Examination of witness (Questions 64 -
79)
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY 2000
MR TONY
BANKS
Chairman: Mr Banks, welcome, as always—ever
basking in the glow of the compliment to your sports strategy
that has been bestowed upon you by Mr Moorcroft—we are delighted
to see you. Mr Faber will open the questioning.
Mr Faber
64. Mr Banks, welcome. On 3 December the Daily
Mail published an article, "Banks under attack in new
row for plan over Wembley", which succinctly suggested that
you told Ken Bates that you never intended athletics to play a
role in Wembley Stadium. The accusations were made by Jarvis Astaire.
He claimed to have overheard you. I assume you would like to comment
on that?
(Mr Banks) It is a lie, a straight forward lie. Mr
Chairman, were I to have had that agenda that would make me an
unconscionable liar in countless statements on the floor of the
House and indeed the evidence I gave to this Select Committee
in reply to a question from the Hon. Member for Watford. I made
it quite clear that the national stadium was precisely that, a
national stadium, which was capable of staging football, rugby
league and athletics. That remained my objective and that of the
Government throughout. It was also, as I understood it, the objective
of all of the other parties, including Wembley National Stadium
Limited, the Football Association, the Sports Council, BOA, etc.
As soon as I saw that article I issued a writ against the Daily
Mail, which is being pursued vigorously by Carter-Ruck. I
intend to see them in court if, indeed, they do not decide to
settle beforehand. It is a lie, it is a damnable lie and I object
to it very strongly, as you can probably gather.
65. Thank you very much for that. When you left
your office last year, as far as were you concerned, the plans,
as they existed, for Wembley stadium satisfied all of the criteria
for football, for rugby league, for athletics, for a potential
Olympic bid and indeed the terms of the Lottery application in
the first place?
(Mr Banks) I think, Mr Faber, it is fair to say there
were obviously some untied loose ends here. Members have had the
opportunity of seeing the presentation that we had earlier on.
I would ask you to put yourself in the position of being a Minister
looking at that and ask yourself what you would feel as a reasonable
person, because after all the BOA does not have technical expertise
in stadium design and most certainly humble Ministers do not have.
I think it was accepted by this very Committee, when last taking
evidence on the national stadium, that there would be some form
of compromise involved. I felt it was a compromise that was acceptable
to all of the parties. That being so, when the launch was made
on 29 July—I did not attend, for the simple reason that
I had already notified the Prime Minister that I wished to stand
down as Sports Minister in order to concentrate on the 2006 World
Cup bid, and he had accepted that—and at that launch there
werethe words of the Secretary of State, which you, Mr Faber,
have read out already, it seemed to me it meant that we could
draw a line under this, we had a done deal and we could move on.
It seemed to me that all of the parties—and the BOA had
already put out a press release as well, with some reservations,
I agree, were supporting the Wembley design on 29 July. I think
any reasonable person, I would put myself in that category, felt
that the deal was okay. I still remain to this very day convinced
that the deal is okay. I still do not know how it unravelled in
subsequent months. I am hoping this Select Committee is able to
throw some light on it.
66. I was hoping you were going to throw a little
light on it. I also ask, why you feel it might be that the Secretary
of State described it as a stunning design on 29 July and by 1
December he had changed his mind on a whole raft of issues?
(Mr Banks) It is a stunning design, there is no argument
about that. The Secretary of State would stand very firmly by
that. I spoke to the Secretary of State last night, not in order
to get, as it were, our evidence into synchronisation but in order
for me to explain what I was going to say. The Secretary of State
is a close personal and political friend of mine. He said, I confirm
it, it is a stunning design but he said, "I was not convinced,
we were not convinced, that it offered value for money in terms
of warm-up track and athletics." I am only repeating what
the Secretary of State told me. I suggest it is up to the Select
Committee to ask that question of the Secretary of State, not
of me. I do not know, I simply do not know. I became very concerned
when I saw this matter beginning to unravel. I was astonished
at what I had heard because I thought we had a deal. It was as
simple as that, it met everyone's requirement. Not wholly to everyone's
total satisfaction but sufficiently enough for people to sign
up to it. I do not know what happened. My concern was accentuated
and actually became intense anger when a number of individuals,
mostly, I might add, in the media, then started trying to pin
the blame on me. I recall something that I said in an adjournment
debate on 29 June 1998 about Wembley Stadium, when I was talking
about the arm's length principle and the problems arising out
of the arm's length principle which, as this Committee knows,
I said I do not like and I am not comfortable working with. I
remain of that opinion. I said: "This is Lottery money and
if anything went wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, Ministers would be
held to account, you can bet your life on it. That being so I
do not want to get the sharp end of the stick poked in my eye
at some future date. I want to ensure that things go smoothly."
I did feel there were a number of people, mostly within the media,
who were working very hard at trying to poke that sharp stick
in my eye. I was very resistant of that happening.
67. I just wonder where the others were if they
were mostly in the media?
(Mr Banks) There were some briefings
coming from inside DCMS.
Chairman
68. Before you continue, Mr Faber, "29
July stunning design, December six months' conversion needed."
When did that fact emerge?
(Mr Banks) That was known when the deck solution was
first proposed, that there would be a six month period for the
construction. It was going to be done in the September to March
period of Wembley which would have minimised the disruption to
the stadium in terms of its use. In the end this was not a compromise.
It was a stunning design. The deck solution was novel. I think
that that was in keeping with the design of the new national stadium.
I might add that underneath the deck, of course, it would provide
an enormous amount of additional warm-up facilities which would
be of great use to the users in athletics mode. While the track
was there you could still have football because the deck area
would still provide a football arena which was perfectly acceptable
to FIFA and UEFA. It did seem to me that that was a solution I
was working primarily, one has to do this, in stages, it was 2003,
then 2005, World Athletics Championship that I was looking to
and I felt that this was a perfect solution for 2005. I was assured
that additional capacity could be built into the stadium to put
it up to 80,000 which would meet the requirements of the BOA for
the opening and closing ceremonies for an Olympic stadium. Obviously
I subsequently hear, I did not see that design at Wembley when
it was put into the 80,000 seater mode, that there would have
been severe sight impairment. That is what Mr Clegg has said and
obviously I take what Mr Clegg says as being true. That is a question,
perhaps, that might very well have been directed at the designers
of the stadium in the presentation we had before. I understand
that it was decided that questions could not be directed to the
architects but that is a question that needs to be asked.
Mr Faber
69. As I understand, they are giving evidence
next week.
(Mr Banks) That is a question that needs to be asked.
In all areas I felt that we had met the requirements. I have to
keep coming back to this point and that is why I did not understand
what happened between 29 July and the statement in the House on
1 December.
70. Your appointment, subsequent to your ministerial
career, as Ambassador for the 2006 World Cup bid carries the full
weight and support of the Prime Minister. How frequently do you
meet with your successor as Sports Minister to discuss the 2006
bid and to discuss the designs for Wembley?
(Mr Banks) I have not met with my successor.
71. Not once?
(Mr Banks) We bumped into each other in Downing Street
when the FIFA inspection team were here. We have not had any contact.
My telephone number is very well known. I am not an anonymous
Member of Parliament and I think she would probably recognise
me if she chose to do so.
72. Do you still sit on the Monitoring Committee?
(Mr Banks) No, sir.
73. Did you sit on that originally?
(Mr Banks) Yes, sir.
74. Could you tell us a little bit more about
the Monitoring Committee? I have spoken to previous witnesses,
neither of whom knew about it. Who chairs the Monitoring Committee?
(Mr Banks) The Secretary of State. If I can just answer
that question by going back a little. What has not come out in
any of the discussions so far and was not really reported in the
newspapers at all, which does not surprise me—being careful
and particular is not something one associates with the press
in this country—is the difficulties over the purchase of
Wembley itself, it is not something that anyone has really highlighted.
Indeed, looking back over my diary—unfortunately, I do not
have the benefit of the large number of officials that I was once
able to call to my assistance and I have had to do this myself—it
appears that in about March 1998 we ran into enormous problems
over the purchase of Wembley. Part of the problem, of course,
and a significant part of the problem was the activities of the
non-executive directors, specifically Mr Jarvis Astaire who was
trying to stop the deal going through. That was in March of 1998.
It is very difficult to start talking about specific designs and
getting involved in all of this when you still do not know if
you are going to end up owning the stadium. I went through a whole
series—this is unknown, other than to the parties that were
involved—of meetings and telephone conversations with Mr
Claes Hultman, the Chairman of Wembley plc, in order to try and
deal with the problems created by the non-executive directors.
I had meetings with him, including in the House, in order to try
and get assurances from him about the deal in terms of selling
Wembley stadium to the Trust, so we could proceed. Then another
complication came when Arsenal stepped in. Arsenal, as we know,
have problems with their stadium and they decided they are going
to get involved. There were rumours in the press—indeed
there was a direct approach, I spoke to Arsenal officials—that
they were trying to bid for Wembley stadium. These are all things
that were happening and at the same time you are trying to think
what sort of design we want for the stadium when you do not even
know if you are going to end up with a stadium. I also, because
of my good relationship with Arsenal Football Club, spoke to the
directors of Arsenal and we were able to reach an understanding.
I made the point to them that if they stepped in and bought Wembley
stadium they would wreck 2006. They would wreck any Olympic bid,
in my opinion, and any other events we wanted to hold at Wembley.
There is no way we could have a World Cup bid based on a national
stadium that was owned by an individual football club. That is
not the way we do things in this country. Those are the things
that were happening. In the end, of course, the—
75. The Monitoring Committee.
(Mr Banks) I will come back to them. The sale agreement
was only signed on the 12th—
Chairman
76. What we are hearing now I am very glad to
hear. It is good of you, Mr Banks.
(Mr Banks) I wanted to put this information into the
public domain because this is my opportunity to do so.
77. You are welcome to do so.
(Mr Banks) I have not spoken to anybody about it and
I wanted to speak directly to the Committee. The sale agreement
was only made on 12 January 1999 and was not completed until 15
March 1999. That was the first date we could safely say it was
ours or it was the nation's. The Monitoring Committee was set
up by DCMS ministers in February 1999, that was the month after.
The membership of the Committee consisted of representatives from
Wembley National Stadium Limited, the Football Association, the
English Sports Council, the Government Office for London and Number
10. There was a series of meetings on 17 February 1999, 20 May
1999 and15 July 1999. It was set up when we knew we had it. Of
course the BOA were not members of that Committee, with hindsight,
perhaps, they could have been members of that Committee, neither
were UK Athletics and neither were Rugby League, who were also
involved. We were dealing with the English Sports Council and
we rely on, this is the arm's length principle, the English Sports
Council to make the case for the other sports.
Derek Wyatt: Could we ask for the minutes
of the Monitoring Committee to be sent to us?
Chairman
78. Are those Government documents?
(Mr Banks) I assume they are. Let me just tell you,
in order to try and prepare myself for the Committee and, indeed,
for my action against the Daily Mail I had to go and sit
in the Department overseen by a civil servant so I did not secrete
any of the documents out of the Department. I was not allowed
to bring any of the documents out but I suppose the Select Committee
could send for papers, however, there are rules governing this.
Chairman: You are at perfect liberty
to give the evidence that you have given. The Committee is obviously
very interested to hear it. When it comes to the question of internal
Government documents, to which you had access and you quote from
as you think fit, then the availability of internal Government
document notes for a Select Committee is not something that we
can require. We can ask for them. We have no way of requiring
the Government to disclose internal departmental documents to
us. Mr Banks, of course, is perfectly free to do whatever he wants
to in this Committee today. Please go ahead, Mr Banks. That is
the answer to Mr Wyatt.
Mr Faber
79. I just wanted to confirm what I understand
you told us, Mr Banks. Since you have left ministerial office
and in spite of the fact you are in charge of the Government's
bid for the 2006 World Cup you have not played any part at all
within the Department in the design of Wembley or indeed been
consulted by your successor at any time?
(Mr Banks) None whatsoever. I have spoken to the Secretary
of State.
|
