Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report



The Committee has reported three times before on progress towards the UK's staging of the 2005 World Championships in Athletics (as part of wider studies). We have followed the event from the proposed English National Stadium at Wembley in December 1999 to the proposed National Athletics Centre at Picketts Lock in the Lee Valley in March 2000.[7] Subsequently, the Picketts Lock proposal was abandoned and in October 2001 the Government offered the IAAF a proposed redevelopment of the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield as the UK's preferred venue for the championships.

On 26 November this year the IAAF Council is set to meet and consider this offer—deciding whether to accept the move to Sheffield as part and parcel of its award of the championships to the UK or to reopen the bidding process afresh. The latter option would require the Government, UK Athletics and Sheffield City Council, together with UK Sport and Sport England, to consider whether to bid anew alongside other cities from around the world.

From Wembley to Picketts Lock

By 1994 it had been acknowledged that Wembley, the de facto national stadium, had come to the end of its useful life. A proposal was put together that a national stadium should be developed for three sports, football, rugby and athletics, that would meet the standards necessary for international world-class events without any unacceptable compromise being made by any of the three sports. This strategy was designed to tackle the fundamental challenge in staging major, or to use UK Sport's term, 'mega' athletics events, which is that a dedicated athletics stadium of the required capacity is unlikely to be economically sustainable.[8]

In October 1996, following a preliminary competition, Wembley was picked by the governing bodies of the three sports concerned, The Football Association, the Football League, the FA Premier League, the Rugby Football League and the British Athletic Federation, as the preferred bidder for public funds. In December 1996 this choice was confirmed by Sport England and £120 million of Lottery funds was awarded in principle to the project.[9]

In 1998 the current project structure emerged partly as a result of commercial interest in the Wembley site from private interests. The Lottery grant was to be devoted principally to enable the purchase of the site and its preservation 'for the nation'. New bodies were created for these purposes. The English National Stadium Trust (an independent charitable trust) effectively owns the site, leasing it to the project developer, now Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL), a wholly owned subsidiary of the FA.[10] The Trust is represented on the WNSL board and has a "golden share" which is aimed at ensuring respect for Lottery funding conditions and other factors in the wider public interest. Finance for the construction of the stadium is to be secured through debt by WNSL based on a 20-year commitment by the FA to stage its flagship events at the stadium.[11]

At this stage the Football Association had not put up a penny towards the new stadium and there was no certainty regarding the matching funds required for Lottery projects. The Lottery grant was made before planning permission was even sought for a new stadium, let alone received. Lottery funding is not usually granted until a project is clearly shown to be viable.[12] We regard this premature grant by Sport England as a cavalier and egregious use of public funds.

As the Committee[13] has noted previously, football is the "dominant partner" in the project's arrangements as football is intended to provide most of the money for the new stadium; although the public alone have so far funded the project, buying the site and a stadium design. Rugby League events are likely to be profitable and have non-financial benefits but the arrangements for athletics (described below) were never planned to bring direct profit to WNSL.[14]

The investment of £120 million of public money by Sport England—to provide a world class stadium for three sports important to the UK—is protected by the terms of the Lottery Funding Agreement (LFA) between it, the WNSL and The Football Association. Amongst other things, the Wembley LFA provides for the repayment of the £120 million should the project not remain on track. It reserves the intellectual property rights over the stadium design for Sport England; and sets out detailed obligations in regard to athletics (as the weaker partner) on stadium design, availability and event management. These include the stadium (in athletics configuration): meeting IAAF requirements; providing 80,000 seats for field sports and 65,000 seats for athletics; and availability of the stadium for athletics events (IAAF WAC and the Olympics) on a cost-only basis and on the terms under which these events are offered.[15]

England's bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2006 had been formally launched in February 1997. The campaign was based on six strengths of which the fourth was a redeveloped Wembley as "the Venue of Legends".[16] In January 1999, following the establishment of UK Athletics[17], it was agreed that a bid would be prepared for the World Championships in Athletics in 2003 also centred on a new national stadium at Wembley; on 16 November the bid was switched to the 2005 games. On 15 March 1999 the purchase of the Wembley site was finally secured.

In May 1999 the Committee published a Report on Staging International Sporting Events which, amongst other things, identified a lack of co-ordinated thought given by public bodies to the needs of major events at Wembley and some uncertainty as to whether the requirements of football, athletics and the Olympics could be reconciled on that site. The Committee recommended that a new "Minister for Events" be appointed, with the redevelopment of Wembley at the very top of his or her in-tray, assuming "responsibility for all Government involvement with the project as a matter of urgency".[18]

The stadium concept was launched on 29 July 1999; the detailed design was presented in November of that year at the same time as planning permission was sought. There was public approval from all sides. At the July launch the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that the new stadium "will be a magnificent venue for athletics as well as football".[19] However, he told the previous Committee in March 2001 that his private position was much less enthusiastic:

     "when the launch took place on the 29th I thought it was important to give a real boost to the project as a whole ... at that stage I did not think it was appropriate ... to make public my concerns about the precise solution which was being proposed at that stage for athletics".[20]

The British Olympic Association (BOA) announced that they were "extremely comfortable" with the proposals, seeing them as "another piece of a highly complex jigsaw puzzle" moving the UK further towards a successful Olympic bid.[21] UK Athletics said that the "the new Wembley will provide a great home for flagship athletics events" and Sport England told the previous Committee "There is now an opportunity to develop the best stadium in the world." Stadia and Arena Management Magazine went further saying " ... it is the design of the 'Olympic Platform' that is truly significant and one that will certainly set a trend in the new generation of stadiums that the new Wembley will herald ... it is the future of stadium design."[22]

However, by the end of December 1999 the design-led strategy for staging mega-events lay in tatters. Concerns had arisen about the provision for athletics within the proposed new Wembley Stadium in relation to possible future use for the Olympics. A report was commissioned by UK Sport from architects Ellerbe Becket at the request of the Government. A number of concerns were identified in the conclusions of a review which reported after just three weeks and which focused on provision for athletics and spectators' 'sightlines' while the stadium was in Olympian mode, ie with a capacity of 80,000. On 1 December 1999 the then Secretary of State told the House that his reluctant conclusion from the Ellerbe Becket report was:

    "that the stadium as designed—or in any similar configuration—cannot readily provide the central venue for an Olympic games bid for London. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate venue for the world athletics championships, for which we hope to bid in 2005. It will, however, be able to provide the best venue in the world for the 2006 football world cup."[23]

At this stage the Committee launched an inquiry into the Wembley National Stadium.

During December 1999 consultation took place on the conclusions of the Ellerbe Becket report between all relevant bodies against the background of the Secretary of State's statement to the House. The upshot was that WNSL satisfied all but one of the criticisms contained in the Ellerbe Becket report.[24] The remaining criticism was that the view, or "sightlines", for some spectators of athletics would be poor. This was refuted by the stadium designers on a like-for-like comparison with other stadia.[25] However, this highly technical dispute seems to have been lost when, crucially, a mock-up of the seating and platform proposals, staged by WNSL for DCMS and the British Olympic Association, back-fired and officials and the BOA came away with very negative impressions.[26] The Committee's Report on Wembley National Stadium in March 2000 concluded that "The BOA's non-technical views seem to have had a disproportionate influence in the Secretary of State's decision-making".[27]

On 22 December 1999 the then Secretary of State announced to the media that:

    "while WNSL have successfully addressed many of the concerns highlighted by Ellerbe Becket, it is widely accepted that the proposed stadium is not the ideal for athletics. There is general agreement therefore that ... Wembley should be the focus of a world class stadium for football and rugby league and that alternative arrangements should be made for athletics. The separation of athletics from football and rugby league will ensure that the stadium needs of each sport are not compromised, the supporters of each sport are given certainty for the future of their national stadium and resources can be focused on securing the best possible venue for each sport. This will also facilitate the work of the Wembley Task Force in regenerating the area surrounding a pre­eminent football and rugby league stadium."[28]

We note the supplementary evidence of Sir Rodney Walker, as Chairman of UK Sport, to the present inquiry that "I should now advise the Committee that I met with the Secretary of State on 8 December 1999 and strongly advised him against the announcement in December in order that we could have more time to examine the conclusions reached in the Ellerbe Becket report. The Secretary of State, as we know, rejected that advice."[29]

The design and non-design issues surrounding the decision to remove athletics from the intended use of the proposed Wembley stadium are dealt with in detail in the Committee's Report on Wembley National Stadium and revisited in a further Report on Staging International Sporting Events.[30] In March 2000, after exhaustive examination of the topic, the previous Committee concluded that the platform solution to hosting athletics at a new Wembley stadium was in fact commendable and innovative. The Committee recommended that the UK's bid for the 2005 WAC be based at Wembley and that the stadium be built initially with the athletics platform in place and with a seating capacity of 80,000.[31] The then Secretary of State rejected that Report within half an hour of its publication,[32] which suggests that the Government failed to give due consideration to the Committee's conclusions or the evidence it had gathered. That Committee confirmed its position a year later in its further Report.[33]

Evidence taken in the current inquiry indicates that the platform design has been developed significantly since 2000. The World Stadium Team claim that moving from a concrete structure to a modular steel system with concrete in-lay has made the platform cheaper, more versatile and faster to install and remove. An external platform has the potential to solve the challenge of providing a warm-up track on the Wembley site. The total time needed to convert a new Wembley stadium for a major athletics event is now estimated at four and a half months. The total cost of conversion (including timing equipment and event facilities) is estimated at £14 million with an additional £6 million for a warm-up track located outside the stadium on a further platform.[34] The previous Committee commented that the platform design "could well provide a template for future projects" and we heard in evidence that it was likely to be incorporated into New York's bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics.[35] Events have confirmed the previous Committee's commendations of the proposed athletics platform for a new national stadium at Wembley which the previous Secretary of State so abruptly rejected.

During the present inquiry Sport England submitted a letter sent on 13 December 1999 from the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of Sport England, Mr Derek Casey, to the Permanent Secretary of DCMS, Mr Robin Young. In this letter Mr Casey gave a severe warning to the Government concerning his understanding of its intentions towards Wembley at the time. Mr Casey wrote:

    "we now have a binding contract with the owners of Wembley which requires them to fulfil certain obligations in relation to all three sports and does not permit voluntary repayment of the Lottery grant ... It is not open to ourselves unilaterally to change the scope of the project, and in the context of the current legislative framework, I am concerned about the apparent attempts by HM Government itself".[36]

Sport England commented in supplementary evidence to us that "Despite our advice, the Secretary of State went ahead and did just that".[37]

We conclude that the initial decision to remove athletics from Wembley was beyond the proper responsibilities of the then Secretary of State and was taken in a hurry on flimsy and subjective grounds.

The national stadium concept was developed precisely to solve the problem that an athletics-only stadium for the largest of events would be economically unsustainable. To abandon that solution precipitately and propose in its place an athletics-only stadium was therefore perverse. To abandon athletics at Wembley on the grounds of its possible unsuitability for an embryonic Olympic bid, and substitute efforts to build an athletics-only stadium which was, by design, not suitable as a main Olympic venue, can only be described as bizarre.

In his statement to the media of 22 December Mr Smith had also referred to a proposal from the Football Association that "£20 million of the existing Lottery grant be returned to Sport England—who will now give their formal consideration to it."[38] The previous Committee raised concerns about the provenance and rationale behind this 'handshake' agreement, describing £20 million as a figure "plucked from the air".[39] This matter is dealt with in detail in the penultimate section of this Report.

Picketts Lock, Lee Valley

  Field result goes here In order to find an alternative venue for London to stage the 2005 WAC, a site selection process was got underway in early 2000. Sport England and UK Athletics facilitated the process, which included input from the London 2005 Bid Committee, the Government Office for London, UK Sport, London International Sport and the BOA.

On 31 January 2000 UK Athletics submitted a bid to the IAAF for the 2005 WAC based around an unnamed, and unchosen, suitable venue in London. At this stage the outline bid provided Twickenham as a further name for the IAAF to conjure with as the likely venue (with Ellerbe Becket as the architects for the design). However, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was approached in February 2000 by Sport England and asked to submit a proposal for a stadium at Picketts Lock, North East London.[40] The RPA was already in the process of seeking a proposal for a redevelopment of the site as the 27 year-old leisure centre there had come to the end of its useful life.[41]

After exploring possible options comprising Picketts Lock, Hackney Wick, Crystal Palace[42], Southall, the Linford Christie Stadium, RAF Northolt, Cricklewood, Hillingdon House Farm and Twickenham, at a meeting chaired by the then Secretary of State on 24 March, UK Athletics announced their preference for Picketts Lock. Sport England were not involved in the actual decision-making process so as to be in a position to approach the Lottery grant application without prejudice. However, Sport England had produced a pre-selection briefing note on the site options on 23 March. In this paper the potential risks relating to Picketts Lock were set out and included: Green Belt planning issues, transport infrastructure, and athletes' accommodation.[43] At this stage, Picketts Lock's outline capital costs were between £90 million and £120 million as against the available Lottery funding which had been sketched out as £60 million by Sport England. This indicative figure comprised £40 million as the estimated capital costs of staging the WAC at Wembley and the £20 million to return from the Football Association.[44]

On 2 and 3 April 2000 UK Athletics made two bids to the IAAF Council in Paris: the first with Birmingham City Council and UK Sport for the March 2003 World Indoor Championships; and the second with UK Sport and representatives from DCMS, the Prime Minister, Lee Valley and Enfield Council for the 2005 championships. Both bids were accepted by the IAAF—the second on the condition that UK Athletics could demonstrate for the IAAF clear progress on the stadium by October 2001.[45]

On 26 June 2000 the Lee Valley Stadium Forum first met, chaired by the Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey MP, and attended by a multiplicity of interested parties: DCMS, Sport England, Lee Valley RPA, London Borough of Enfield, the Government Office for London, the GLA, Transport for London, UK Sport, London 2005 and the BOA. The purpose of the Forum was to share information rather than to drive the project. At this first meeting a few key risks were highlighted as significant, principally the twin challenges of shortfalls in both estimated long-term revenue and the required capital funding for the project.[46]

On 2 November the previous Select Committee announced a further inquiry into the staging of international sporting events, which included the arrangements for the staging of the WAC in 2005.

On 22 December 2000, Sir Rodney Walker was appointed Chairman of WNSL and began tenure by holding a review of the whole Wembley project, including a formal reappraisal of Wembley's ability to accommodate athletics. At this stage the then Secretary of State wrote to the Lee Valley RPA to reassure them that, in his view, Picketts Lock still offered the best option for hosting the UK WAC in 2005.[47] Sir Rodney announced on 18 January that, although a major athletics event could be held at Wembley, he could not guarantee that the stadium would be ready in time to stage the championships in 2005.[48] In evidence to the present inquiry, Sir Rodney stated that, after his review, on 1 February 2001 he asked the Secretary of State "whether or not they would like me to explore the possibility of reintroducing athletics into Wembley. As I was advised that a decision had been made that athletics would not form part of Wembley Stadium, and that there was a commitment to an athletics stadium in London for the World Athletics Championships, from that moment it has not formed any part of my serious deliberations." He added that this was before he was presented with the improved athletics platform design by the World Stadium Team which he did not take back to Government.[49]

On 14 March 2001 the then Secretary of State announced that Wembley National Stadium would not be the venue for WAC 2005 and that £60 million was available from Sport England for world class athletics.[50] The Mayor of London informed UK Athletics that he would be unable to act as guarantor for the costs of the event.[51] During the previous Committee's inquiry, UK Athletics stated that the then Secretary of State had assured them that the event contract would be underwritten, and that he would take a lead in ensuring that this happened. They also understood him to mean that he had accepted the responsibility of finding third-party funding to bridge the capital funding shortfall.[52] Mr Smith told the Committee on 21 March 2001 that "I am absolutely confident that we are properly on track".[53] The Minister of Sport, Kate Hoey, MP, described the under-writing of the event as a "technicality" suggesting that it could be UK Sport who signed on the understanding that the Government could be relied on to "bail them out".[54] There is no evidence as to the authority with which the then Minister for Sport was committing the Government to underwriting a London World Athletics Championships through UK Sport.

On 30 March 2000, the Committee published its third Report on these matters.[55] In relation to Picketts Lock the Committee highlighted seven challenges: a shortfall in the assembled capital funding; the lack of an underwriter for the event; the quality of the stadium; transport and infrastructure issues; the short timetable; the long term sustainability of the stadium; and the demand it would represent for events currently held in different venues around the country.[56] For a third time the Committee recommended a dedicated Minister for Events and criticised the overlapping responsibilities in the governance of sport in the UK.[57]

On 4 May 2001 the Secretary of State announced a commitment of £8 million to the National Athletics Stadium at Picketts Lock from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). However, this funding was to be contingent on the remaining gap in capital funding being bridged, and would not be made available until 2002/2003. London Marathon Trust announced they would provide revenue support on 6 May 2001. Lee Valley RPA issued a press release stating the cost of Picketts Lock would be £97.3 million, £10 million of which being off-site costs. The issues of the funding gap and lack of underwriting remained unresolved. On 29 May, with a general election approaching, the Lee Valley RPA wrote again to the Secretary of State asking for Government action in resolving the outstanding issues.[58] The Labour Party Manifesto was issued at this time containing a commitment to hosting the 2005 WAC with first class facilities; there was no reference to London.

On 4 June 2001, Lee Valley RPA made their formal Lottery application to Sport England for the balance of the £67 million Lottery allocation. They also requested funding to ensure continuity in the project from that point until the end of 2004 in order to deliver it successfully against a demanding timetable.[59] A general election was held on 7 June 2001 and the next day The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP and The Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP were appointed as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Sport, respectively, replacing The Rt Hon Chris Smith MP and Kate Hoey MP.

From Picketts Lock to Sheffield

  Field result goes here On 18 June 2001, at a joint meeting between Sport England and the Lottery Panel, a decision on the formal Picketts Lock Lottery fund application was deferred. Sport England told the Committee that they had not felt they could approve the lottery application having identified areas of concern in November 2000 which they did not believe had been tackled by the Lee Valley RPA.[60] These were: the capital costs, funding gap and underwriting issues; the planning and transport issues; the long term legacy and revenue funding issues; and the sporting legacy and impact on other UK venues. Sport England was concerned that, as experience with other projects with tight deadlines has shown, the actual costs could rise above £97million Sport England met the new Secretary of State to bring to her attention their strong reservations and concern that the project would not meet the criteria for Lottery applications. The Secretary of State agreed with the Chairman of Sport England that Mr Patrick Carter, who had been asked to undertake a review of the national stadium issue, should also review Picketts Lock on behalf of Sport England to see if the concerns raised were issues that could be successfully dealt with.[61]

After informing the IAAF that the review would be taking place, on 25 June the Secretary of State announced its terms of reference (agreed with Sport England): "In the light of the Government's manifesto commitment to ensure that a first class athletics stadium is available for the World Athletics Championships in 2005, [to] determine whether the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project can be funded and managed in its current format, [and to] determine what alternatives might be feasible".[62] On 2 July, with the Carter review underway, Sport England again deferred any decision on Lottery funds for Picketts Lock. At this stage Picketts Lock project funding was at an end and all work by the Lee Valley RPA ceased. This Committee announced its inquiry into the staging of the 2005 WAC at Picketts Lock on 23 July 2001.

In August 2001 the Sports Minister, Mr Caborn, met the IAAF at the World Athletics Championships in Edmonton. The media at the time reported that Mr Caborn had reaffirmed the UK Government's commitment to staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships in London.[63] Also in Edmonton were members of the Lee Valley RPA on a fact-finding mission. So was the Head of Sheffield Major Events following Sheffield's involvement in Patrick Carter's review of alternatives to Picketts Lock.

Mr Patrick Carter delivered his report to Sport England and Ministers on 31 August 2001. The report recommended:

    "—  If Government intends to enter into the contract for the 2005 WAC on the basis of a Picketts Lock location, the transport and accommodation provision and budgets require urgent investigation. It is however, unlikely that the financial implications will be fully known before a commitment must be made

    —  A decision must be reached quickly in order to begin the long design and build process allowing time for handover for test events. Delays could rule out certain of the options, and add to the cost

    —  Move the event if the IAAF agree

    —  If the IAAF will not agree, Government should consider the risk of withdrawing from the event

    —  UK Athletics and the Sports Councils should consider an alternative investment in athletics development, using the savings from not holding the WAC at Picketts Lock."[64]

On 4 October the Secretary of State met UK Athletics to advise them of the decision that Lee Valley was not viable as a venue for the 2005 WAC. UK Athletics agreed to the offer of Sheffield to the IAAF as an alternative venue. Lee Valley RPA and the London Borough of Enfield were allowed one hour's briefing on Mr Carter's report before meeting the Secretary of State to be told of the decision.[65] Sport England then published Mr Carter's report (in so far as it related to Picketts Lock) alongside a Government announcement of the proposed switch to Sheffield. We note that UK Sport were left to print the summary of the report off the website, having been almost completely ignored by the Carter review team.[66] This may explain the claim by Mr Carter that, throughout the review, he remained unaware of any policy or strategy which set out why the UK sought to stage major sporting events.[67]

On 5 October the Secretary of State, Minister for Sport, Chairman of Sport England, Patrick Carter and UK Athletics met Mr Lamine Diack and Mr Istvan Gyulai, President and General Secretary of the IAAF, on their way home from the Birmingham Half-Marathon, at Heathrow Airport. The Government proposed that the WAC should move to Sheffield, that the IAAF biannual congress should be staged in London and that the IAAF might be able to help with the development of a bursary programme for athletes in developing countries.[68] Mr Diack advised that the IAAF would be unlikely to be able to transfer the event to another city in the UK and would be required to reopen the bidding process afresh. Decisions, however, could not be taken except by the IAAF Council which next met on 26 November.[69]

On 23 October, in evidence to us, the Secretary of State announced a review by the Performance and Innovation Unit within the Cabinet Office (PIU) of the policy in relation to the bidding for, and staging of, major events.[70]

7  Staging International Sporting Events, HC 124, 1998-99 (May 1999); Wembley National Stadium, HC 164, 1999-2000 (March 2000); Staging International Sporting Events, HC 286, 2000-01 (March 2001). Back

8  HC 164, 1999-2000, paras 4-5. Back

9  Ibid, para 6. Back

10  Formerly the English National Stadium Development Company. Back

11  HC 164, 1999-2000, para 10. Back

12  Ibid, Ev, pp 60-62. Back

13  Hereafter "the Committee" includes the previous Committee in the 1997 Parliament except where a distinction is necessary. Back

14  HC 164, 1999-2000, para 17. Back

15  Ibid, Ev, p 56-57. Back

16  Ibid, Ev, p 79. Back

17  The British Athletics Foundation went into administration in December 1997. Back

18  HC 124, 1998-99, para 129. Back

19  DCMS, 207/99, 29 July 1999. Back

20  HC 164, 1999-2000, Q 322. Back

21  Ibid, Ev, p 59. Back

22  Ibid, Ev, p 60. Back

23  HC Deb, 1 December 1999, C306ff. Back

24  HC 164, 1999-2000, para 107 and Q 332. Back

25  Ibid, paras 97, 98. Back

26  Ibid, para 109 and Q 333, 336, 350. Back

27  Ibid, para 109. Back

28  DCMS, 310/99, 22 December 1999. Back

29  Ev, p 109 and HC 164, 1999-2000, para 81. Back

30  HC 164, 1999-2000 and HC 286, 2000-01. Back

31  HC 164, 1999-2000, paras 70, 139. Back

32  DCMS, 49/2000 and HC Deb, 14 March 2000, col 154wBack

33  HC 286, 2000-01, para 49. Back

34  Ev, p 18-19. Back

35  Q 48. Back

36  Ev, p 133. Back

37  Ev, p 124. Back

38  DCMS, 310/99, 22 December 1999. Back

39  HC 164, 1999-2000, para 113. Back

40  Ev, p 87. Back

41  IbidBack

42  HC 286-I, 2000-01, para 133. Back

43  Ev, p 129. Back

44  Ev, p 120. Back

45  HC 286-II, 2000-01, Ev, p 19. Back

46  Ev, p 88. Back

47  Ev, p 89. Back

48  HC 286-II, 2000-01, Q 60. Back

49  Ev, p 36. Back

50  HC Deb, 14 March 2001, 364, C651wBack

51  HC 286, 2000-01, para 128. Back

52  Ibid, para 130. Back

53  HC 286-II, 2000-01, Q 451. Back

54  HC 286-II, 2000-01, Q 512. Back

55  HC 286, 2000-01. Back

56  HC 286, 2000-01, paras 137-144. Back

57  HC 286-I, 2000-01, para 184. Back

58  Ev, p 90. Back

59  Ibid, p 91. Back

60  Ev, p 58. Back

61  Ev, p 120. Back

62  Ev, p 26. Back

63  See for instance Evening Standard, 3 August and Evidence, p 115. Back

64  Ev, p 26. Back

65  Ev, p 91. Back

66  Ev, p 109 and Q 134. Back

67  Q 144. Back

68  Ev, p 66. Back

69  IbidBack

70  Q 236. 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 20 November 2001