| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, speaking as he does with vast experience of these matters over many years. There is nothing in his contribution to which I could possibly take exception. I know that we are looking into all the matters which he raised. We do not believe that this is an easy operation. The Statement did not say that it was and no one can pretend that it will be. We must take into account the historical precedents. At the same time, it is gratifying, as the noble and learned Lord said, that we have such widespread support for what we are doing here because it is clearly the right thing to do.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my thanks too for the Statement which he has repeated and the positive decision that has been taken? Does he not agree that it is crucial that one of the very few countries (which the United Kingdom is) which can quickly deploy forces in peace operations should step forward on an occasion like this? There are not many countries around the world which can do that and if they all stand back and ask each other to do it, such operations will not be performed properly.
Will the noble Lord say something about steps which could be taken through the broadcasting, radio and television media in the vernacular languages to explain the purposes of this mission and to ensure that the people of Afghanistan know that the troops are coming there to help them to get themselves on their feet again? There have been really serious shortcomings in a number of peace operations in recent years when a lot of disinformation has been put around by people who have a vested interest in giving the impression that people are coming in to dominate them, to be colonial and so on. Therefore, it is extremely important that that dimension of this operation should be taken in hand.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, speaks with great experience of these matters. I am grateful for his comments. He is right to say that there are few countries in the world that can take the lead in a matter such as we are discussing. Dare I say from the Dispatch Box that perhaps no other country could do it as well as we can? As regards the media, the
noble Lord will recall from the debate the other day that praise was heaped on the BBC World Service for the part that it has already played. It was suggested that in the next spending review it should be rewarded handsomely for what it has done and continues to do. Although I do not have a direct answer on that point and nothing fresh to add, it is an important consideration. I shall make sure that it is appreciated by those who take the relevant decisions.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out of the 1,500 British troops sent to Kabul too many will not be dispersed to police, staff and other duties and that a force which will be an influence of good for the Government will be kept intact?
Lord Bach: My Lords, so far as I can, I give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. It is not for me to say how that will work operationally on the ground. If he is concerned about the security of our forces, he can rest assured that their protection is our first consideration.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in supporting strongly the expressions of goodwill for our forces who now have to undertake an exceptionally difficult and dangerous task, not made easier by the singularly untidy nature of the present deployment. I do not criticise the Government for that; it probably could not be otherwise. However, it is exceptionally difficult for the forces going out.
The impression has grown—not, I think, due to the Minister—that somehow the military technical agreement is guaranteed to be signed on 22nd December when the authority will formally take office. The Minister has not said so, but the Statement makes clear that General McColl will continue discussions in a few days' time in the hope of reaching a satisfactory agreement. That emphasises how untidy the position is.
The Minister will be aware that there is some contrast between the Statement and the letter that the Foreign Secretary sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the term of deployment. The Statement says that after three months we shall hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. The letter asks the Secretary General to support efforts to identify a successor lead nation by asking member states to consider urgently the possibility of taking over. Perhaps that matter has already been agreed.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly paid tribute to the quality of our forces and our command. I refer not merely to their speed of deployment but also to the capability that they bring to the command and control role. For reasons of propriety some countries are obviously not suitable to take over that job in Afghanistan at the present time. Other countries do not have the capacity to do so. There is a limited number of countries which can take over the role. We have been good at getting in
but I have the gravest misgivings as to whether we shall be able to withdraw from that command and control role as early as the Government suggest.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and questions. He is right to comment on the difficulty of the enterprise. However, it is certainly our intention that three months from when the force becomes operational we shall give up our lead nation status. As regards the military technical agreement, I remind the noble Lord of what the Statement says. If I have given a false impression in answering questions, I retract that. The Statement says:
- "These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed Military Technical Agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established".
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well past the 20 minutes point at this stage. I realise that this is an extremely important Statement but there is another one due immediately.
National Stadium
6.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to report in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Answer is as follows:
-
"I welcome the opportunity to make a Statement informing the House of the state of progress in the Government's discussions with the Football Association on the national stadium.
"I have today published the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English national stadium. I should like to place on record my gratitude to Patrick Carter and the rest of the review team for their considerable efforts over the past six months and for the co-operation which they have received from the Football Association, Sport England and others putting forward proposals for the stadium.
"His key recommendations are as follows. The only way forward is to invite the promoters of the World Stadium Team proposals—based on a modified version of the Foster design—to present final proposals which contain fully committed funding, final design, cost and procurement details. Should those proposals not be delivered within a reasonable timescale, Birmingham should be actively considered.
"No commitments should be made by any party until such time as final agreements have been reached as regards funding and procurement. The Government must be satisfied that all aspects of the stadium's procurement meet government standards of propriety and regularity.
"Patrick Carter's report recognises that the leadership of this project must rest with the FA whose final decision it will be on what stadium to build and where. Its preference, on grounds of the greater return which it will make for its investment, is to go ahead with a modified version of the Foster design stadium at Wembley. It has accepted that should that fail, the strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward. At the same time it accepts, as do the Government, that it remains a possible outcome that no national stadium at all will be developed.
"As the FA has made clear, it does not believe that this project can move forward without government support. But any further financial support is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium infrastructure costs and the Government's interest is also to protect the £120 million of lottery money already invested.
"There is a great deal of work to be done before there can be a final decision on the national stadium. A timetable for that must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. Patrick Carter's report describes the many uncertainties which need to be resolved. Any government support for infrastructure would not be committed until all those uncertainties were dealt with. I must also alert the House to issues concerning the proposed procurement at Wembley which will need to be fully dealt with as part of this work.
"The House will be aware that I had intended to make an announcement on Monday 17th December about the national stadium. I should explain the reasons for the delay. It came to my attention at the end of November that concerns had been expressed that Wembley National Stadium Limited had not adhered to best procurement practices or corporate government arrangements in relation to the new Wembley stadium. I was told that those complaints did not involve suggestion of any fraud taking place but implied a lack of transparency in part of the process and a failure to deal properly with actual or potential conflicts of interest. I was told that an investigation into the complaints was under way for Wembley National Stadium Limited and that a report was expected any day.
"On 13th December I asked about progress with this report and was given oral assurances that there was no identified impropriety but that the chairman of Wembley National Stadium Limited would contact my permanent secretary the next day.
"Officials discussed the report in draft on Sunday 16th December with the FA, Wembley National Stadium Limited and its authors and asked that the report be finalised and made available to the
- Government for our consideration before the Government made any decision on going forward with the national stadium project.
"A final version of the report was received yesterday. I have suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make it available to the public. I have also asked that they make the report available to the National Audit Office.
"The final report confirms that there have been a number of serious concerns. WNSL has today made a statement outlining the principle conclusions of the report and I quote:
'no evidence whatever had been found of any criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process; the report was critical of the procurement process up to September 2000 and recommended specific steps to be taken by WNSL for the close monitoring of the project going forward; the review addressed issues relating to value for money but found that there was a sustainable argument that best value today was likely to result by enabling WNSL to proceed through Multiplex to build a new National Stadium; the report recommended WNSL to review certain aspects of corporate governance'.
-
"Patrick Carter has alluded to these concerns in the covering letter to his report in which he recommends that I satisfy myself,
'as to the achievement of Government value for money in procurement standards and any associated accounting issues'.
-
"I have said to the FA and WNSL that should they continue with the Multiplex contract they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money which it represents and to ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements hereafter represent best practice before the Government will proceed with any further support to the project, financial, moral or otherwise.
"There are in essence four points that must now be addressed by the FA and WNSL. They are these. First, an independent value for money assessment needs to be commissioned into the proposed contracts with Multiplex, conducted by an appropriate company with no previous or likely future involvement in the project.
"Secondly, I will ask WNSL to ensure that the papers relating to the matter are made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide whether he wishes to look into this matter further.
"Thirdly, confirmation will be sought that corporate governance changes will be completed to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector.
"Fourthly, confirmation will be sought that the financial support is adequate and fully committed after taking into account all relevant factors in a process of 'due diligence'.
"Finally, I would like to explain the position with regard to athletics. Sport England and the FA will look at this during the next stage of discussions. Sport England believes that a different platform
- solution can be developed more cheaply and without the disruption associated with the original proposals.
"I will be asking Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of the proposals to ensure that they meet in full UK athletics and IAAF technical criteria. I have also asked them to prepare a proper cost benefit analysis which compares the new proposals with those made in 1999.
"In short, the Government will work with the FA to resolve these issues. The end result we all want is a national stadium. But the four fundamental points must be addressed first. Then we will have a national stadium we can all be proud of".
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in another place by her right honourable friend in response to a Private Notice Question tabled by my right honourable friend Tim Yeo.
This is a serious matter. The Government seem now to distance themselves from decisions about Wembley. They talk about working with the FA but say that a decision about whether there is a national stadium and where it is built is for the FA and the FA alone. That is a somewhat different measure.
The Government seem to have a short memory. They seem to have forgotten that the Prime Minister made the following commitment after previous failures with the Wembley project. At col. 841 of the Official Report of another place of 2nd May 2001, the Prime Minister said that,
- "we must now sit down and work out a way through [the problem] so that we have a proper national stadium".
My questions are as follows. The Government sound as though they have set a deadline for the final proposals to be put forward by the World Stadium Team. Or have they? The Minister quotes the Carter report's recommendation that Birmingham should be actively considered if the World Stadium Team is unable to present its final proposals within a reasonable timescale. What is "reasonable"?
The Minister says that a timetable must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. That is quite right; I welcome it. But what is that timetable? If we are not told now, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be unreasonable to expect the main players to work on without being given a steer as to the timetable.
The Minister says that further financial support for the project is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium costs. What are those costs? Has a ceiling been set by the Government? If so, on what basis? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no more public money will be committed to this project until the contracts are finalised?
The Minister says that the Government's interest is to protect the £120 million of lottery players' money—the public's money. I welcome that commitment. But how will the Government protect that money? Why should the FA continue to hold on to those funds when we still have no commitment about the position of athletics at Wembley? The noble Baroness will recall that the lottery grant was made in the first place only on the basis that athletics, alongside rugby, would have a home at Wembley—a home suitable for world class events. Will the FA hand back at least £20 million of the lottery grant until we find out whether athletics will be given more than a token presence at the national stadium—if there is one?
Noble Lords will be as disturbed today as I was to hear the Minister's statement about the failure by Wembley National Stadium Limited to adhere to best procurement practices or indeed to corporate government arrangements. I am relieved to learn that there is no evidence as to criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process. That is indeed an important matter.
However, is the Minister aware that the revelation today of this failure by the company to adhere to proper standards will do little to encourage investment in such a project? Will she accept that it is not enough for those involved in this nationally important project to be honest? They have to be competent too. The Minister says that she has suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make the report available to the public. What was their response to the suggestion?
I welcome the Minister's insistence that the FA and WNSL should commission an independent assessment of the value for money issue. That is a practical and proper way forward. Will that independent report be available to the public? The tail end of the Statement refers briefly to the vexed issue of the status of athletics at Wembley or Birmingham. Last night Members of this House were led by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in a debate on the future of athletics. The Government will have been left in no doubt of the importance which noble Lords attach to the need to ensure that athletics has a venue for international events.
In another place the Secretary of State said today in answer to a question that Wembley must be an "athletics capable stadium". I found that a curious description. How does the Minister define that—capable of doing what? What guarantee do we have that the athletics facilities at Wembley will be such that we can make a proper bid in future for the World Championships or athletics events of similar international stature?
I began by saying that it is a serious matter. Indeed it is. It is a matter of national interest and national pride. It is vital for the future of our sporting reputation, but particularly for the future hopes and dreams of our sportsmen and sportswomen, that the right solution is found soon.
6.40 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question of Mr Tim Yeo in the other place.
The noble Baroness read out the Answer confidently and clearly, as one would expect. However, the tone of the Statement does not reflect the confidence with which she delivered it. Rather, it is as though one had taken a number of close friends to a restaurant for an important occasion and the maitre d'hotel had said, "Your meal will not be delayed for very long. We will soon put out the fire in the kitchen". This has been a stop and go year—mostly stop—which has resulted in a fairly big mess. I do not believe that the Statement today will reassure many of those who have closely followed these events.
On behalf of these Benches, I have previously said that the argument about whether or not we should have a national stadium was not properly exercised by the Government. If we were to have a national stadium, surely the Government should have taken the leading role in ensuring that a national stadium project was carried out. Instead, the Government passed the buck to the Football Association, which was willing to take the lead on what we call a national stadium but was unable to do so. It was unable to raise the money in the city. Mr Ken Bates was unable to raise the £40 million or £50 million required. In due course he retired and was replaced by his successor, Sir Rodney Walker. Sir Rodney Walker also met with difficulties in raising the money. More significant was the Football Association's failure to persuade the Government—the Government were right to stand firm on this point—to fund £300 million of the estimated cost of this project. At a later stage, of course, they produced half that amount.
It seems that we now have a patching-up exercise. I shall not be so rude as to suggest, as some newspapers have, that it is a face-saving exercise. However, I believe that the Government and the Football Association have got themselves into a fair mess over this matter, and I am not sanguine about them getting out of it. If I represented a large organisation faced with the prospect of being sold this bill of goods, I do not believe that I would be confident about supporting it. That is because I do not think that it will happen. I believe that we shall again face the same problems in terms of raising the money.
We now have a contractor in place. There is a very interesting article in today's Guardian—noble Lords may not consider articles in the Guardian to be interesting, but they are from time to time—which refers to the difficulties of the Australian company, Multiplex. I do not believe everything that I read in
newspapers—in fact, I rather like their slogan, "Well built Australian"—but some fairly Les Patterson-type remarks were made by the chairman of that company, who, when asked whether the stadium would be finished in time for the FA Cup final in 2005, replied, "You can come and thump me if it isn't". I like that kind of direct speaking, but it does not exactly fit with the kind of tone that we expect for a national stadium. He also admitted that he has not the slightest interest in football. He said, "I haven't got a bloody clue about the offside rule", which does not inspire much confidence.On a more serious note, we must begin to find answers to a number of questions. In my view, the question of the £120 million of lottery money has been tagged on to the Statement as a kind of appendix. Because we all read the newspapers, we know that the National Audit Office is taking a very close interest in what happened to the £120 million. Is that the reason for so many delays in recent weeks? Is that the reason the Government and the FA, apart from deciding what kind of bidding practices should be employed in the competition between Birmingham and Wembley, found themselves in difficulties?
On the subject of Wembley, as a very frequent visitor over the years, I can say that the traffic congestion is a nightmare. It was a nightmare in the 1960s, when I used to watch boxing matches there. Now it is a real nightmare. With the best will in the world, the £17 million or so that the Mayor, Mr Ken Livingstone, suggests he will contribute to improving the road access to Wembley will not be enough. In addition, we read that IMG has been awarded the contract to run the corporate side of what is called the national stadium, which apparently will raise revenue of £30 million per year. I shall believe that when I see it.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether what we are talking about is a national football stadium, not a national stadium. I am, and always have been, in favour of a national stadium located in London. However, with the crowds that it will attract, especially if corporate entertaining becomes a reality, a national football stadium will require an enormous road infrastructure around it, which will cost well in excess of £17 million.
In my opinion, we are talking about a national football stadium, not about athletics or any other sport. A national stadium is a national enterprise, for use not only for football, our national game, but also for other large sporting events, such as athletics. God forbid that we should have an event such as that in the United States when a memorial was held in a stadium for the terrible disaster that took place there. We need something of that standing—a national monument, which advertises to the rest of the world our confidence to have a national stadium. That will not happen. If this proposal goes ahead, we shall have a national football stadium, probably in the wrong place. I believe that a national football stadium should probably be in Birmingham. I am a betting man and prepared to bet that at the end of the day we shall have a national football stadium in Birmingham, but that in
the interim period we shall see a lot of money go down the drain, in addition to the £50 million that has already gone.Because I speak on these DCMS matters, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would address my concern about the £120 million that has already been passed to the Football Association. How do the Government propose to recover that money? On what has it been spent? How long will the National Audit Office take to report back on that matter? Are the Government prepared to move before the National Audit Office provides us with full details relating to the spending of the £120 million? Those are a few of my questions. I could continue asking questions all night but I do not intend to do so. In conclusion—let us not mince words—will the Minister kindly confirm that this is a national football stadium, not a national stadium?
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I start by responding to the last point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I cannot confirm that this will be a national football stadium, because it will not be. The noble Viscount has completely forgotten that it will be a stadium for rugby league, a very important sport at least in some parts of the country, if not in those parts where the noble Viscount spends his time. Moreover, the future of athletics in the stadium is still open, as the Statement made clear.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Government have made it clear that it is for the Football Association to take the project forward and that the Government's role is to act as a facilitator.
The noble Baroness asked why my right honourable friend Chris Smith, the previous Secretary of State, decided to pull the plug on athletics. The answer is that the scheme that was proposed at that time was not viable. It would have cost £40 million to include an athletics platform in the proposed design. It would take six months to remove the platform in order to restore the stadium for other sports and six months to put it back again. That scheme clearly did not make much sense.
The noble Baroness asked about timetables and deadlines. Several complex issues still have to be resolved in that regard. In the end, it is for the FA to come up with a timetable, and I have every expectation that it will do so quite soon.
The noble Baroness also asked about further government funding and whether there was a ceiling on further government contributions. The answer is "yes". The Government have today stated that they will put a further £20 million into the project for infrastructural development—for non-stadium spending. That has to be subject to the assurances that the Government want—they were set out in the Statement—before agreeing that the present project should go forward.
The noble Baroness wanted to know whether the FA was going to hand back the £20 million if athletics was not going to go forward. The answer is a clear
"yes". The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked what had happened to the original £120 million. Of that sum, £106 million was spent by the FA on purchasing the freehold of Wembley, which it did not previously own, and £14 million was spent on design work for the new stadium. The £20 million is not, as it were, being handed back as unspent money; it is being provided by the FA voluntarily if it does not have to continue with athletics at the stadium. I hope that I have clearly explained the position.The noble Baroness also asked about the publication of the report by WNSL. We have not yet had a response from WNSL about that, but the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that she believes that it should be published. However, it is not the Government's report and the matter is obviously for WNSL, which commissioned the report.
Athletics is a matter of great interest to the House, as was witnessed in our debate on an Unstarred Question last night, which was responded to by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. It is important for Sport England to carry out a full technical assessment of the feasibility of including athletics and to ensure that UK athletics and the international federation are completely satisfied with any proposals that might be pursued. We have to have an arrangement that is feasible and which makes sense. These are highly technical questions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, also asked about Multiplex. He said that he does not believe everything that he reads in the papers; neither do I. And I am afraid that I am not an expert on the offside rule, either. However, I am not sure how far being an expert on the offside rule is a significant and important qualification in relation to the contract that Multiplex might be taking on in building the stadium.
The noble Viscount also discussed the traffic and infrastructure around Wembley. The Government entirely accept that it is important that we have proper access to the stadium and that there should be good transport links to and from it. The noble Viscount was perhaps putting too much emphasis on the roads; it is equally important to have proper rail and Tube connections to Wembley. For that reason, some extra funding is being provided by the Government—it was announced today—to go towards infrastructural costs. Other partners, besides the Mayor, are involved, including Brent and other interests.
I believe that I have answered all of the questions. If some remain unanswered, I shall write to the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page