Thank you for inviting Sport England to respond to the Select Committee's Report on Wembley National Stadium. We were pleased to have been invited to give both written and oral evidence to the Committee while it conducted its inquiry, and we welcome this opportunity to comment on the Committee's remarks, conclusions and recommendations.

Having studied the Report closely, we would like to draw your attention to the following sections:

—  Paras 1 and 45. According to our records, the Select Committee's Report Staging International Sporting Events was published on 13 (not 19) May 1999.

—  Para 41. As stated in our written evidence, we believe that the Copelands School site could have provided suitable warm-up facilities for the World Athletics Championships.

—  Para 75. As indicated in our original submission to the Committee, WNSL, the design team and Ministers were all briefed, in July 1998, on the need to ensure that the design solution would provide the new stadium with a capacity, in athletics mode, of 65,000—capable of being increased to 80,000 should a bid for the Olympics prove successful. This approach was discussed and agreed by all key parties—including the Government, WNSL, UK Athletics and the BOA—in advance of the design's public launch on 29 July 1999.

—  Para 76. The Lottery Funding Agreement was the result of detailed and intensive negotiations, over several years, and reflected the expressed needs of the three sports involved. Although the World Athletics Championships had yet to be attracted to the United Kingdom, and the BOA still had not launched a London-based Olympic bid, the Agreement ensured that the new Wembley Stadium would be capable of, and available for, hosting such flagship athletics events on the terms upon which such events are offered (as explained in paragraph 11.5 of our original submission to the Committee). It would also have provided—as has been widely recognised—a world-class venue for both football and rugby league. Indeed, it will still do so.

—  Para 93. The date at the start of this paragraph should read 25 January 2000—not 25 January 1999.

—  Paras 120-122. We have noted the assumption that £60 million of Lottery money will be provided to fund new facilities for athletics as a result of the sport's withdrawal from Wembley. First, it is important to note that a quarter of this figure (£15.4 million) appears to be based on the assumption that we would necessarily have funded the most expensive of the different warm-up options in the Wembley Stadium area. However, as previously indicated, we believe that the Copelands option (costing £2.4 million) would have been suitable for the World Athletics Championships and could have provided an important legacy for both the sport and the local community. Second, in addition to the uncertainties surrounding the proposed £20 million payment from the Football Association to Sport England, we cannot—as we stressed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (last December) and the Select Committee (in January, during our oral evidence)—allocate any sum of Lottery money to a particular sport unless it comes forward with a soundly-based application which meets published criteria of eligibility, viability, value for money and financial need. Any other approach would breach the Financial and Policy Directions—the importance of which was stressed in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's submission to the Committee—that we have received as a Lottery distributor.

—  Para 133. We share the view that any English venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships should be selected on the basis of the five criteria set out by the Committee—namely, "design quality, value for money, equity, legacy and viability" (although the principle of regional "equity" has to be set against the commitments that have been made to the IAAF, by UK Athletics and the Prime Minister, to host the 2005 Championships in London).

Since the Committee published its Report, UK Athletics has chosen Picketts Lock as its preferred site for the facilities that will host the 2005 World Championships. We anticipate that an application for Lottery funding will be received in due course. It will, of course, be considered against the usual criteria which govern the operation of the Sport England Lottery Fund.

—  Para 134. We share the Committee's view that "any other [ie non-Wembley] option for 2005" ought to take account of "the quality of overall stadium design, including spectator provision" and have "sight-line and focal point characteristics of at least the same standard as Wembley National Stadium".

—  Para 138. We strongly support the Committee's comments on the need to ensure that facilities built for major sporting events offer every prospect of long-term viability. Indeed, as noted elsewhere in the Report (para 13), uneconomic venues do little or nothing to help a country attract major international sporting events.

—  Para 149. We would warmly welcome the publication of a consultation paper on the possibility of a future London-based Olympic bid.

1 hope these comments prove helpful, but please do not hesitate to contact me if there is any additional information you require.

3 April 2000