Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 250)
THURSDAY 9 JULY 1998
MR
PETER
MANDELSON
and MISS
CLARE
PILLMAN
240. On the legacy area that was touched on earlier
by Michael Fabricant, can you tell us who is on the Committee?
(Mr Mandelson) The names
of the civil servants?
241. Who else is attracted, is there a property
person, is there an investment banker?
(Mr Mandelson) No; it
is officials.
242. What is the scale of this Committee then?
(Mr Mandelson) The officials'
Working Group is putting together, for the Government, for Ministers,
the criteria on which and against which we will judge and assess
expressions of interest that have been made about the future use
of the Dome. The officials represented on it come from the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Her Majesty's Treasury,
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, English Partnerships,
as you know, an agency of Government, the Millennium Experience
Company itself, as well as the Millennium Commission. They are
all the people with an interest. They will do the groundwork
for Ministers subsequently to consider how we should proceed.
And, as you know, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister, when he
attended the topping-out of the Dome the other week, made it clear
that, for his money, he wanted to see it remain permanently and
he has asked officials for an interim report and indication of
how we should proceed in this area by the recess.
243. And who chairs that Committee?
(Mr Mandelson) The Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
244. But who in particular, which politician?
(Mr Mandelson) It is an
officials Working Party.
245. Officials, who work for John Prescott?
(Mr Mandelson) Officials,
preparing the ground for Ministers.
246. Okay. Now we have had some trouble in the
past, Crystal Palace was moved from Hyde Park, sadly much of the
Festival of Britain was destroyed very quickly after the Festival
of Britain. If you have a time-lag between the date that this
ends, this Exhibition, all of that infrastructure that is there
currently will start to wonder how it is going to make any money
in the year 2001, and if there is a time-lag of more than a year
to put something into there then as that time gets longer and
longer so the people who have invested start to say "I'm
not going to make any money here". So this is quite a critical
decision, its future use, and the idea that somehow the Olympics
of 2012 could be in there and that it could be left fallow, or
that it could only have a short lease while we contemplate the
Olympics, makes me nervous about what sorts of things could work
commercially in there. Do you accept that that is a real worry
as to what could go in there?
(Mr Mandelson) I think
it is one of the important considerations that the Government
and its officials Working Group have got to take into account.
I think it is a very important point you are making and it cannot
simply just sort of be put into abeyance for years and then brought
back into some putative future use, with that deterioration you
referred to having taken place in the meantime. I think that
is a very good point and something that we have got to consider.
But, as I said, one of the Government's three criteria is sustainability
and suitability, and suitability, I think, consists not only of
the most appropriate use, given the sort of national status of
the Millennium Dome, but suitable in terms of the maintenance
of its structure and of its infrastructure.
247. Can I ask you to think about the success
of Futuroscope again. This is now the third most visited site
in Europe but it is not just, as it were, a multimedia centre,
there is a university there, France Telecom's research department
is there, and the whole region has put in a brand new town; and
that, whilst we have got elements of that, we have no single person
overlooking and saying, "What we could do is take out Exhibit
1 and 5 and 7 and leave that permanently there, add a university,
put in a sports centre, and make actually an enlarged Greenwich
City", which would be spectacular for regeneration in that
area?
(Mr Mandelson) There are
people thinking about that, and one of the expressions of interest
that has been made related quite strongly to the description that
you have just offered. I cannot say anything more than that because
you are in very, very early days, we are literally just taking
expressions of interest, but we are not considering hard options
and hard proposals. But, as it happens, that combination of commercial
use and urban living is reflected in one of the expressions of
interest we have received so far.
248. Finally, can you just tell us where you
are with placing the accounts in the Library?
(Mr Mandelson) I am on
my way. As you know, the accounts, I think, have to be laid by,
the latest, September this year, and that will be done, it may
even be done earlier than September, but that is a matter for
the Company, it is not for me.
Chairman
249. Minister, thank you very much indeed.
(Mr Mandelson) It is my
pleasure.
250. I have deliberately allowed the questioning
to go as long as colleagues wished to put questions because this
is a very useful opportunity for Members of the House of Commons
to question you at length. This concludes the public sessions
of the inquiry. We hope to be able to issue our Report before
the end of the month, and, subject to any qualifications that
Mr Fraser entered into, we look forward to seeing you again before
the end of the year.
(Mr Mandelson) Mr Chairman,
thank you very much indeed. I think it is a very important opportunity
for me to have to give what I hope most members of the Committee,
obviously not all, will feel were quite full and factual and straightforward
accounts of what we are doing. As you know, after your previous
Report, we issued a very detailed response to it. I can assure
you, we will respond with the same thoroughness with your next
Report as we did with the last one.
Chairman: I did say, after
you issued your response to our first Report, that it was a model
of the way in which Ministers should reply to Select Committee
Reports. Thank you very much.
|
