Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Third Report


VII. ATHLETICS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

The Birmingham 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships

122. In April 2000, the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) awarded the 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships to Birmingham.[331] That success was made possible by the commitment of Birmingham City Council. Prior to the inception of the National Lottery, the Council invested money to develop the National Indoor Arena for Sport, which opened in 1991 and was developed with a capacity to stage international athletics events.[332] UK Athletics enthusiastically backed the bid, not least because UK Athletics saw the event as a springboard for the outdoor World Athletics Championships which are due to be staged in London in 2005.[333]

123. When UK Athletics submitted initial written evidence, it was expected that the IAAF, UK Athletics and Birmingham City Council would sign the Event Organisation Agreement for the 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships by the end of January 2001.[334] The signing of that Agreement has been delayed, partly as a result of points raised by the Council and UK Athletics about the terms of the agreement and partly because of uncertainties about the IAAF's marketing partner, which would also be a signatory to the contract.[335] Mr David Moorcroft, the Chief Executive of UK Athletics, was not concerned at the delay.[336]

124. Birmingham City Council indicated that the availability of Lottery funding was a crucial factor in its decision to bid for the Championships.[337] UK Sport provided funding assistance for the bid and has made a commitment in principle to provide funding for the event itself.[338] A detailed budget for the event and an accompanying Lottery bid are being prepared and are likely to be considered by UK Sport shortly.[339] Birmingham City Council expects the total cost of the event to be around £2.6 million and that the event organisers will receive a "substantial grant" from UK Sport's £1.6 million annual budget for funding events.[340] It is nevertheless implicit in the funding arrangements that Birmingham City Council will underwrite the event and bear the risk in the same way that Manchester City Council is doing for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.[341] We commend Birmingham City Council for its initial investment in the National Indoor Arena for Sport and for its lead role in bringing the 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships to the United Kingdom.

Underwriting the 2005 World Athletics Championships

125. Sporting authorities have long cherished an ambition to stage the World Athletics Championships in the United Kingdom, but have lacked a stadium suitable for the event.[342] When we first considered these matters in 1999, it was expected that a bid would be made to stage the event at the new Wembley National Stadium in 2003 or 2005. Success in delivering the event was seen as an important staging post on the path to a London Olympic Games.[343] By early 2000, it was evident that a bid based on Wembley National Stadium as the venue was unlikely, but the possibilities of not making a bid or making a bid based in Manchester were rejected.[344]

126. Setting aside the stadium issues that we consider separately, a World Athletics Championships in London always faced particular problems. When the bid was conceived, UK Athletics was just finding its feet after its predecessor—the British Athletics Federation—went into administration.[345] The governing body remains unable to make a direct financial contribution towards the running costs, although UK Athletics is providing some staff for the event.[346] When the bid was submitted, there was no London-wide authority able to play the part of the "host city" authority and to underwrite the event in the way that Birmingham City Council has agreed to underwrite the 2003 indoor event, although it was known that the Greater London Authority would soon be established.[347] Prior to the establishment of that Authority, UK Sport played a crucial role in funding and supporting the bid, in part because UK Sport considers the event to be "a key element of our major events strategy".[348] Although UK Sport was the lead public body in promoting the bid, it does not have a continuing role with regard to the budget for the event itself.[349]

127. Events such as the World Athletics Championships are not profitable for the host organisers because almost all commercial revenue is reserved for the IAAF.[350] Sport England was involved from an early stage in preparing a budget for the event and in October 1998 offered "in principle" support of up to £15 million for running the event.[351] Sport England told us that initial budgetary planning suggested that staging costs would exceed income by the same amount of £15 million, but that this forecast assumed that the Championships would be staged at Wembley. Use of Wembley National Stadium would have provided UK Athletics with the opportunity to utilise the range of income-generating facilities planned for the new Stadium.[352] Sport England considered that the business plan needed to be revised to reflect the proposed move to Picketts Lock, where there might be less opportunity for income generation than at Wembley.[353] Mr Moorcroft seemed confident that the business plan, which was "constantly updated", was "very conservative".[354]

128. Even if Mr Moorcroft's optimism about the deficit proves correct—and it is hard to imagine anyone admitting that a forecast of this nature is other than "conservative"—it will be contractually essential for an organisation to underwrite any deficit not covered by the Lottery grant. The organisation underwriting an event would usually also sign the Event Organisation Agreement. A submission by UK Athletics in January 2001 implied that the Greater London Authority would undertake that role.[355] Sport England also made it clear that any grant for running costs was dependent upon a staging agreement having been signed by "the host city".[356] However, the Mayor of London recently wrote to UK Athletics stating that he was "unable to be a signatory to the proposed contract with the IAAF, on account of the level of the liability the Greater London Authority would be expected to take on".[357] The Secretary of State thought it understandable that the Mayor was unable to act as guarantor given the limited resources at the Mayor's disposal.[358]

129. Both Sport England and UK Sport advised us that they were not able to underwrite this or any other event. Sport England said that it would be "acting outside its statutory powers as a Lottery distributor and its financial memorandum if it underwrote sporting events".[359] UK Sport thought it was "forbidden" from underwriting an event for similar reasons.[360] Mr Richard Callicott, Chief Executive of UK Sport, considered that it was a matter for the Greater London Authority, the Government and UK Athletics "to resolve in due course", but considered that, if the agreement were not signed by October 2000, "then we have deep problems".[361]

130. Although he was aware that the Mayor of London was likely to refuse to underwrite the event, Mr Moorcroft did not seem exceptionally concerned by the problem when he gave oral evidence.[362] Mr Moorcroft told us that he had been "assured" by the Secretary of State "that there will be an underwriting of that contract".[363] Mr Moorcroft said that the Government had "accepted the responsibility to find" the third party who would underwrite the contract and thus the event.[364] Mr Moorcroft thought that the Secretary of State had accepted this responsibility to take a "lead role" in resolving the issue and UK Athletics was "comforted by that".[365]

131. Is Mr Moorcroft's confidence justified? The Secretary of State confirmed that the Government was examining who would underwrite the 2005 event and accepted that the issue had to be resolved "within the next few months".[366] While the Secretary of State was non-committal on the agencies that would be involved, the Minister for Sport implied that either the Government itself or UK Sport might sign the agreement and accepted that, if the latter organisation were to do so, it would be on the basis of a commitment by the Government to meet any unforeseen costs.[367] If the Government did decide to underwrite the 2005 World Athletics Championships, such an action would appear to run contrary to its general policy that, "in most cases, it is primarily for the bidding city and relevant governing body to ... ensure that any risk ... is underwritten".[368] If the Government were to underwrite the London 2005 World Athletics Championships, it would be incumbent upon the Government to explain why that privilege was being afforded to that one event when such a privilege has been specifically and repeatedly withheld from other events, including the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games and the Birmingham 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships. If the Government were to underwrite the 2005 event directly or indirectly, it would also be essential that a Minister takes a direct role in the organisation of the Championships to ensure that there would be proper responsibility and accountability for the Exchequer funds committed in consequence of such a decision.

The Picketts Lock Stadium

132. When the Secretary of State decided that Wembley National Stadium would not be the venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships, he assured UK Athletics that £60 million would be available for "world-class athletics".[369] This was not the Government's own money, but represented the Government's estimate of what it considered Sport England would have spent on staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships at Wembley (£40 million), combined with the £20 million payment to Sport England expected from Wembley National Stadium Limited.[370] Sport England has repeatedly contested the calculation by the Government of the level of expenditure required to stage the 2005 Championships at Wembley.[371] On 21 March, the Secretary of State told this Committee in oral evidence that Sport England had viewed the least expensive option for a warm-up site at Copelands School as "a non-starter".[372] The following day, Mr Brooking, in a letter to the Chairman already referred to, said:

    "We have always made it clear that Copelands School could have provided an acceptable warm-up track for the World Athletics Championships in 2005".[373]

However, in the letter on Department for Culture, Media and Sport headed paper dated 27 March, Mr Brooking put his name to the statement, signed jointly with the Secretary of State that, "it was agreed that it [the Copelands School site] was not ideal" and that, indeed, the Copelands School site "would be likely to weaken any World Athletics Championship bid".[374] This second letter signed by Mr Brooking gives an entirely different impression to that given in his letter of 22 March which came from the Sport England offices. Sport England has pointed out that the £20 million will be worth somewhat less by the time the payments are completed. Sport England has nevertheless made what it sees as a "prudent" decision to allocate £20 million from its World Class Performance Plan and £20 million from its Community Fund to finance a viable bid from athletics.[375] The uncertainty around the payment timetable of the £20 million is likely to cause cash-flow problems that may have a detrimental effect on other bids. The question arises of what happens if the first payment is not made by the time that the second payment falls due under the payment timetable on which the Secretary of State continues to insist.

133. From early 2000, UK Athletics, supported by Sport England and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, sought to select a venue to stage the 2005 Championships.[376] On 31 January 2000, an outline bid for the event was submitted with Twickenham as the venue, but the problems that we identified with that option in early March 2000 proved too great and the idea was quickly abandoned.[377] In February 2000, we were told that the other options being explored included "Hackney Wick, Crystal Palace, Southall, the Linford Christie Stadium, RAF Northolt and Cricklewood".[378] By March 2000, a short-list of five sites—Hillingdon House Farm, Hackney Wick, Crystal Palace, Twickenham and Picketts Lock—had emerged, from which the last option was chosen as the preferred venue by UK Athletics.[379]

134. The proposed site for the Stadium at Picketts Lock comprises 143 acres in Lee Valley Park close to Edmonton and Ponders End in north east London. The site is approximately 7.5 miles from central London and 2.5 miles south east of Enfield town centre.[380] Lee Valley Park is currently the location of a leisure complex which the owners—Lee Valley Regional Park Authority—were already seeking to replace.[381] The proposals included a commitment by the Park Authority to make capital and revenue contributions and plans for athletes' accommodation centred on new campuses that Middlesex University intends to develop nearby.[382] These factors helped to explain the perceived superiority of the bid from Picketts Lock to that from Crystal Palace, even though the latter option involved the temporary conversion of an existing stadium and held out the prospect of project completion well in advance of 2004.[383]

135. On 3 April 2000, representatives of UK Athletics, accompanied by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and representatives of Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and the London Borough of Enfield, made a submission to the IAAF to stage the 2005 Championships at Picketts Lock and were awarded the Championships of that year.[384] Undertakings were given to the IAAF that "a suitable venue and supporting infrastructure would be available in time for the Championships".[385] UK Athletics considered that the presence of the Secretary of State and his "assurances over the Stadium", together with a preceding letter from the Prime Minister stating that "world-class facilities will be ready", were "crucial" to the success of the bid.[386]

136. Since April 2000, initial business and design feasibility studies have been completed and further and more detailed preparatory work commissioned.[387] The initial design study estimated that the total cost of the project would be £95 million, a total based on the cost per seat of recent traditionally-designed football stadia and including the cost of conversion of the Stadium from its 43,000-seat capacity in 2005 to its permanent capacity of 20,000.[388] The Secretary of State, giving evidence in February, and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority believed that the total project cost could be reduced.[389] That view has been supported by the subsequent announcement that the latest estimated budget for the Stadium is between £83 and £87 million.[390] There are, however, several unresolved issues about the project.

137. First, even if the most optimistic cost forecasts prove correct, there is a funding gap between the known public provision and the total required. On top of the £60 million provisionally allocated for athletics, Picketts Lock expects to receive £7 million also allocated by Sport England from the Lottery for the high performance infrastructure and £5 million from Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, creating a total of £72 million.[391] The remainder is expected to be sought from the commercial sector.[392] Private sector funding would be sought on a different basis from that for Wembley National Stadium, because commitments from the Football Association and commercial facilities are expected to make Wembley profitable, while Picketts Lock holds out fewer prospects for commercial gain. The Greater London Authority continued to be concerned about "the funding shortfall for the Stadium development".[393] Mr Moorcroft said that, as time went on, "the gap" between projected costs and projected funding "has narrowed rather than been extended".[394] The Secretary of State did not see the funding gap as "insuperable" and, on the basis of the interest already apparent, had "every confidence that that gap will be bridged".[395]

138. Second, it is not clear who will underwrite the project and bear the ultimate risk if costs exceed the budget or funding falls short of commitments. There is a tendency for costs to increase either as the design process progresses—as was the case with Wembley National Stadium—or during the construction phase—as is the case with the City of Manchester Stadium, the costs of which have increased by £4 million in the last two years.[396] Lee Valley Regional Park Authority acknowledged that "the potential financial commitments and liabilities are too large to be borne or underwritten by any of the existing project partners".[397] The Park Authority said that the financial risk would either be borne by the organisation established to deliver the project or "allocated to private sector partners".[398] It is not clear what resources the delivery organisation would have at its disposal to meet unexpected costs or an unexpected shortfall in funds or why the private sector partners would wish to accept disproportionate risks.

139. Third, the design process is at an early stage and begs a number of questions. It is known that the Stadium will not be built with a roof, even though this was part of the original design brief, because inclusion of a roof would add about £20 million to the budget.[399] It is also known that the Stadium will not comply with the optimum sight-line specification for athletics by which the design for Wembley National Stadium was judged and found wanting.[400] Although the technical specifications established by UK Athletics required "C" values to be calculated with a focal point on the outside of the outside lane of the athletics track, the design team found that none of the stadia that were examined by the team met that viewing standard and decided to settle for a minimum "C" value of 60 millimetres based on a focal point on the outside of lane three.[401] Those new lower standards were considered to be "perfect" by Mr Moorcroft.[402] The initial feasibility study made allowance for "a design of architectural merit" in its cost plan.[403] According to Sport England, the same study suggested that "a reduction in the quality and specification of the project might be necessary to help bridge [the funding] gap".[404] Mr Brooking attached importance to the quality of the Stadium:

    "We want to go there and feel very proud of the facility. We do not want to go with our cloaks over our heads embarrassed because of the quality of the facility."[405]

The Secretary of State said that "feasibility work on the design is well-advanced" and looked forward to the construction of a "high quality stadium".[406]

140. Fourth, there are vital issues to be resolved relating to transport and infrastructure at Picketts Lock. Whereas a decision to stage athletics at Wembley would have enabled the sport to benefit from investment funded by football, the public sector and the private sector to ensure effective transport links and appropriate surroundings for the National Stadium, an entirely new funding package is required to make the Picketts Lock option viable. The costs of off-site improvements are excluded from the provisional budget.[407] It is acknowledged by Enfield Council that existing transport links are "relatively poor" and 90 per cent of visitors to the current leisure complex come by car.[408] The scale of the likely demand is indicated by the fact that nearly half a million people attended the Seville World Athletics Championships in 1999. It is envisaged that it will be necessary to upgrade the railway line and open a new railway station at Picketts Lock. Funding for these improvements is still being sought.[409] Lee Valley Regional Park Authority considered it "far too early to judge what these capital cost implications might be".[410]

141. One of the lessons that we draw from the Wembley National Stadium saga is that infrastructure needs and their funding must be considered at a very early stage of a project of this nature. It is all very well to hope that Stadium development will serve as a "catalyst" for infrastructure development, as it should at Wembley, but firm guarantees are needed.[411] If a new railway station is indeed required, the transport challenge at Picketts Lock is arguably greater in some ways than that at Wembley. We do not agree that it is "far too early" to judge the cost implications.[412] We consider it essential that one of the crucial lessons of the Wembley National Stadium project is learnt and that funding for essential improvements in transport infrastructure at Picketts Lock is in place at an early stage in the development of the project.

142. Fifth, there are risks associated with the tight timetable for the Picketts Lock Stadium. Demolition of the leisure complex is expected to take place in 2002 with the Stadium construction beginning in 2003 and due for completion by the end of 2004.[413] The initial feasibility study indicated that "the Stadium can be built in time for the 2005 World Athletics Championships if key dates are met".[414] In November 2000, Sport England suggested that a planning application "needs to be submitted" by the end of March 2001.[415] It is now expected that the application will be submitted by the end of May 2001.[416] The planning process may not be straightforward because the Stadium is a proposed development on land designated as Green Belt and, notwithstanding its support for the project, Enfield Council is committed to undertaking its statutory planning role impartially and rigorously.[417] Although Lee Valley Regional Park Authority thought that the Stadium would be ready "comfortably before" the 2005 Championships, the timetable appears to be essentially the same as that for Wembley National Stadium, which, it has been decided, cannot stage the event because of the risks and possible costs associated with such a tight timetable.[418]

143. Sixth, there remain question marks over the long-term viability of the Picketts Lock Stadium. It is intended that the capacity of the Stadium will be reduced to 20,000 after the Championships, but in this country smaller athletics stadia than that are rarely full and it is accepted that the Stadium will run at a loss.[419] The running cost subsidy required is expected to be nearly £1 million a year.[420] Some of these costs will be paid for by Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and Enfield Council, but a commitment from the London Marathon Charitable Trust that remains to be finalised is "crucial".[421] The Secretary of State thought that arrangements for revenue-funding for the Stadium were "coming fully into place", but both the Council and the Charitable Trust placed emphasis on community use as the rationale for subsidy while the key rationale for the Stadium is as a venue for international events. It also remains to be determined who will bear the risk if forecasts of the subsidy required prove over-optimistic.[422]

144. Finally, it is likely that the development of the new Stadium at Picketts Lock will have an impact on the broader ecology of athletics venue provision across the United Kingdom. The likelihood that the Stadium would represent a centripetal force dragging events away from regional stadia was a concern of Gateshead Council and Sheffield City Council.[423] Major events in London will be transferred from Crystal Palace, although the future of the Crystal Palace complex as a sports venue now seems more secure than it did some months ago.[424] UK Athletics said that it remained committed to ensuring a spread of events across the United Kingdom, but Sport England confirmed that the potential impact of Picketts Lock on the viability of other venues would be a factor in its decision on the funding of Picketts Lock.[425]

145. In February of this year, the Secretary of State told us that he was encouraged by what he saw as "a decision which Sport England themselves took to have an in principle allocation of £60 million in mind for the Picketts Lock Stadium".[426] In the carefully-worded letter to the Committee dated 27 March signed by the Secretary of State and Mr Brooking one sentence appears to confirm that statement made by the Secretary of State in February of this year, when it states:

    "In our evidence to the Committee, we were clear that Sport England have allocated within their budget up to £60 million (£40 million allocation and £20 million to be paid to Sport England by the Football Association) to the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre subject to a satisfactory application coming forward for substantive funding".[427]

Yet, in the very next sentence, that apparent confirmation is diluted with the statement:

    "Sport England is not able to make a formal commitment to funding a project which has yet to make a full application and this will remain the position until such an application comes forward".[428]

However, even this dilution is at odds with what Mr Brooking said on 22 March, namely:

    "We have long made it clear that no such money has yet been committed to the project ... We have made this clear at every possible opportunity, and it is almost exactly a year since I wrote to the Secretary of State (on 23 March 2000) to express my concern at statements which suggested, unconditionally, that we had £60 million to devote to an athletics facility."[429]

Previously, in his oral evidence during this inquiry, the Secretary of State stood by his earlier contention, referring to the minutes of meetings of the Sport England Lottery Panel and the Council of Sport England in support of his view.[430] It is a parliamentary convention that, when documents are cited by Ministers in the House, those documents are made available to Members of the House.[431] Accordingly, we requested a copy of those minutes and the Secretary of State furnished us with them. Although one small reference in those minutes might appear to justify the Secretary of State's oral evidence, broader reading of those minutes shows continuing concern within Sport England about any allocation to Picketts Lock.[432]

146. The Secretary of State has endorsed the arm's length principle and accepted that the final decision on a Lottery grant for Picketts Lock is for Sport England alone, while expressing the hope that Sport England also takes account of the importance of the 2005 event and of the legacy for athletics.[433] He nevertheless accepted that Sport England had a "legal duty" to examine the bid carefully on its merits.[434]

147. Sport England has confirmed on more than one occasion that any application for funding will have to be considered on its merits and in accordance with Sport England's Lottery Fund's usual criteria relating to "eligibility, viability, value for money and financial need".[435] Sport England has also endorsed our previous comments that design quality and the issue of equity in relation to venues across the country should be factors in this particular decision.[436] In oral evidence, Sport England asserted its confidence in its own independence in taking the decision.[437]

148. The Secretary of State agreed that there was "further work to be done" on the Stadium, but did not see this as unusual at the current stage of the project and he said that he was "absolutely confident that we will be able to ensure a good, world-class athletics facility at Picketts Lock".[438] He reaffirmed his conviction of the value of a world-class dedicated facility for athletics at Picketts Lock providing a long-term legacy of real benefit for athletics and the country.[439] We have no doubt that a viable new national stadium for athletics would represent an important addition to the elite sporting facilities of this country. We hope that the Secretary of State's confidence will prove justified. However, there are important issues that remain to be resolved with regard to the Picketts Lock Stadium project. Satisfactory solutions to the problems of underwriting, cost control, risk management, timetable guarantees and long-term viability must be firmly in place before Lottery funding is granted. Sport England must judge the project by its usual criteria for capital projects and must also bear in mind the need to consider both the issues relating to the 2005 World Athletics Championships and the distinct and strong case for a National Stadium for Athletics.


331  Evidence, p 19. Back

332  Evidence, pp 224, 225. Back

333  Evidence, p 19. Back

334  IbidBack

335  Evidence, p 21; QQ 78, 105. Back

336  Q 78. Back

337  Evidence, p 225. Back

338  Evidence, p 226; Q 252. Back

339  Evidence, pp 227, 161. Back

340  Evidence, p 227; Q 352. Back

341  Q 106. Back

342  HC (1998-99) 124-I, para 131; Evidence, p 43. Back

343  HC (1998-99) 124-I, para 135; HC (1999-2000) 164, para 118. Back

344  HC (1999-2000) 164, paras 118-124. Back

345  Ibid, para 11. Back

346  Evidence, p 21. Back

347  IbidBack

348  Evidence, pp 21, 159. Back

349  Evidence, p 233. Back

350  Evidence, p 48; Q 131. Back

351  Evidence, pp 48, 21. Back

352  Evidence, p 48. Back

353  IbidBack

354  QQ 132, 93. Back

355  Evidence, p 21. Back

356  Evidence, p 49. Back

357  Evidence, p 238. Back

358  QQ 452, 509-510. Back

359  Evidence, p 48. Back

360  Evidence, p 160. Back

361  QQ 329-330. Back

362  QQ 106-107. Back

363  Q 93. Back

364  Q 94. Back

365  QQ 108-109. Back

366  QQ 452, 459, 510. Back

367  QQ 511-512. Back

368  Evidence, p 202. Back

369  HC (1999-2000) 164, para 121; HC Deb, 14 March 2001, col 651W. Back

370  HC (1999-2000) 164, para 121. Back

371  Ibid; Second Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Wembley National Stadium: Responses to the Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1999-2000, HC (1999-2000) 412, p xiii; Evidence, pp 369-370. Back

372  Q 533. Back

373  Appendix 1. Back

374  Appendix 2. Back

375  Evidence, pp 289-290, 45; QQ 150, 152. Back

376  Evidence, p 17. Back

377  HC (1999-2000) 164, paras 125-128. Back

378  Ibid, para 130. Back

379  Evidence, pp 43, 18. Back

380  Executive Summary of Lee Valley Stadium Business Plan, p 2. Back

381  Evidence, p 23. Back

382  Evidence, pp 20, 24-25. Back

383  Evidence, pp 24-25, 231-232. Back

384  Evidence, p 19. Back

385  Evidence, p 159. Back

386  Evidence, p 19; HC (1999-2000) 164, para 133. Back

387  Evidence, p 8. Back

388  National Athletics Stadium: Summary of Drivers Jonas Technical Feasibility Study, pp 3-4, 1. Back

389  HC (2000-01) 56-II, QQ 686-687; QQ 90, 91. Back

390  Q 462. Back

391  Q 86. Back

392  Q 88. Back

393  Evidence, p 238. Back

394  Q 88. Back

395  Q 462. Back

396  HC (1999-2000) 164, para 18; Q 390. Back

397  Evidence, p 24. Back

398  Evidence, p 25. Back

399  Evidence, pp 231-232; Lee Valley Stadium Business Plan, p 12. Back

400  HC (1999-2000) 164, para 93; Cm 4686, para 12. Back

401  Evidence, p 26. Back

402  Q 121. Back

403  Technical Feasibility Study, p 3. Back

404  Evidence, p 44. Back

405  Q 140. Back

406  QQ 451, 550. Back

407  Technical Feasibility Study, p 3; Q 90. Back

408  Evidence, p 282. Back

409  Evidence, pp 282, 236; Lee Valley Stadium Business Plan, p 2; Q 90. Back

410  Q 90. Back

411  Evidence, p 362. Back

412  Q 90. Back

413  Evidence, p 19. Back

414  Technical Feasibility Study, p 4. Back

415  Evidence, p 45. Back

416  HC Deb, 26 February 2001, col 574; Q 100. Back

417  Evidence, pp 281-282, 283. Back

418  QQ 100, 60. Back

419  Lee Valley Stadium Business Plan, pp 3, 4, 6-7; Evidence, p 234; Q 92. Back

420  Lee Valley Stadium Business Plan, pp 6-7. Back

421  Q 92; Evidence, pp 276, 281, 283. Back

422  QQ 162, 507; Evidence, pp 276-278, 283. Back

423  Evidence, pp 230, 280-281. Back

424  QQ 97, 124, 140. Back

425  Q 124; Evidence, pp 22, 45, 47. Back

426  HC (2000-01) 56-II, QQ 690, 676. Back

427  Appendix 2. Back

428  IbidBack

429  Appendix 1. Back

430  QQ 514-524. Back

431  Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Twenty-second Edition, p 387. Back

432  Minutes of the Sixty-Eighth Meeting of the Sport England Lottery Panel, 24 October 2000; Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the English Sports Council and the Sport England Lottery Panel, 6 November 2000. Back

433  HC (2000-01) 56-II, QQ 671, 674, 676, 688, 689. Back

434  Q 460. Back

435  Evidence, p 45; Q 140; HC (1999-2000) 412, p xiii. Back

436  HC (1999-2000) 164, para 133; HC (1999-2000) 412, pp xiii-xiv; Q 140; Evidence, pp 45, 47. Back

437  QQ 150, 152. Back

438  QQ 451, 500. Back

439  Q 461. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 3 April 2001