Gill mentioned it to me earlier – 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 ensuring 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 and here in Manchester? [Applause]

    I am honoured to play my part together with Craig Readie of the BOA and Bob Scott who I must tell you though I think you already know it have done wonderful things for Manchester’s bid in the last year or so. [Applause]. When Bob comes up and grabs me warmly by the throat [Laughter], I have this instinct of what he is going to say to me and that instinct has never been wrong! Together with Craig Readie and Bob Scott, I pressed the case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what lies in the minds of the members of the IOC when they vote to decide the location but because of what has already been done Manchester is now one of three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone in the quest to bring the Olympics here at the start of the new millennium. [Applause].

    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 the 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 knew what needed be done then; it knows what must be done now. So does the Government. Together I hope. Perhaps in Manchester I shouldn’t say “together” but “united” [Applause] and to be strictly fair let me put it a slight different way: in this city [Applause] united we can do it. [Applause].

  • 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.