| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Wembley Stadium
7. Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): What assistance his Department is giving to the project for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. [98973]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Lottery funding of £120 million has been awarded by Sport England towards the purchase of the existing Wembley stadium from Wembley plc, and its reconstruction as a national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. I have established a monitoring committee involving all the key players to allow us to identify and deal with issues arising, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to the project. I have every confidence that the new Wembley stadium will provide a first-class venue for a number of different sports and events.
Mr. Greenway: It has been suggested that the Minister for Sport's comments last week about the Olympics and athletics implied that her predecessor had put too much emphasis on football. However, the Secretary of State supported the Wembley redevelopment. More importantly, so did the Prime Minister, whose picture appears on the front cover of the world cup 2006 brochure with a redeveloped Wembley in the background. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the Government wish to will the end, taking credit for England hosting the world
cup in 2006, as we all wish it to do, they must also will the means? Huge outstanding planning and transport issues remain unresolved with Brent council, and those must be tackled. Will the Secretary of State put his Department's full resources into ensuring a successful outcome to the bid? The last thing we want is a successful world cup soccer launch that is hampered as the rugby world cup was by a stadium having to be painted on the day before the first match.
Mr. Smith: When I saw the rugby world cup at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, everyone agreed that it is a fantastic stadium which provided a magnificent venue for the world cup. Exactly the same quality will be achieved both for the world athletics championship in 2005 and the football world cup in 2006. The Government will bend every effort to ensuring that that happens. However, we cannot, and should not, ride roughshod over the planning system. Proper rules are in place, and the necessary planning procedures will be undertaken.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Does my right hon. Friend share my incredulity that Sport England allowed the release of £120 million of lottery funding for Wembley to purchase the site of the new national stadium, when it must have been known that the proposed stadium could not function as a truly national stadium for the three sports for which it was intended--especially for athletics--not only because of the size of the stadium but because, under Olympic and international regulations, a warm-up facility must be provided alongside? Will he assure us that the trust that was supposed to be the guardian of the project and of the national stadium will--as the previous Sports Minister assured me in the House--ensure that the project also functions for athletics? Will he further ensure that the Football Association pulls its finger out to get the project, which it has delayed by more than 18 months, back on to the drawing board and on target?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has played a major role, as the local constituency Member of Parliament, in promoting the Wembley project. He raises a number of entirely legitimate concerns. However, I assure him that, right from the start, our concern--like that of Sport England--has been to ensure that the stadium can be used not only for football and rugby league, but for major athletics events. Through the establishment of the Wembley task force under the chairmanship of Sir Nigel Mobbs, with the involvement of Brent Council and English Partnerships, we shall also ensure not only that the stadium is created in the right way, but that the surrounding area is treated in the right way.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to the Treasury Bench? I am, however, delighted that the Secretary of State is answering this question, because, although the blame for this fiasco seems to be being shifted to the hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the Secretary of State was present throughout all the proceedings. There is now a real possibility that we shall have a national stadium that cannot host the Olympic games.
Was it helpful for the Sports Minister to wait until after the planning application was lodged before saying that it was
Mr. Smith:
Apart from misquoting my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, the hon. Gentleman, by that question, does the cause of creating a truly national stadium no good whatever. The aim throughout has been to ensure that we have a first-class, world-class national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. As he will know, from parliamentary answers, the design for the new stadium was first shown to Ministers in the middle of July this year. As a direct result, I called a further meeting on 21 July with Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the chief architect and Sport England, to ensure that the interests of athletics were intimately involved in the further development of the designs for the stadium.
8. Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East):
On what date pensioners will be allowed free admittance to national museums and art galleries. [98974]
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth):
Funds have been made available to permit free access for pensioners, from April 2000, to the currently charging national museums funded by my Department.
Mr. Heppell:
I thank the Minister for that response, and, on behalf of the pensioners in my constituency, I thank him for finding the £99 million extra that has made free entrance to museums possible for pensioners, in the same way as it is for children. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how many extra children have been attracted to museums as a result of free entrance? Does he expect similar increases among pensioners?
Mr. Howarth:
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as we hoped, the project to allow children free entry to national museums and galleries has been a remarkable success. In the past year, the number of children visiting the museums and galleries that have participated in the scheme increased by no less than 22 per cent. I believe that there will be an equivalent beneficial effect when we have free entry for pensioners.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham):
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the robustness of his answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the Elgin marbles. Can he reassure me, however, that the Government are equally robust, so that, when he and I are pensioners, we shall be able to visit our best national museum--the British museum--and see the Elgin marbles free of charge? What will he
Mr. Howarth:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made our position absolutely clear just now. We believe that it is proper that the Elgin marbles remain in this country. That is our position and the statutory position, and the position of the trustees of the British museum reinforces it.
9. Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
How many pensioners will benefit from the provision of free television licences to those aged over 75 years; and what plans he has to reform the current system of concessionary television licences. [98975]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith):
More than 3 million households will benefit from the provision of television licences free of charge to people aged 75 and over. The Government are still considering whether to make any further changes to the existing concessionary arrangements, in the light of the recommendations in the Davies report on the future funding of the BBC and the responses to the public consultation on the report. An announcement will be made early in the new year.
Mr. Salter:
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I understand that there is a separate regime for the licensing of television sets in Her Majesty's prisons. Should Lord Archer end up in prison, will he be given the same access to the television licensing regime as any other common criminal?
Mr. Smith:
The short answer is yes. Because of Crown exemption, television sets in prisons do not require a television licence. Therefore, in such hypothetical circumstances, the noble Lord would be given access to a free television licence some 16 years ahead of his 75th birthday.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Who will pay for all this--the taxpayer or the licence fee payer?
Mr. Smith:
In relation to the question about Lord Archer, the answer is that I am not sure. In relation to the general concession to pensioners aged 75 and over, the answer is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that money available out of Exchequer funds, and the cost is £300 million.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor's decision, announced a few weeks ago, is much welcomed by the age group that will benefit? Can he explain why the previous Government did everything that they possibly could to prevent the concession being granted to pensioners, despite the years of campaigning by Labour Members?
Mr. Smith:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own dogged, persistent and extremely effective efforts to raise the matter in the House. He is right to say that my right hon. Friend's announcement has been warmly
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey):
However well received this concession is--I am sure that it will be well received by Baroness Thatcher, as by many other people of that age group--can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the free licence scheme will not extend to the cost of any extra fee that may be payable for digital television services? What is to stop every household with a 75-year-old switching the licence into the 75-year-old's name and watching television for nothing? Does not the scheme mean that, in future, the Government will take a direct stake in the funding of the BBC of at least £300 million a year? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman offer the BBC that that will not compromise its independence?
Mr. Smith:
From those questions and the hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the point that I have raised, I have to take it that the Opposition would remove this benefit if they ever got into government.
"the wrong kind of stadium"?
What conditions in respect of Olympic-standard facilities were attached to the £120 million lottery grant? Who was responsible for authorising the brief that turned out to be the wrong kind of brief? If the Government are not responsible, and are not to blame, for the breathtaking and pitiful bungling of this major project, we should like to know who is.
"Tories dismissed the free TV licences as a gimmick".
Perhaps they are thereby saying that they would remove that benefit, which my right hon. Friend has made available.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |