HC Deb 29 June 1998 vol 315 cc123-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

10.14 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

By this time tomorrow evening, we shall know the fate of the England football team, which will be playing Argentina. I am sure that all hon. Members wish the team good luck. We have all been captivated by the excitement of the world cup and the skills on display; similarly, we all recognise its beneficial impact on the economy of the host country. That is why we all look forward to England winning the bid to host the world cup in 2006.

Tonight's debate is about the future of Wembley stadium, the spiritual home of football. Those of us who have played there or been supporters there would be happy to see it redeveloped, but the reason for this debate is that a number of colleagues and I are concerned that the redevelopment is not taking place as smoothly as it might. We are worried about the speed at which the stadium is to be redeveloped.

In April 1995, a competition was held to evaluate proposals for a national stadium, which was to accommodate football, athletics and rugby. Over a six-month period, five bids, including one from Bradford, were considered. The feeling at the time was that the process was a bit of a sham, because everyone knew that Wembley needed redeveloping. Many of us argued that there should be two national stadiums, one in the north and the other in the south at Wembley, to complement redevelopments at Hampden park, Murrayfield and Cardiff.

History shows that Wembley was selected and that the other bids, although credible, all failed. The feedback, limited though it was, implied that the Bradford bid was too commercial—but Bradford's case was very strong. Bradford can be accessed by 10 million people in an hour and by 20 million in two hours. Two international airports are within an hour's drive, and the Euro-ports on the Humber and the west coast ports are all within two hours' travelling time. I hope that the door will not be closed on a stadium of the north—I hope that it will be actively considered.

We all want Wembley to be redeveloped and wish the English National Stadium Trust well in its endeavours. However, owing to a combination of events, I understand that progress is slow and unconvincing. Of the £140 million available, £103 million will have to go Wembley plc for the sale of the leasehold. Wembley plc is making a great deal of money out of Wembley stadium; many of the supporters who go there are from the north. The sale needs to be completed quickly and contracts need to be exchanged.

The Sports Council, which is also a partner, intends to hold a golden share to prevent the stadium from being sold on for future housing development, and so on. The Football Association is embroiled in complex issues such as covenants for games at Wembley for the next 20 years, and raising £200 million to spend on the stadium. The trust will hold the freehold, and the lease will be handed to the FA at £1, for 125 years. As planning permission is required, a start must be made on all the grand plans within the next 12 months to meet the deadlines.

Brent council has worked well with the trust, requiring social amenities under a section 106 planning agreement, at a cost of more than £45 million; but the trust is not a commercial operation and money needs to be found to ensure progress soon. There is a lot of good will among the parties involved, but it needs to be turned into meaningful action. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide both leadership and answers to the outstanding questions.

One such question is: will buying the freehold from the current owners leave the trust with enough funds to complete the redevelopment? Another is: will the issues surrounding the section 106 agreement be resolved? Will the funding from other sources be available? Has the contract between the Sports Council and the trust been signed? And what is to stop Wembley plc entering a deal with Arsenal football club? I hope for answers to all those questions; I also hope that the viability of a stadium in the north will be considered.

There will be a development in Bradford and, if the £140 million had been available at the time, I am sure that our stadium would have been in place. We are seeing developments in Manchester and Sheffield and investment in many of the football and rugby grounds in the north, but we can develop and sustain two national stadiums. I hope that we have the opportunity to host the world cup in 2006 in stadiums that are equivalent to, if not better than, those in France. I am sure that my hon. Friends will talk about the impact on their communities and the need for Wembley to be redeveloped as quickly as possible.

10.19 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing the debate, which is one for which I, too, have been petitioning the Speaker's Office for many months. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me some minutes from his own allocation to speak as one of the local Members of Parliament. I hope to be able to repay his generosity in kind in future.

The basic business structure of the national stadium is becoming clear: the FA will raise £200 million and the Sports Council will put in £120 million; the English National Stadium Trust will hold the freehold of the stadium and its narrow curtilage; but Devco, the development company currently owned by the trust, will be transferred to the FA. Devco will have a board ultimately comprised of 12 people: seven will be FA appointments by right, and five will be transferred across out of the trustees of the ENST, who are 10 in number. It is Devco which will ultimately be responsible for the emergence of the new stadium and for its continued operation, because it is Devco which will have the 125-year lease on the site. That is why the composition of the 12-man board is so critical.

Under the guidance of Ken Bates, the board will no doubt have a strong chair, if not one who will always score the highest marks for tact and charm—at Chelsea, Ken Bates has certainly proved that he can get things done. However, if Wembley is to be a national stadium and not just the FA's stadium, it is vital that the seven FA representatives on Devco's board are balanced by the five transferring trustees from the ENST. Yet, of the 10 trustees of the ENST, five were nominated by the FA in the first place. I believe that a monumental fix is about to take place, where 11 of the 12 members of the board of Devco are either directly or indirectly nominated by the FA. I look to the Minister to ensure that that does not happen.

I have here a copy of a letter from the FA to the English Sports Council, which sets out what the FA calls the position following recent meetings with The Sports Council and The English National Stadium Trust". The letter states: In particular:

  1. 1. The English Sports Council has grant-aided to The English National Stadium Trust £120 million.
  2. 2. The English National Stadium Trust will buy the business of Wembley Stadium Ltd. for an amount not to exceed £103 million subject to due diligence. Completion will be no later than June 1999. This is not conditional on either planning or funding being in place… Grant aid shall be used to meet the professional fees and architect fees in the design phase of the project. Neither The Football Association nor the development company shall be responsible for any costs in relation to any infrastructure improvements and/or section 106 agreements."
What concerns me is the way in which the FA appears to believe that it is possible to create an 80,000-seater national stadium without worrying about things like public transport infrastructure, new roads, or other environmental improvements, which will be vital to that stadium's success.

Of Wembley's visitors, 55 per cent. arrive via Wembley Park underground station. It is a dilapidated, urine-stained, outdated station, which has no proper crowd-management facilities to meet the requirements of a world cup bid. In response to a written question tabled last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport today wrote to me as follows: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a Public/Private Partnership for London Underground and an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over the next two years, LT and the Government have been considering together what additional investment projects should go ahead in the next two years. London Underground has proposals for a comprehensive redevelopment of Wembley Park Station, including improved platforms, Canopies, Ticket hall, Staircase and walkway. Subject to that review, and securing substantial contributions from outside parties, London Underground has indicated that construction of the Wembley Park Station redevelopment could start in 1999/2000. The Minister referred to substantial contributions from outside parties. These are, of course, usually achieved through the very section 106 agreements that the FA letter scorns.

Major questions of public confidence must be answered. First, will any conditions be placed on the Sports Council grant to protect the £120 million of lottery money? Secondly, what controls will there be over the future use and operation of the stadium? Thirdly, who will approve the contract between the Sports Council and the FA, and can the Minister assure us that that will be done at the highest ministerial level?

If the stadium is to be a national stadium, it is right that the nation should be proud of it and have a stake in it. At the moment, Wembley is set in the midst of a car park, surrounded by derelict and semi-derelict warehouses and flanked by a rundown industrial estate. I urge the Government to announce that they will invest in the regeneration of the surrounding area. If they do not, the new Wembley stadium may become a jewel set in the midst of dereliction. I urge the Minister to see the wider vision for the future of Wembley and the people around it, whom I represent.

10.25 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing this Adjournment debate. I want to make two brief comments.

First, I share my hon. Friend's view about the importance of the speedy redevelopment of Wembley as the national stadium. Wembley has an enormous impact on the economy of the surrounding area and supports many service jobs in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). Harrow town centre is extremely close to Wembley stadium—which many of my constituents enjoy and where many of them work—and depends in part on the resources brought to the area by those visiting the stadium. I seek the same assurances as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that the development of Wembley will be completed speedily and effectively.

Secondly, a modernised national stadium will clearly be crucial to the success not only of our 2006 world cup bid, but of our London Olympic bid for 2012. While Wembley is the centrepiece of our national game—it is the home of football—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can offer reassurance that its redevelopment will ensure that it is modernised and capable of being the centrepiece also for an Olympic bid.

10.27 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing this debate, and I welcome the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). I share their aspirations and, perhaps, some of their concerns.

I simply do not have the answers to some of my hon. Friends' questions, and I shall not flannel my way around them. I shall examine them and give considered responses, because they are serious questions and merit good and proper answers. The construction of a national stadium is crucial. This might be the last comment that I ever make at the Dispatch Box, but there are times when one has to admire the way that the French secured their national stadium. They went straight out and did it, as they did with their fast rail link for the channel tunnel. They do not muck about and go around with begging bowls asking people whether they would throw in a few coins. I rather like that approach.

Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

Much as I admire the French, there is a 10-year debt on the stadium in Paris, which we would not want to carry.

Mr. Banks

There is always a down side, which is why we shall not approach matters as the French have done. However, there are times when I admire the French approach.

The construction of Wembley is crucial to all the matters that have been raised. Wembley was selected as the preferred bid for the national stadium following a two-stage selection process. At stage one, three bids were rejected. The Sheffield bid proposed two stadiums on one site and did not comply, while Birmingham's bid involved a site in the green belt which did not have planning consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred to the Bradford bid. These are old issues, but it is worth putting the facts on the record. I know that the English Sports Council was impressed with Bradford's proposals. The concept had strong local support and there was genuine enthusiasm for the new ideas. However, the Bradford bid was eventually rejected on the ground of transportation. It would have required substantial investment to provide the necessary public transport and road access.

At stage two, Wembley was preferred to the competing bid from Manchester. It had significant access advantages, given the existing transport infrastructure. However, both sites were successful in attracting funding. Investment was promised to Wembley as the site for the new national stadium and to Manchester for the 2002 Commonwealth games.

It would be unreasonable to expect that there would not be difficulties with Wembley. We knew that there would be difficulties, and there are difficulties, in trying to plan a project of this size. There are difficult negotiations still to overcome. However, the English Sports Council's objectives remain clear—to build a world-class stadium within an appropriate setting; to provide 80,000 seats with appropriate public access; to secure benefits for the development of sport from the project; to provide a stadium for the three sports of football, rugby league and athletics; to ensure that the stadium can be developed with a maximum grant from the lottery of £120 million; to ensure that the project is completed by 2002; and, finally, to ensure that the project meets the English Sports Council lottery sports fund eligibility criteria, including viability and quality.

To ensure the last of those objectives, the English Sports Council is, naturally, keeping a close watch on the costs of the project. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that, for a variety of commercial confidentiality reasons, I am unable to provide a detailed breakdown of the total costs, now estimated at about £320 million. However, as it currently stands, the rough breakdown is £103 million for the purchase of the site and £217 million for demolition, construction, planning and design. Some £120 million will come from the lottery, with the rest being made up of debt financing via the FA. That is one of the problems; it is a national stadium, but the FA—I am not here as an apologist for it—is being required to find £200 million. Consequently, it will not be just Ken Bates who will give me grievous bodily harm of the ear; it will be the FA generally. As it will have to borrow that £200 million against the income that the trust will receive through England games, it will want a large say in what happens. We can hardly blame it for demanding that.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, is worried about the nominations from the FA, which are very unrepresentative of football. All the nominations bar one come from the premier league teams. The one that did not was made only because it involved the chairman of the football league, who happened to represent a town that very nearly got into the premier league. If it is to be a truly national stadium, it is worrying that only a minority section of football will command its management.

Mr. Banks

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that when Hansard is read by the FA, the trust and the others involved, those matters will be considered. I am not trying to tell my hon. Friend that I have detailed control over these events on a day-to-day basis. As I have said in the House, that is what the arm's-length principle is all about; we let other people get on with it. However, my hon. Friend has raised a good point, which the FA must take seriously.

I want to pick up on some other points. Devco must be representative of all the interests that will be involved in the redevelopment of Wembley. As I said, this is a national stadium, so we must consider Wembley in its wider context. It is not only about building a new national stadium, but about infrastructure investment. It is about the regeneration of the entire area. I feel ashamed going to Wembley and saying, "This is our national stadium at the moment." It might be a venerable institution, but it is long past its sell-by date. That is why we want to proceed with the demolition of the old Wembley after the cup final next year, and with the construction of the new Wembley by 2002. Some of those issues have yet to be resolved, because we need to consider the regeneration of the entire area.

Obviously, those matters are well beyond the remit of a humble Sports Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. I imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer—probably at this moment—being given a briefing on what I am saying about the likely cost implications for the Exchequer. Obviously, the Deputy Prime Minister will be involved because of the involvement of English Partnerships and the single regeneration budget, and the necessary development of the transport infrastructure. All those Departments and all those Ministers are involved. However, if—as I keep saying—it is to be a national stadium, we must get ourselves together to ensure that it works. We do not want a half-hearted effort that does not stand the test of time and does not give us the things that we want—the centrepiece of our bid for 2006 and, perhaps, the centrepiece for a future Olympic bid, if the British Olympic Association is prepared to submit it.

Does one regard the FA, putting in that £200 million as a developer for the purposes of section 106, as one would any other developer that exists to make a profit? I may be wrong, but I make a distinction between the FA as the major putter-up of the funds and borrowing £200 million, and someone who wants to develop for private company purposes and make a profit from that development. I believe that such developers must be expected to put a considerable amount back into the community for the profits that they take out of it. I do not quite see the FA in the same role as a large property developer in London.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

As the Minister is aware, in a former life I was involved in the establishment of the English National Stadium Trust. The question that is posed to him directly is: who protects the public interest in all this? In reality, this is the largest development that the Sports Council has ever been involved in, and, to a certain extent, I consider it not out of its depth, but certainly inadequate in the negotiations with a body such as the FA, because when one negotiates with the FA, one lies down with a tiger. The onus is on the Minister to protect the public interest. Although I accept his relatively hands-off approach, a more day-to-day overview is required to ensure that the public interest and the London interest are protected, especially with regard to the environment.

Mr. Banks

I agree with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that if I had not previously been convinced of that point, the serried ranks behind me would quickly have concentrated my mind on it. Of course the public interest must be protected. After all, £120 million not of Government money, but of public money, will be involved.

One needs to safeguard public money, but there is a—perhaps marginal—qualitative difference between lottery money and straightforward Exchequer grant money; in the latter case, there is an obvious, direct and deliberate connected ministerial responsibility. I have to follow—we all do, as this is lottery money—the arm's-length principle, but, if anything went wrong, Ministers would be held to account, you can bet your life on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, I do not want to get the sharp end of the stick poked in my eye at some future date; I want to ensure that things go smoothly.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that Sir Rodney Walker's involvement in the negotiations until now has convinced me that, whatever else one says, he is not the type of person one can easily walk over, either. Some pretty tough cookies are involved in the negotiations. I understand that absolute priority is given to preserving public funding while ensuring that this development goes ahead.

It is important that we ensure that there is proper regeneration of the entire area around Wembley stadium. I understand, of course, that Brent council is committed to making the new stadium a success, and is developing positive working relationships with all parties involved in bringing about a transformation of the stadium and areas around it.

Making Brent a priority area for the Greater London authority seems to be a development which we can look forward to. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North about London—as Wembley is the national stadium, it is, naturally, located in London. I say "naturally" because London is where people want to make such big investments. If such people come to the United Kingdom, they want to come to London. Speaking as a London Member rather than as a Minister, I think that that is right.

The recent White Paper contained proposals for new regional development agencies which, working in partnership with central and local government, businesses and other key regional interests, will bring greater coherence and a sharper regional focus to the public resources available to promote development and regeneration. Our plans for London differ from the national picture—reflecting the influence, importance and uniqueness of our capital city—and impact on the proposals for Wembley. As endorsed by Londoners, there will be a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, and any decisions on priorities for funding will eventually be for the mayor and the assembly to take.

I know that hon. Members are concerned about progress with Brent on the planning brief, and I am aware that there are difficult issues, which need careful consideration. That is why we have asked the Government office for London to chair a working group, to establish the principles of the planning application connected with the Wembley site. It will aim to facilitate agreement between the English National Stadium Trust development company and Brent. One of the specific issues on which it will focus is the best way of achieving an integrated public transport system.

I know that accessibility by public transport will be central to the new stadium's success. The public transport factor has been reflected in the focus of the Government office for London. We are also in regular discussion with transport operators, with a view to improving the three main stations serving the stadium and bus penetration into the Wembley complex.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North asked some specific questions about timetabling. I understand that, on 6 to 7 July, the English Sports Council will consider the grant application for the next phase—by which time all key agreements and project structures will be in place, and the feasibility studies on planning, funding and development issues will be concluded. I am therefore expecting that to happen in the next week.

In July 1998, contracts will be exchanged with Wembley for site acquisition. Also in July, design team appointments will be confirmed. In November to December, planning applications will be submitted. In April to May 1999, planning consents and the section 106 planning obligations agreement will be completed. In September 1999, secured partnership funding will be completed. Also in September, site work will start. The site work will be completed by the spring of 2002.

That is the timetable, although I expect that there will probably be some slippages in it. Such projects tend to happen that way. I expect also that there will be some movements on the budgeted figures. However. I come back to the original point: Wembley will be the national stadium. Therefore, there must be greater national involvement, particularly in determining the planning infrastructure context for Wembley.

It is important that we make a success of the project. I do not want it to turn into the equivalent of Blue Streak. Was it Blue Streak?

Mr. Wyatt

The opera house.

Mr. Banks

No, I think that the opera house is going quite well. I do not want it to turn into one of those great English disasters. It has to work. As hon. Members have said, a new Wembley is crucial to the United Kingdom securing the great international sporting events that the Government have pledged themselves to go for. It is necessary to support the British Olympic Association in a potential Olympic bid, and to secure the world cup in 2006.

Going back to the original point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, we are all hoping that tomorrow we shall see England secure a great victory over Argentina. I predict that the score will be 2–1, with Michael Owen scoring both our goals. Then we can move on to greater sporting success, with a new Wembley.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.