Examination of Witnesses (Questions 192
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY 2003
SIR RODNEY
WALKER KT, MR
JOHN SCOTT,
MR ROGER
DRAPER AND
MR IAN
FYTCHE
Chairman
192. Sir Rodney, we are always pleased to see
you and we are grateful to you and your colleagues for coming
before us today. Could I begin myself by asking you a question,
an answer to which I would dearly like to have. You, Sir Rodney,
among others, have been an observer of the Wembley saga over the
years. We, in this Committee, championed Wembley as a dual-use
stadium to which Sport England provided £120 million in Lottery
money for dual use so that it should be available for the 2012
Olympic Games should Britain be successful in a bid for those
Games. We were told yesterday when we had an evidence session
that all that Wembley would be used for if we got the 2012 Olympic
Games was football, so I would be very grateful to you indeed
for explaining the situation to me because clearly the Government
would have been very misguided to approve the go-ahead of £20
million it is giving as a subsidy if in fact Wembley is not going
to be one of the locations of the 2012 Games should we get them.
(Sir Rodney Walker) Thank you, Chairman.
What an interesting question! I think my involvement with Wembley
has been more than merely as an observer. I seem to remember starting
this project off in 1995 when I was then Chairman of Sport England
and you are quite right in your recollection that the £120
million Lottery grant was given for a national stadium, a national
multi-sports stadium. I then left the project in 1998 as I moved
to UK Sport, at which time the Football Association became more
directly involved in its ownership and management. I then rejoined
it back in 2000 when the Football Association asked me to become
Chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd, at which stage, you
will recall, athletics, having been removed from Wembley, was
brought back in by way of a design option through a platform.
Then, due to circumstances beyond my control, I left the Wembley
project again in March of last year and what the arrangements
are that exist now between Sport England and the Football Association
and the use of a stadium for athletics are not clear to me.
Derek Wyatt
193. Forgive me for going over some older ground,
but I thought the whole basis of when Chris Smith announced Wembley
in that magnificent presentation was that there had been an intervention
by the British Olympic Association to ensure that this could be
the foundation of an Olympic bid. We heard this morning the Sports
Minister say that you could not get the track in for practice,
that there is not enough accommodation and that the transport
is terrible, but I think we have known that for a long time, so
are you saying that the BOA has changed its mind?
(Sir Rodney Walker) My understanding is, you are quite
right, that there was a point when the British Olympic Association
said that a stadium that could not provide 80,000 seats and an
athletics track would be inadequate for an Olympic bid. I think
subsequently the IOC have made it clear that is not any longer
a consideration and that a stadium with smaller capacity would
suffice. I think Roger from Sport England, who now have ownership
or always have had ownership of this perhaps, ought to be afforded
the opportunity to bring you up to date.
(Mr Draper) I think the first thing to say is that
Wembley does have the capability not only to be the centrepiece
of the Olympic Games, but also the track and field athletics events.
194. It will not be. They told us that it will
not be. They told us that the opening ceremony would be in the
new stadium and that all Wembley will do is football and a bit
of equestrian.
(Mr Draper) I think the Chief Executive of Wembley
National Stadium has in fact written to the Committee actually
outlining their thoughts in terms of offering the stadium for
not just athletics, but also for being the centrepiece of the
Olympic stadium. Now, obviously it is down to the Olympic Bid
Committee to make that decision. I think it is a wider issue than
just the stadium itself. It is linked with infrastructure, it
is linked with regeneration and it is linked with transport, hence
the rationale behind the East London site.
Chairman
195. Mr Draper, I realise that you come before
us absolutely pure. You are not implicated in any of this whatsoever.
That being so, you have the advantage of being able to be absolutely
open with us because you are not involved in any personal confession
of any kind. We have done, how many, Derek, three inquiries, maybe
more, five, I have lost track, into Wembley Stadium. The view
of this Committee from day one was clear, on the basis that Sport
England gave £120 million to the FA/WNSL so that it could
be dual use and available for the Olympic Games of 2012. In view
of the fact that we were told yesterday that if we were to get
the 2012 Olympic Games only football would take place there, what
have we been going on about at Wembley for all of these years?
I really would like to know. I would like to get it out of my
mind and think about something else, but it keeps coming back.
(Mr Draper) You are quite correct in fact, that in
the bid document football and the final of the football event
is to be held at Wembley, but the fact is that Wembley has got
the capability to host international athletics and also, if necessary,
be the centrepiece of an Olympic bid. Now the Olympic Bid Committee
have chosen another site, but it is actually written into the
agreement with Wembley Stadium that it should host Olympic events.
196. Well, Mr Draper, in that case, let me ask
you this question: does London need two athletics stadia? If London
does not need two athletics stadia and will have one in the dual-use
Wembley, what would happen, what should happen to this projected
stadium to be built in the East End once its function of housing
the Olympics for a few days nine and a half years from now is
over?
(Mr Draper) Again it comes down to the legacy which
Mr Sumray outlined earlier on today. You are quite right that
there is not the necessity to have a permanent athletics stadium
in London. There is no sustainability with that route whatsoever,
but what we have learnt, and lessons of course have been learnt
from Wembley and Picketts Lock and other events, mistakes have
been made, is that the big issue with Manchester was this legacy
and the anchor tenant. Obviously if a Premiership football club
were to take on the stadium, then that would be the most viable
option in terms of the future of the stadium and the legacy.
Derek Wyatt
197. No board of directors of any Premier League
club, even West Ham given its position, could risk its shareholder
value now for something in 2012 where it may or may not be a Premiership
club, so the anchor tenant is a rubbish argument. No one is going
to commit. No professional organisation is ever going to say,
"Until 2010, okay, we'll go for it". Do you agree with
that?
(Mr Draper) Obviously that is down to negotiations
with individual clubs. I think the key thing with any stadium
is that it is open to the community. The one lesson we learned
with Manchester was that with the City of Manchester stadium it
is built into the agreement that there is 100 days of community
use for that stadium and also that profits over 32,500 capacity
crowd go back to—
Derek Wyatt: If you were the Spurs board
of directors now you would look at Wembley. You would not wait
for 2012. You would want to build your own stadium: shareholder
value.
Chairman: What is community use? Our
stadium for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, a beautiful
stadium, is much smaller and is going to be taken over after conversion
by Manchester City Football Club which is currently climbing steadily
up the Premier League and will soon overtake Arsenal.
Derek Wyatt: You wish!
Chairman
198. It is axiomatic, Derek. But if Manchester
City Football Club were not taking over that Commonwealth Games
stadium what would it be used for? What community use would anybody
in Manchester have for a structure that large except that the
stadium projected for East London will be very much larger than
the one in Eastlands in Manchester because it would be constructed
for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games and
therefore need to accommodate 80,000. What community use or what
legacy would it be there for? I would really like to know and
you are the appropriate body to ask because somehow or other I
think you are going to be dragged into it.
(Mr Fytche) The issues you are outlining, Mr Chairman,
are exactly the right issues. It is about viability. It is about
legacy and the Arup report sets out two broad options for the
stadium and clearly those challenges, as Mr Winterbottom said
earlier, are ones that are still to be faced. If the bid were
to go forward then clearly issues about legacy, sustainability,
the centrepiece for every generation project within that part
of London would have to be satisfactorily answered. I am sure
those are the questions that are exercising minds at the moment
in terms of the decision that has to be taken at the end of January
and the scoping of works beyond that should the bid move forward.
Derek Wyatt
199. I have a small suggestion and that is that
you ask Spurs or West Ham or somebody to actually take on the
legacy now and get building in two years' time for the stadium
that would then be there ready and waiting, because I cannot see
how else you will get the legacy that you want. Listen: we want
to talk about the Olympic bid as well.
(Sir Rodney Walker) I think it is worth reminding
ourselves so that we do not get into rewriting history that the
Sport England decision to grant the initial £112 million
to Manchester was conditional upon the stadium having an anchor
tenant before the money was spent.
|
