HL Deb 07 May 2002 vol 634 cc1031-43

5.19 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to a Private Notice Question in another place on Wembley Stadium.

"I explained to the House on 19th December that the Government were willing to support the Football Association's National Stadium project provided that the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd came forward with fully detailed and funded proposals within a reasonable timescale.

"In the light of the David James-Berwin Leighton Paisner report, I asked that they should address four points: first, to commission an independent valuefor-money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex; secondly, to make papers relating to the project available to the Comptroller and Auditor General; thirdly, to make corporate governance changes to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project with procedures acceptable to the public sector; and finally to confirm that financial support is adequate and fully committed. I also explained to the House that I had asked Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of new proposals for athletics in the stadium.

"Since 19th December, the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Limited have been working closely with stakeholders and banks to develop the stadium project at their preferred location—Wembley—and address the issues I have outlined. Significant progress has been made. Wembley National Stadium Limited carried out my request to make available to the Comptroller and Auditor General papers relating to the project.

"WNSL also commissioned Cyril Sweett Ltd—a company with no previous or known likely future involvement in the national stadium project—to undertake a value for money study. Cyril Sweett Ltd concludes that the Multiplex contracts do represent value for money. I have considered the report carefully and accept the conclusions. The full report necessarily contains much commercially sensitive information and cannot therefore be published. I have asked WNSL to commission a publishable summary, which I shall place in the Library of the House.

"WNSL has committed itself to meeting the required standards of corporate governance, and I am pleased to be able to say that significant improvements have been made. The WNSL board has been strengthened with experience in construction, finance and marketing. The new chairman, Michael Jeffries, has construction and project management experience. The Government remain in discussion with the FA, WNSL and the other stakeholders about these important issues. WNSL also invited the Office of Government Commerce to undertake a gateway review of the project which recommended that the project should proceed to contractual completion and that it was well managed and viable.

"Sport England has completed its athletics study, which has been prepared in close co-operation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association, UK Sport and the International Association of Athletics Federations. My predecessor rightly drew attention to the extremely long timescale and the exorbitant cost for the installation and removal of the original platform and the fact that there was no legacy for the sport from the project. I am pleased to report that the new design conforms to the standards required by the IAAF, is considerably quicker to install and remove and the costs associated with it have substantially reduced. I have asked Sport England to publish its study.

"The matter of a legacy for athletics is the subject of separate discussions involving my department, Sport England and UK Athletics. I hope that they will be concluded in the next two weeks.

"Finally, while much of the necessary work to secure the financing of the stadium project has been completed, the Football Association has requested more time to enable its current discussions to come to a conclusion. In the light of the progress the FA and WNSL have made in meeting the conditions I set out on 19th December, I have agreed to refrain from reaching my final decision on Government support for the national stadium project at Wembley at this point.

"I understand that that decision will be a disappointment to many people in the West Midlands and honourable Members for that region, but it would he quite wrong for the Government to withdraw their support at this crucial stage. The FA is closer than it has ever been to making Wembley the home of English football again. I do not believe that it would be right or reasonable to pull the plug on that project when the prospects of success look better than ever.

"Subject to the successful conclusion of the continuing discussions with FA and WNSL, to final confirmation that the financing is adequate and fully committed and to the terms of Patrick Carter's final report, the Government will be content to support the national stadium project at Wembley. My final decision will be taken only after full consultation with Sport England and in the light of Patrick Carter's final report.

"I fully recognise the public and parliamentary pressure to see an end to the process and to see the start of the construction of a world-class stadium. I will make a further statement to the House before the Whitsun Recess".

5.25 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place a short while ago.

It is nearly six years since Wembley closed its doors to sport and after £120 million of our lottery players' money was dedicated to building a national stadium there: we still do not have a decision. The Government told us, first, that the deadline would be 30th April, if all the conditions were met and that, if the conditions were not met, Birmingham would be given its chance. Today, the Minister has given the Government's excuses or reasons—whatever one wants to call them—for why that deadline should be abandoned. It is only right that the people of Birmingham should now be able to say whether they think those excuses are acceptable.

We must know the real deadline. The Minister concluded by saying that there would be a Statement before the Whit Recess. I note that another place goes off on holiday on 23rd May, somewhat earlier than your Lordships—I might say, "as ever", but I shall not. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that my noble friend Lord Glentoran has a Question down for Oral Answer for 20th May. Can we expect a Statement by that date—or on it?

The Minister referred to the fact that the Government set four tests last December. She said that the requirement for the value for money assessment had been met satisfactorily. I welcome that. She said that a summary would be placed in the Library. When will it hit the Library's shelves?

Secondly, she referred to the fact that WNSL was to make its papers available to the Comptroller and Auditor General and said that that had been done. However, the Minister did not refer to the second part of that condition. In the Statement, it was said that the Comptroller and Auditor General would decide whether he wished to examine the matter further. What happened about that? Has any such decision been taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General? The third issue is financial support. We are told that there is still much to do and that much of it is commercially confidential. That makes it difficult for Parliament properly to scrutinise the appropriateness of the process.

There were two parts to the requirements that the Government laid down with regard to athletics. First, there was to be a technical evaluation of the proposals for the facilities at Wembley. Secondly, a cost benefit analysis had to be prepared, comparing the new proposals with those made in 1999. We need more detail than the Minister gave us about the response on those matters. In December, I asked what the Government meant by saying that the new stadium should be athletics-compliant or athletics-capable, the two rather odd descriptions that the Government used. Again, I ask what level of competitive sport will the new stadium be capable of supporting. The Minister said that the new plans met IAAF standards. For what? The world championships? The Olympics? What are we getting for our money?

There are stories in the press that, despite the Government's worst efforts to exclude the Olympics from the stadium—or, after the Pickett's Lock fiasco, any kind of stadium—the plans may well accommodate an Olympics bid. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports? If the Government support an Olympics bid, does that mean that they have been able to resolve the problem of the lack of warm-up tracks? That would be a great problem if any championship of any standing were to take place there.

Secondly, does it mean that the Government have resolved the problems surrounding the seating capacity and the sight lines? The Minister referred to problems about the platform being resolved, saying that new plans may enable the platform to be raised for athletics and then taken down. Do we know what time-scale is now appropriate for that? How long will it take to erect and dismantle the new platform as opposed to the previous one.

Finally, one must ask about transport to the site. That matter was raised by those people who supported Birmingham's bid. Will the transport links be in place in time for the opening of the new stadium and will they be good enough to cope with the safe and speedy evacuation of a full-capacity crowd? Sadly, in this day and age and after last year's problems, we must be aware of the health and safety needs of spectators and the need for them to be evacuated. When will the Government publish plans for the redevelopment of Wembley Park Underground Station?

The Government have delayed too long on this project. Our sporting reputation has been irreparably damaged. It is now time, in the interests of all our sportsmen and women throughout the country, to get on with it and get a result.

5.31 p.m.

Viscount Falkland

My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The Statement must come as a disappointment to the press and media, which must have expected a definitive Statement, and an even greater disappointment to those who supported a stadium in the West Midlands. They, too, were expecting a definitive Statement sooner than today and had the criteria not been met would have galvanised themselves into action to make an alternative bid.

There is, however, a great deal of value in the Statement. The Government have made it today because it is a serious matter to extend such a deadline when so many problems and criticisms have been made of the project. The noble Baroness previously told us that her right honourable friend required four criteria to be met and that Sport England had been asked to provide a detailed evaluation of the new proposals for athletics in the stadium. The Statement makes it clear that, thankfully, those criteria have been satisfactorily met.

On the previous occasion I spoke of the contract with Multiplex and did so on the basis of newspaper reports. I agree with the Minister that one should not believe everything one reads in newspapers and I may well have overstepped the mark. Since the Government are now satisfied with the proposed contracts, that is all well and good.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has the information made available to him together with the vital matter of whether the financial support for the project is adequate and fully committed. We do not know whether it is. The Government would not have extended the deadline and made the Statement were they not very confident that the project was going to go ahead. Having made such extensions, if the project does not go ahead difficult questions will be asked in this House and in another place.

As regards the athletics stadium, speaking on behalf of these Benches I have never made any bones about my view that Wembley is not a "national" stadium in the accepted sense of the word. It is a football stadium with various attachments which may well qualify it to be a national stadium. The fact is that the Government are not fully committed to a national stadium. On Sunday, the Secretary of State said on David Frost's programme that the Government were involved in the project only because of the public funds; in other words, the lottery moneys of £120 million which were invested in it. She said that otherwise it was a commercial project subject to a contract between various parties. But of course the Government are involved for many other reasons.

In the light of that, perhaps the Minister would enlighten me on three points. What is the nature of the significant improvements to the standards of corporate governance which the Government sought? They say that the changes are substantial, but that in itself is worrying. What were the standards like before they were considerably improved? Does that give us confidence in the project?

Secondly, how much quicker and cheaper than the original proposal is the new athletics adjunct to the project? I understand and accept that Sport England has approved the project in consultation with various interested parties. That in itself is encouraging. How long will it take to erect the athletics part of the stadium and how much will it save on the original proposals, which were deemed by the Secretary of State's predecessor not to be viable?

Thirdly, having had in my business experience an interest in projects of various kinds—none as big or as difficult as this, I am pleased to say—I should like to know what is expected in terms of the usage of the completed stadium. A figure of 20 days is being bandied around. To anyone making a few sums on the back of a cigarette packet—that is always what one does on these occasions—it does not seem that such a project would be viable, bearing in mind the investment that is being made in connection with it. Will the Minister say whether the stadium will be used for more than 20 days or fewer? How will the 20 days or more be shared between football and athletics and will the stadium have other uses that will, importantly, be bearers of revenue and income to the project? Otherwise, it is difficult for us to see how the investment, which has not yet been put in place and for which the deadline has been extended, can look forward to a clear and profitable future.

5.38 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for their comments on the Statement. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I am extremely sympathetic to the people of Birmingham and those who have supported its bid and I understand the disappointment that they will obviously feel. The key point is that the Football Association has made substantial progress in satisfying the conditions laid down on 19th December. However, it has not been able to complete the final agreement and has asked for a little more time to conclude the last stage of its negotiations with the lead bank with which it is negotiating. It would therefore be wrong for the Government to withdraw support at this late stage and force the Football Association to pull the plug on what have been very long and complex negotiations.

As I said earlier in my remarks, a further Statement to update the House on progress will be made before the Whitsun Recess. However, I cannot give an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it will be made in time for the Question tabled by her noble friend Lord Glentoran which is to be answered on 20th May. We shall have a few more sitting days after that date before both this House and another place rise.

The noble Baroness asked about the National Audit Office. The office is independent of government and it is up to the NAO itself to decide what it wishes to do. She also asked about transport arrangements and whether the improvements that are to be made to Wembley Park station will be completed in time. I can tell the noble Baroness that both the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Greater London Authority have already committed a further £7 million towards the improvements to be made to the station. Substantial funds are now available over and above the £20 million already committed to general, non-stadium infrastructure improvements.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked a number of questions relating to athletics. I am not sure that I can give precise answers to all the questions that were put to me with regard to exactly how long it will take to put in place all the athletics facilities or, indeed, exactly how long it will take to put them all back. Furthermore, I cannot give a precise figure on what the savings will be. However, I can say that all the parties agree that the original platform proposals were far from optimum. In December, Sport England indicated that it thought that a platform could be developed more cheaply and could avoid all the disruption associated with the original proposals. Its latest report demonstrates that the new platform proposals do meet UK Athletics and IAAF technical standards for major championships, which answers a question put by the noble Baroness to which she particularly requested a response.

The noble Baroness also asked about warm-up facilities. We are convinced that there are now sufficient warm-up track facilities available but, again, that will be covered in the report from Sport England. It will be published very soon. To that end, the noble Baroness asked about the timing of publication of the Cyril Sweets report. That will depend on our receiving a summary from WNSL. As soon as we receive it, we shall publish. I should say that the report was in fact commissioned by WNSL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Football Association. Therefore it is not for the Government to decide the exact timing. We shall publish it as soon as we receive it. I hope that those remarks answer most of the questions that have been put to me.

I think that I have covered the main points, but perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the Government's proposals are a big improvement on what was originally set out, but that we are also continuing to hold discussions with WNSL about them.

5.44 p.m.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the reason why this Statement does not address the Birmingham and Solihull bid is that that would acknowledge a clear breach of an unqualified promise given by this Government; namely, that unless the Wembley proposals were finalised by the end of April, then the Birmingham and Solihull bid would be considered? Does she understand that not only the people of Birmingham and the West Midlands, but also seven out of every 10 football fans and 53 out of 56 club chairmen will regard this Government as having behaved in a duplicitous manner?

On 19th December, the Government claimed that they were neutral as regards the siting of the stadium, whereas in the other place today the Secretary of State made absolutely clear what a number of people have suspected all along; that is, that the Government were in fact committed to Wembley and Birmingham and Solihull had been wasting their time.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I should remind the House and my noble friend, who I know feels very strongly about this matter, that the deadline of 30th April was set by the Football Association and not by the Government. It is only reasonable to allow the association more time, for the reasons that I believe were set out quite clearly both in the Statement and in my response to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.

I can only repeat what I said: I understand my noble friend's disappointment, but the Football Association has made it clear from the outset that it believes that Wembley would be a more commercial proposition than Birmingham.

Lord Fowler

My Lords, I agree entirely with the views just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. This is a totally unsatisfactory situation, not only for the West Midlands but also for many people throughout the whole country. Public money is involved and therefore the Government have a responsibility here.

So far as concerns the assurance, it seemed to me—as I believe it seemed to most other people—that an assurance was given, endorsed and underlined by the Government to the effect that this long process of consideration, which has been going on for year after year, would come to an end on 30th April 2002. That was the clear impression given. I do not think that the noble Baroness can move away from that.

We are now told that further consideration will be given and a further deadline set. Surely the noble Baroness recognises that that cannot be the right way to do business in this country. Furthermore, surely a widespread impression will he given around the country that the Government have gone back on their word with regard to this project.

Above all, in my view and, I believe, in the view of many others, frankly this is the wrong decision and the wrong direction. As my noble friend remarked, at this stage Birmingham should be given a chance. The sensible site for the national stadium, with its superior communications and infrastructure already in place, always has been at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham.

I shall say this to the noble Baroness: this decision will be widely condemned in the West Midlands. In the region it will be perceived as, frankly, a kick in the face. That is not a happy situation to have reached as a result of this Statement.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's connections with the West Midlands. Of course he takes that position; I understand it completely. However, although the decision might be condemned in the West Midlands, I am sure that that this Statement will be widely welcomed in London. On a difficult question of location such as this one always has two sides. I know for a fact that many people in London greatly welcome the fact that the national football stadium is to be sited in London. They believe that the capital city is the right place for it. Indeed, I have heard people who have no connection either with London or the West Midlands—they can thus be said to be reasonably objective—also take the position that the stadium should be sited in London. Of course different views are going to be expressed on a matter of this kind.

However, it is for the Football Association to reach a final decision, which is the position the Government have maintained and made absolutely clear all along. This is not a decision to be reached by my department or, indeed, by the Government. I can only say again that it would be entirely wrong at this late stage in the negotiations being conducted between the Football Association and those involved in providing the finance and, indeed, in building the stadium to drop all that work and move on to a totally different proposal.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, the Minister has not answered the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about an Olympic stadium. An Olympic stadium has certain characteristics. It has a 400 metres race track; it has space in the middle for all the field sports; it has a huge amount of parking and is accessible by all forms of transport; it has a village which can be reached reasonably quickly from the stadium, to and fro; and it has access to, and is not too far away from, a swimming stadium, and so on. Can anyone honestly believe that such a project could be constructed in London? I am a Londoner born and bred and it would be wonderful to have a football stadium at Wembley, but an Olympic stadium is quite different. Is this or is this not to be an Olympic stadium? If it is not, we are talking at cross purposes to a certain extent.

It is not so much the sporting reputation of this country that is in doubt—that is rather high at the present moment in a wide variety of sports. What is in doubt is the capacity of this country, through the Government and the various institutions, to take a sensible decision in reasonable time, with some eye on when we might make an Olympic bid.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am sorry that I did not respond to the noble Baroness's earlier question about whether Wembley would be used for the Olympics. I can clarify straightaway that there is no intention of the stadium to be built at Wembley being used for the Olympic Games. It would not be suitable. That has been absolutely clear from the beginning and I am somewhat surprised by the tenor of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. If there were to be a bid from London for the Olympic Games, the British Olympic Association would have to consider with the mayor and other London bodies where a main stadium for the Olympic Games might be placed. I believe that the mayor has expressed a view that it should be in east London.

That does not mean that the national football stadium would not be used if London made a successful bid for the Olympic Games. It would be used, for example, for the football tournament. There would be some use for it, but it is not designed or meant to be a stadium for an Olympic bid.

I also failed to answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the number of events that will take place at Wembley. WNSL plan to hold around 30 events. The main events will be flagship sports events such as the FA Cup Final and some concerts will be held there. It is a little difficult to anticipate at this stage exactly how many concerts will be held in the stadium. That will obviously depend on the demand at the time. The important point is that WNSL believes that the income from the premium seats it will sell will be sufficient to sustain the project.

Lord Tomlinson

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my thanks to her for repeating the Statement made in another place are almost in exact inverse proportion to my appreciation of its contents? Does she appreciate how uncomfortable it is for me to find myself being much more in agreement with the Opposition Front Benches in relation to this matter than I am with my own Front Bench? It is the first time in a long life in politics that I have found myself publicly having to state that as my position.

Does she further appreciate that the Statement represents not only a betrayal of the legitimate interests of the West Midlands but flouts the assurances that she gave on behalf of the Government in a previous Statement in this House when she said that the deadline for the end of April was set for Wembley? To pretend otherwise, as she did in the answer she gave to my noble friend Lord Corbett, is an act of inadequate sophistry.

Perhaps she will remind the House of the precise phrase that she used at the end of her previous Statement, when she said quite clearly that the end of April was a deadline and that if at that time the FA had not become clear about its intentions, then the West Midlands would have its chance.

Finally, will my noble friend reflect on the last answer that she gave and tell the House how she can be so sure of the merits of the London case when she cannot answer a simple question about the number of events? On what basis is the business plan drawn up so that she can justify the capital costs without having any idea whatever of the revenue which will be generated from that capital expenditure?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I understand my noble friend's lack of appreciation for the content of the Statement but I have nothing to add to what I have said already to my noble friend Lord Corbett and to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I know that they all speak for the West Midlands. Their views are perfectly valid from a West Midlands point of view but not from the point of view of the Football Association, which has ownership of the project. Nor are they consistent with the views of many Londoners who believe that the national football stadium should be in London.

As to my noble friend's final question, he is being extraordinarily unfair in the tone of his question and, indeed, in the nature of his question. I made it perfectly clear that there will be around 30 events in the national stadium including a minimum of five concerts. It is ridiculous to suggest that I or anyone else can predict exactly how many concerts over and above the minimum of five WNSL believes it will be able to commit to. It may well be there will be more in which case its financial position will be even better.

I have made it clear to my noble friend and to the House that the amount of revenue that will be available as a result of the number of projected events for the new stadium will be adequate for it to operate effectively.

Lord Monro of Langholm

My Lords, the Government seem to be in a muddle over athletics and we are all concerned about the £120 million provided by Sport England. As the noble Baroness said, if we are not having the Olympics, the World Championships or the European Championships, why on earth do we want a 100,000 seater stadium for athletics?

Can the Minister give some details of the cost of converting the stadium from football to athletics, bearing in mind that an eight-lane running track will to a large extent encroach on to the seating capacity of the stadium. How long will it take and who will pay for it each time? You cannot expect athletics to pay for the changeover after it gets its £120 million benefit. It seems that athletics has been put on a shelf and promised that it will get something, but the noble Baroness has given us no details of how this will be achieved.

As to the use of the stadium, the rugby league people are very happy going to Edinburgh or to Cardiff. Is there any guarantee that they will always come to Wembley?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, as to the noble Lord's question about athletics, I thought that I had given some indication of Sport England's report on this matter. It demonstrates that the new platform proposals meet UK athletics and IAAF technical standards for major championships, as I have indicated, and there is no reason why major championships of that kind should not take place at Wembley. It also concludes that there are sufficient options for warm-up facilities. The details will emerge when the report is published, as I have promised that it will be.

The noble Lord asked about what has become known as the athletics legacy. The Statement in no way affects that. Discussions between UK Athletics, Sport England and the Government are making good progress. Again, we shall make an announcement about the matter shortly.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a project of some significance, to be accomplished at some cost? Will she give the House an assurance that this important matter, which has clearly evoked wide interest, went before the Cabinet? Did the Cabinet have art opportunity to consider the question—and if not, why not?

In the course of the investigation that unknown quarters of the Government have arrived at, what reliance did they place on what is oddly called "commercially confident information"? Breaches of commercial confidence are of no con sequence when a project of this kind comes to be considered. More importantly, is my noble friend further aware that a question of honour is involved?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, it is not normal practice for Ministers to reveal what is or is not discussed in Cabinet. However, I can assure my noble friend that widespread consideration across government has been given to this project.

With regard to my noble friend's question about commercially confident information, I am sure that he is as aware as I and other Members of the House are that where an organisation—in this case the Football Association—is negotiating the details of a major contract involving contractors, architects and the banks that will support the project, it would be wholly wrong for a Minister to stand up and give this House the details of that commercially confident information.

Lord Jacobs

My Lords, I believe I heard the Minister say that it was not possible at this stage to forecast the level of revenue to be obtained from the 30 events that are projected. Notwithstanding that, surely British banks—which are generally recognised as being somewhat generous—will require, first, to have a detailed business plan and, secondly, to know exactly what revenue is forecast before lending several hundred million pounds. At this stage, they must therefore expect to be given the information in advance of any commitment on their part. So why cannot this kind of information be made available to the House?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I have already made clear that what I can say to the House is that the level of revenue that will be produced by the current proposals for the usage of the new stadium will be adequate for it to operate successfully. What I cannot do is reveal to the House, prior to the publication of reports which are not government reports but which have been commissioned by the Football Association, those kinds of details; nor do I think it would be right for me to do so.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fury of my noble friends Lord Corbett and Lord Tomlinson, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, opposite on behalf of the West Midlands would be much better directed to the Football Association rather than to the Government bearing in mind that the Football Association decided a considerable time ago that Wembley was its preferred choice and the Government, very properly, in December, insisted that various changes in corporate governance should be made, that the stadium should be proved to be capable of accepting athletics and that the involvement of Multiplex in the contract should be properly sorted out? It seems to me from the Statement that those conditions have been met, that it is not unreasonable for the Football Association to ask for a little more time; and if people do not like the idea of the stadium being at Wembley, they should direct their anger at the Football Association.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, at last a little support! I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Yes, he is absolutely right. As I have been trying to say for the past 20 minutes or more, this is a matter for the Football Association. It would be wrong, however, for the Government at this late stage to tell the Football Association that it cannot pursue the last stage of its detailed negotiations on siting the national stadium at Wembley.