Written evidence submitted by Barry Gardiner MP
PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF ANY DECISION TO SELL WEMBLEY STADIUM
I am writing as the Member of Parliament for Brent North in response to the Football Association’s announcement that it was considering selling Wembley National Stadium (WNS) for about £600m to the car parts and NFL billionaire Shahid Khan. I also note that it is considering looking for higher offers from other bidders. I wish to comment on a range of issues which arise from such a proposal and request that this representation together with supporting documentation is available to all members of the committee.
A national icon with local implications
Wembley National Stadium is an international icon vital not only to Brent, and to London, but also to England and the United Kingdom. Consideration of any potential sale requires public scrutiny against all those factors. There will also need to be serious scrutiny of any proposals against previous measures which were designed and intended to guarantee the FA’s commitment to the stadium for 50 years and to the public benefits which were promised in exchange for a major and critically important injection of £161m from public bodies which safeguarded and ensured the redevelopment project which was completed in 2007.
The 2007 redevelopment
I have been the Member of Parliament for Brent North since 1997 and in that capacity, I was extensively involved in the initial difficult negotiations and agreements in principle relating to the Wembley redevelopment. (Appendix A). I worked extensively then with my colleagues in Government, Sport England, (then the Sports Council for Great Britain) the London Development Agency, the Football Association, the Mayor of London and Transport for London.
The problems associated with the early stages of the Wembley Stadium and Pickets Locks projects could not be treated in isolation, nor should the reputational damage of these problems be underestimated. They culminated in the decision that Britain had to withdraw from hosting the 2005 World Athletic Championships.
This had a devastating effect on Britain’s international sporting reputation. And when Wembley National Stadium Limited was unable in December 2000 to raise the commercial funding it needed, there was a possibility that the project would not proceed at all. This prompted the then Secretary of State to make a statement about the project, and whether to proceed with further support, following a request from the Football Association for additional funding.
It was subsequently agreed to fund the redevelopment. Sport England provided £120 million, the Department for Culture Media and Sport £20 million of taxpayers’ money and the London Development Agency a further £21 million. All the public sector funders were concerned to protect the public interest by preventing the Football Association from appearing to profit from or destabilise the project by taking windfall gains. Those funders secured what they believed were a number of protections against these risks, including requiring the Football Association to retain an investment of at least £100 million in the project throughout the stadium’s expected life of 50 years.
The Brent context
The national stadium in Wembley has had a hugely positive impact, and I welcome the significant regeneration in and around the area, especially where it has provided benefits for the less economically fortunate members of our communities. I also welcome the economic advantages accruing to the Wembley area in the form of additional spending on food, drink and other ancillary items, and the additional catering and stewarding employment opportunities. Equally the stadium has always recognised the importance of interacting with the local community and working closely with key stakeholders – at a local level.
However, the stadium and its activities also create stresses and strains within local communities, bears heavily on local transport systems and it has significant environmental impacts. The stadium is a key public transport destination and despite extensive improvements to Wembley Park station, Wembley Central and Wembley Stadium stations, all located within my Brent North Constituency, “Event Days” are not always a pleasant experience for local residents.
Most residents plan their days around event days because even a simple shopping trip for food can become a difficult task. On an event day in excess of 50,000 people will go through Wembley Park Station and 100 trains an hour will go through the three Wembley Station serving the Stadium.
I have also received over a number of years many letters regarding the anti-social drinking in the streets around Wembley Park, the lack of toilet facilities in the local public houses and the additional litter which is clearly evident for many days after an event.
I would therefore draw your attention to the fact that public monies were provided for the construction of the stadium in return for a range of public benefits and agreements in principle to include the lease of the site, the operating contract, events commitments, ticket pricing and broadcasting rights.
The key public benefits required are set out in full in the National Audit Office’s report of June 2003 (Appendix B) and I would ask the Committee to observe the following requirement:
“Starting five years after the stadium opens, Wembley National Stadium Limited shall donate one per cent of its turnover each year to Wembley National Stadium Trust, an independent charity which will distribute the money to sports education and other projects. Until that time, Wembley National Stadium Limited will make a donation of £5000 a year to Wembley National Stadium Trust.”
A legal agreement was signed on 26th September 2002 by Wembley National Stadium Ltd (WNSL) and Wembley National Stadium Trust which required and requires WNSL to pay 1% of its annual gross revenue to the Trust for a period of 50 years as a condition of the FA receiving public funding.
Wembley National Stadium Trust (WNST)
Wembley National Stadium Trust (WNST) is a community initiative working in the London Borough of Brent in local areas around the Stadium as well as more widely across London and around England.
The legal agreement referred to above goes some way to “repaying the debt for the inconvenience caused to the local community.” Wembley Stadium recognises the importance of working hard to make a positive difference to the local community and in their annual review the Operations Director of WNSL said “We are delighted to continue to work closely with WNST, funding its important work encouraging participation in football and other sports both locally and further afield.”
Within the local community WNST has become very well-known and very well respected, having supported some 150 local clubs, groups and charities for a wide range of different sports and physical recreational activity. These local groups may otherwise have benefitted from the lottery funds that were subsequently diverted to support the Stadium redevelopment. With the significant scaling back of funding to local authorities, at this critical time for public health, the potential loss of any community sports provision cannot be overlooked in the midst of any commercial negotiations.
London and further afield
More widely, across the capital their disability sports programme has helped to improve the quality of life for thousands of disabled Londoners. Working with a number of high profile partners, including the London professional football clubs, county FAs, Saracens rugby club, the Lord’s Taverners and county cricket clubs, the WNST has supported work that is now being replicated far beyond its original reach, multiplying the benefits many time overs.
Nationally WNST is working in partnership with the EFL Trust, providing £1m over three years to fund around 25 of the pro clubs around England to run a wide-ranging programme of disability football projects.
WNST is a self-governing charitable company and its principal objective is to receive an annual donation of funds from WNSL and distribute grants, in accordance with the Trust’s Memorandum & Articles of Association.
These are to promote the advancement for the benefit of the public of the education of children and young persons who are pupils of schools, universities and other educational establishments in the United Kingdom by organising or providing facilities, coaching and training or assistance in providing facilities, coaching and training to enable, assist and encourage them to play football (the first element) and other sports (the second element) particularly through providing funding for sports equipment, coaching and training for deprived children, young persons and disabled people. I attach for your information a full list of all the grants awarded during 2016/2017. (Appendix C).
You will note that for 2017
Grants awarded:
London Borough of Brent Grants £213,516
London wide programme extension £52,500
Inclusive United underspend grants £54,850
London-wide “Team Up” £225,000
England programme with EFL Trust £356,000
The way ahead
The future ownership of the stadium, and the uses to which it might be put, are a matter for the Football Association. Of interest and even concern to me as MP for Brent North is that the sale may create a framework or set of conditions whereby the existing relationships and agreements between the stadium (essentially the FA) and the communities, as set out above, are dismantled or open to being dismantled.
I urgently need to know that any future owner of the stadium will recognise their responsibilities to the local community as well as their rights. There are many cases where ownership could be diverted to offshore tax havens with little interest in preserving local rights and protections.
I will also be clear on this aspect of any sale: it has to be conditional on the continued flow of benefits to WNST in the form of guaranteed continuation of the provision of one per cent of turnover, as exists currently.
I note that the FA has been looking at seeking other offers. “That might be in the FA’s interest, but the consequence of extracting a higher price would be to exert greater pressure on a future owner to maximise their return on capital by cutting their commitments to the local community and in particular to WNST. It is that grant stream which supports the community and mitigates the adverse impacts of the stadium on the lives of local people.”
I would find that socially, ethically and legally unacceptable. I hope you would take the same view.
Yours sincerely
Barry Gardiner
Member of Parliament for Brent North
Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for International Climate Change