Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 126)
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2001
MR PATRICK
CARTER, MR
ROBERT RAINE
AND MS
RACHEL DOWNEY
John Thurso
120. Can I ask you about the process of your
review. We have heard this morning that reports of the Committee
have been responded to with great alacrity by Government and these
replies have subsequently found to have been rather inaccurate.
Therefore what I really wanted to know is whether you feel you
have been given sufficient time and sufficient resources to undertake
your review and what things, if any, you would have liked to have
looked at that you have neither had the time nor the resources
nor the remit to look at.
(Mr Carter) One of the things you learn
about doing these reviews is that you have to battle for the resources
early because otherwise you cannot do it. As one of the conditions
of doing this we were able to secure sufficient financial resources
to employ outsiders and, after a competition, KPMG did the work
on this and through Sport England there were teams of cost planners
and quantity surveyors to get some accurate numbers into that.
I think we had the resources to do it. You would always like more
time but there is a moment in these things when the lights do
not get any greener and you have to make your mind up and we were
able to get to that point, partly because of the work the Select
Committee had done. Reading its Third Report again, there is so
much similarly between us that perhaps we were helped with the
navigation of the process anyway.
121. Can I ask two follow ups to that. Firstly,
how much did KPMG get paid for the work?
(Mr Carter) The answer to that is it
was part of an overall fee linked also to the National Stadium
Study.
(Mr Raine) The total costs of the National Stadium
Review and the Picketts Lock Review have been given in a written
answer to Mr Yeo at just over £300,000. [2]
122. Because we heard this morning that out of
£120 million about £14 million had gone on design fees.
Is this £300,000 in the £14 million or on top of that?
(Mr Carter) No, that is separate.
123. Did you have a chance within your report
to look at the economic impact of the various decisions and recommendations,
the wider economics of what might happen to tourism, things of
that kind?
(Mr Carter) There was an economic impact
study which was done by Greater London Enterprise[3]
in the case of Picketts Lock, which we looked at, which had some
numbers in it. Suffice to say they were interesting but not altogether
compelling.
124. What was interesting rather than compelling?
(Mr Carter) Economic impact studies are
quite hard to measure and they usually revolve around jobs created
and how many you are creating and how long they are going to be
on site and are they construction jobs or quality jobs afterwards,
and how do they work back to the economy? Is it displacement?
Are there people employed there already or are you just moving
them around? So on that basis it was interesting but it did not
take me further than that.
Chairman
125. You quite rightly draw attention to the
fact that we have looked at things more than once. The reason
we look at things more than once is because they do not listen
to us the first time. Have you, Mr Carter, had any opportunity
in your Wembley remit—and if you do not feel it is appropriate
to answer then please say so—to look at the mystery of the
missing £20 million?
(Mr Carter) Missing £20 million,
Chairman?
126. The £20 million that Mr Smith told
us he had agreed with Mr Bates should be repaid by the FA to God
knows who actually after it was decided not to have athletics
at Wembley, where it is now, in view of the fact that Wembley
National Stadium told us they had spent £106 and therefore
there was not £20 million left in any case—no, sorry,
Sport England. The Clerk has passed me a note, as is the function
of the Clerk, surreptitiously. The fact that he has had to do
so is because the whole thing is enswathed in such mystery that
nobody knows who is actually involved, who is responsible, where
the money is, and what is going to happen to it.
(Mr Carter) I could possibly help you
with part of it but not all. My understanding is that Sport England
did make a payment to WNSL. They received that money. What happens
from here is obviously a matter of some discussion.
Chairman: Mr Carter, all I can say is if there
is a spy from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport here
perhaps he can report to his Secretary of State that we expect
her to give very precise answers when she comes here next week.
You, Mr Carter, have given very precise answers; we are most grateful
to you, and with that I declare this session closed.
2 Hansard Written Answers-22 October 2001, Col 20W,
Review costs £313, 505p. Back
3
A report from Greater London Enterprise for the NAC Stakeholder
Group and the London Borough of Enfield entitled "The Regeneration
and Community Benefits of the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre"-August
2001. Back
| 
