Examination of witnesses (Questions 400
- 411)
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2000
RT HON
CHRIS SMITH,
MS KATE
HOEY and MS
PHILIPPA DREW
400. You are saying, Secretary of State, that
you are now having to sort out something which came before you
and was not sensible. Is Sport England, which is responsible for
that entire "not sensible" situation, a fit body to
make these decisions and to disburse vast amounts of public money?
(Mr Smith) As I said earlier on, I think everyone
in this matter, including undoubtedly Sport England, has acted
entirely in good faith. As far as I am aware, Sport England themselves
only received details of the design work and the platform solution
which was being proposed as late as June or July. Their advice
to us has consistently been that the putting of Wembley into athletics
mode with the platform solution was feasible, and undoubtedly
that is the case, it is feasible. Whether it represents the best
that could be achieved for the cost, and whether it represents
the best solution for athletics, and whether it creates a reasonable
legacy for athletics, and whether it is sensible or not to do
it, those are the questions which we as ministers have to consider
and we came to the conclusions we did in December.
401. Nobody is questioning Sport England's good
faith, Secretary of State, but you have just told us that these
extraordinary and, in the event, soluble but utterly impracticable
structural issues, only came to their attention in the late spring
or early summer of this year. How long have they been doing this
project? I am asking you—it is not your responsibility and
one is not criticising you—how long have they been involved
in the project in which it only became known at a very late stage
that the stipulations they had made would result in a stadium
with inadequate sightlines for lots of spectators plus being put
out of use for large parts of the year in order to accommodate
their ambitions?
(Mr Smith) As far as I am aware, Chairman, at the
end of April—21 April I think I am right in saying—there
was a meeting between Sport England and the then Minister for
Sport and the local Member of Parliament, to discuss progress
on the Wembley scheme. At that meeting, Sport England themselves
were still talking about the favoured option from the architects
being demountable seating. So the platform solution can only have
emerged as the favoured option subsequent to that meeting.
402. But, Secretary of State, we in our Report
on May 13 made utterly clear our view that what was being put
forward was not a practicable solution. I am not saying that every
word we say is gospel, though most of our words are, but nevertheless
Sport England were the people in charge of that. If we could see
it, as people involving ourselves for a short period in this problem
before moving on to another one, surely they who were utterly
immersed in it ought to have seen it?
(Mr Smith) Chairman, I think on some occasions the
layman or lay woman can perhaps see things which experts do not.
I noticed from some of Mr Stubbs' evidence that he pointed to
the fact that in July, when I saw the platform solution for the
first time, I had my doubts and he described it as "gut instinct".
Sometimes, Chairman, I think gut instinct from a lay person is
more appropriate to the circumstances than any amount of technical
obfuscation from the experts.
403. Secretary of State, you had to step in
on this following a Select Committee Report, you had to step in
on the Royal Opera House, whose adventures continue to this very
day, after a Select Committee Report, while obviously you cannot
deal with every single thing, and direct Government involvement
is not necessarily the solution, as the extraordinary saga of
the British Library bears out, nevertheless regardless of how
this issue comes out, be it this issue, the Royal Opera House
issue, other issues relating to massive projects based on public
money, is this something that this Government needs to seize hold
of in order to stop these things happening again?
(Mr Smith) Well, Chairman, just as an aside, I would
express the strong hope that the recent troubles at the Royal
Opera House are indeed in the process of being sorted out.
404. I am going there tonight at my own expense,
and the curtain had better go up and there had better be a performance.
(Mr Smith) I will relay your concern to Mr Michael
Kaiser when I see him this afternoon, Chairman. In terms of the
general issue, of course, the general principle on which we operate
is that Government rightly sets the overall parameters and objectives
of policy in sport or the arts but the detailed decisions about
the individual projects and individual allocations are made by
the arm's length bodies, be they the Sports Council or the Arts
Council. There may well be occasions when projects of particular
size and scale and importance require perhaps rather more detailed
scrutiny by ministers, but I do not think we should allow that
fact to disrupt that general principle of Government setting the
framework and the detailed work being done by the arm's length
bodies.
Miss Kirkbride
405. Could I ask the Secretary of State what
discussions he has had with the FA about a football regulator?
(Mr Smith) Very little as yet, because we only received
the Task Force report just a few weeks ago. I have had no meetings
with the FA on this subject as yet but we will in due course certainly
be wanting to have discussions with them about the whole of the
Task Force report and the various proposals which are put forward
in it.
406. But presumably you will be aware of the
speculation about whether or not the £20 million has been
forthcoming in order to ward off such a football regulator?
(Mr Smith) I am not aware of such speculation. If
there is such speculation it is precisely that, speculation, nothing
more.
407. So would you like to rule it out now and
in the future?
(Mr Smith) Sorry? Rule out what?
408. Rule out the idea that a football regulator
could be warded off by £20 million—
(Mr Smith) The proposals about the regulation of football
which are made in the Task Force report will be examined purely
on their own merits, with no other considerations in mind.
409. From what you have said so far, Secretary
of State, I do find it quite difficult to see where the money
will actually be forthcoming to build an athletics stadium suitable
for world athletics events and potentially for the Olympics in
the future, albeit much further away. It does not seem to me that
the cash flow comes in the right order. WNSL are not going to
be given the money until the stadium is up and running, the £40
million which comes from the savings from the platform which no
longer has to be removed presumably is also some way off because
the stadium has not been built, and you are anticipating that
money being forthcoming some long time in the future, so where
is the up-front money going to come from in order to put together
an athletics bid which would be capable of holding an event in
2005? It seems to me in the short-term there is very little there.
(Mr Smith) I am afraid your premises and your conclusions
are not wholly correct. Firstly, the £20 million from the
Football Association comes in gradually over a period. It is only
the very last bit of it which has to wait until the stadium is
actually complete, and indeed we fully expect that that timetable
will in fact be speeded up. But, secondly, the money that would
have been spent on creating the athletics facilities at Wembley
and which is effectively earmarked within the overall Lottery
capital programme of Sport England, is there to be decided upon
at the appropriate time when applications which are acceptable
come forward, and work on how best to put those applications into
place is now going on with greater urgency and in great detail.
410. But given that the £20 million is
a tiny, tiny sum to build the kind of stadium which will be capable
of holding these kind of events, do you really anticipate a private
sector bidder coming forward bearing in mind that the Lottery's
own rules require partnership?
(Mr Smith) One of the options, for example, which
is being looked at is Twickenham where there is already a very
substantial stadium in place which would require amendment in
order to produce a suitable venue for athletics but you would
not in that instance have to start from scratch and build a completely
new stadium. There are, as I say, other options which are also
being looked at.
411. Can you tell us what those options are?
(Mr Smith) There are, I think, three or four potential
sites which are being looked at across London. I think we can
usefully write to the Committee on that.
Chairman: Secretary of State, thank you
very much indeed. We are grateful for giving us so much of your
time. We conclude the inquiry.
|
