|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): May I crave your indulgence at the start of my response, Mr. Speaker, and ask the House to join me in congratulating the athletes and coaches and rest of the staff of Team GB, including the people in the British Olympic Association, on such a successful and professional performance at the winter Olympics. I know that the whole nation and everybody in the House feel proud of their achievementsthe best since 1934. Even "Question Time" was moved so that people could see the curling final.
All local authorities are eligible to apply to the lottery sports fund for grants for the development of sports facilities, including sports arenas. In administering the fund, Sport England recognises the need to provide sports facilities in rural areas, particularly those that are deprived, and addresses that need through its priority area and sport action zone initiatives.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Is the Minister aware that Sedgemoor district council, which is not one of the largest in the country, is trying to build a multi-sports arena? The problem is that Sport England has to cover an enormous area of the west country, and has not enough resources. Sedgemoor is not in a position to fund it either, and is
Mr. Caborn: I do not know about that specific scheme, but I do know that in rural areas, about a quarter of the lottery moneyabout £1.2 billion since 1994has gone into sports facilities, of which £40 million has gone to rural areas. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will consider what he says and speak to the Sport England officials about it.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): I join the Minister in warmly congratulating the winter Olympics team on its performance in Salt Lake City, which is a cause of celebration for the whole country. However, is he aware that on 13 February 2002 a written answer from him showed that lottery-funded spending on sport had fallen by one third since 1997a drop of more than £100 million a year? When more than £3 billion in unspent lottery funds is sitting unused, the rejection of proposals, such as that by the university of Hertfordshire to build an olympic swimming pool, is profoundly discouraging for budding sportsmen and sports fans. It also undermines the chances of future British Olympic success.
Mr. Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are dealing with the question of the uncommitted fundsas the hon. Gentleman knows, those funds are allocatedthrough the lottery distributers. We are having separate meetings with the chief executives and chairs of the distributing bodies to see how we can use the funds more effectively. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the next two years, the overall Exchequer contribution to sport will more than double. He will know that because of the reduction in participation in the lottery, all lottery funding streams have been reduced. I was speaking to Camelot only last week, and it now hopes that the relaunch will bring the lottery receipts back to what it was envisaged they would be when the licence was applied for.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I made clear to the House on 19 December 2001 the Government's commitment to support the Football Association's national stadium project, subject to the FA meeting a number of conditions that I set out at the time. The Government fully recognise thatas Patrick Carter made clear in his interim report published on 19 Decemberthe project will not be delivered without Government support. The project is now in a process of due diligence with the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. undertaking the necessary work to fulfil the Government's conditions and working with the lead bank on financing the project. Sport England is progressing the study on athletics in consultation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that comprehensive reply. On reflection, does she agree that the decision to exclude athletics from a rebuilt Wembley stadium has turned out to be a disastrous misjudgment? Will she confirm beyond any doubt that when the stadium is rebuilt it will have athletics facilities? Does she agree that the delay in coming to a conclusion about the form that the stadium should take means that football will not have been played at Wembley stadium for five years?
Tessa Jowell: The design of the stadium is athletics capable. The FA is now acting on that and Sport England is in the lead. I made it clear in December that there is a difference between being athletics capable and actually being able to host athletics events. The important fact is that money was awarded as part of the lottery grant, which, if the stadium cannot host athletics events, would have to be returned; so in order to complete the negotiations and settle the future of the national stadium project once and for all, discussions are under way. I have made it clear that a condition of finalising the Government's support for the national stadium project is that the position in relation to athletics be clarified. If athletics events are not to be hosted at the stadium, the moneyas the FA has always made clearwould be returned. If, however, the stadium is capable of hosting athletics eventsbecause of the improved technology of a more easily dismantled platformobviously the money would be retained. That is part of ensuring that the project makes progress and that by the end of April we know once and for all whether the national stadium will be built at Wembley.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that she will not repeat the blunders of her predecessor by getting ensnarled in this such that the Government will not be able to evade responsibility for the culpability of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and the Football Association? Will she give the House an absolute assurance that not a penny of Government money will go directly or indirectly into subsidising the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and that the Government will not support any effort by the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to raise money in the markets? The organisation should do that on its own credit and in no other way. Will she make it clear that, if the stadium does not go ahead by April at the latest, legal action will be taken to recover the £120 million to which the FA is clinging like a leech and which it will have no possible legal right to retain?
Tessa Jowell: A number of my predecessors have concerned themselves with the national stadium project. At various times, each of them took decisions on the basis of the best advice and consideration available to them.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): I am afraid that the Secretary of State's answers will have raised more doubts in the minds of most listeners in the past few minutes than she perhaps wished. Anxieties already exist about the progress of this project and the achievement of the timetable in April to which she referred. Will she say categorically whether the Government are still committed to rebuilding Wembley stadium and to incorporating an athletics facility? Will she also say whether she is completely happy with the proposed roles of Multiplex, IMG and the FA in this project? Will she confirm that the infrastructure spending that she mentioned involves the rebuilding, not just the upgrading, of Wembley Park tube station? If she is in doubt about whether that is needed, I invite her to do as I did last Tuesday and pay a visit by tube to Wembley.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman's contribution makes it clear why the second world war was won in about the same time that it has taken to achieve no progress at all on Wembley. This project was initiated in 1996 by the last Conservative Government, who began with a catalogue of errors.
I set out clearly to the House on 19 December the four conditions that the FA had to meet, in the light of the David James report on the procurement of the stadium, in order for Government support to be settled with a further investment of £20 million. That has been clearly established. Brent council gave planning permission to the stadium in 2000 without any precondition requiring an increase in the capacity of Wembley Park tube station. If new conditions are to be introduced by Brent or, rhetorically, by the hon. Gentleman, they should realise that they are once again putting the national stadium project at risk.
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton): Does my right hon. Friend agree that Wembley was very prematurely closed by the FA? Does she also agree that the FA is still prevaricating about a national stadium for one of our most popular games, association football? While prevarication about Wembley continues, there are two excellent sites in the west midlands, at Coventry and at Birmingham, which are less expensive than the Wembley alternative.
Tessa Jowell: In fairness to the FA, there is no prevarication. It is now engaged with the lending banks in the process of due diligence and is proceeding to meet the four conditions that I set out to the House before Christmas. That process will conclude with the signing or not of binding contracts by the end of April. Work is in progress, and my joband the Government's jobis to provide every possible support to ensure that the national stadium is realised.