House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report

V. LEGACIES

44. One of the central aims of the Millennium Commission and the Government has been to provide a lasting legacy from the Millennium Experience to both the local area and the country as a whole.[109] According to Lord Falconer, "the contribution, both to the regeneration of the Thames Gateway and to the United Kingdom as a whole, has already been immense".[110] It is expected that about 13,000 jobs have been or will be created as a result of developments on the site, primarily but not exclusively the Millennium Dome. About a quarter of those employed on the construction of the Dome are from the local area. Although some employment connected with the operation of the Dome is of limited duration, it will provide valuable training and experience.[111]

45. The Dome is at the centre of the British Tourist Authority's efforts to market Britain as the preferred world tourism destination for the year 2000 and beyond. It is one of the central pillars of the campaign entitled "Britain—Now is the Time", along with Greenwich's status as the home of time and the investment in cultural regeneration associated with the National Lottery.[112] The British Tourist Authority estimates that the number of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom in the year 2000 will rise by more than 1 million. It expects the Dome to attract additional overseas tourist revenue of up to £500 million, with the "halo" marketing effect contributing up to £1 billion to the economy, creating between 15,000 and 30,000 new tourism-related jobs as a result.[113]

The Dome legacy competition

46. Since our initial examination of the project, we have emphasised that the benefits should not only be for one year, but should be sustainable: the Dome is "a major asset of enduring value to the nation" and there is "a strong case for a long-term use of the Dome for the public good at Greenwich".[114] Around a dozen proposals for a wide range of possible uses have been received. A short-list of bidders is expected "by the early part of next year".[115] Shortlisted bidders will be asked to submit more detailed proposals for "a commercially sustainable future for the Dome".[116] Other factors which will influence the decision will include the price offered, the effect on the region, the effect on regeneration and the impact on transport links.[117] A collective Government decision on the preferred bidder will be taken in June 2000.[118]

47. When we first considered the legacy of the Dome, we emphasised that the use of the site after the year 2000 should be "carefully planned and capable of being implemented swiftly".[119] It would be highly regrettable if the Dome were to lie empty and almost unused for a period of time before its new owners begin operations, as Greenwich Council has rightly noted.[120] Lord Falconer told us that he was conscious of this point and that the competition was designed to permit "a seamless move from the Experience coming to an end and whoever is the new operator taking over".[121] He thought that it might be necessary to close the Dome for a period in order to re-equip it, but assured us that the period of closure would not be unnecessarily extended.[122] Mr Ayling did not rule out the possibility of extending the Millennium Experience into 2001, but thought that it was "far too early" to reach decisions.[123] We recommend that the quality of detailed plans and timetables for the transformation of the Dome to its new, publicly accessible incarnation should be a specific criterion in the evaluation process in the competition to determine the Dome's future use. We further recommend that, once a preferred bidder has been selected, NMEC and the preferred bidder discuss the possibility of the entire Millennium Experience or a part of it continuing in some form in the first half of the year 2001 to avoid an extended period without public access.

48. The Government has acknowledged the importance of ensuring propriety in the selection process while maintaining a necessary element of transparency.[124] It has appointed Sir Thomas Legg to examine and review the arrangements for the conduct of the competition and to report on any issues that he believes merit consideration.[125] We were pleased that Lord Falconer accepted that Sir Thomas Legg's work should be a "complement to and not in any sense a substitute for" Parliamentary scrutiny.[126] We expect to examine progress of the competition to determine the future use of the Dome in our inquiry next year. We expect to receive a copy of any report by Sir Thomas Legg, in confidence if necessary.

The local dimension

49. The Dome is a national symbol in a local setting. A recurring theme of our Reports on the Dome has been the importance of developments taking place in consultation with the local community. We have proposed more than once that NMEC hold a public meeting in Greenwich, a proposal which the Company has rejected.[127] In our most recent Report, we emphasised the importance of public consultation as part of the process of determining the Dome's future use.[128] In response, English Partnerships, which is managing the competition on behalf of the Government, has discussed the evaluation criteria for the competition with Greenwich Council and local organisations and taken the views of those organisations into account.[129] The Council and other local bodies will be consulted on outline proposals shortly.[130] The Government has confirmed that it will wish to provide an opportunity for the wider public to comment once a short-list has been agreed and published.[131] Greenwich Council welcomed the consultation process and the decision of English Partnerships to involve the Council more centrally in the consultation process.[132] Mr Ayling in turn thanked the Council and local organisations "for their positive and supportive attitude" towards the competition.[133]

Transport after the year 2000

50. Local consultation is of particular importance in the context of transport to the Dome after the year 2000. Transport strategy and the future use of the Dome are interdependent. A sustainable use will depend upon the continuation of an effective public transport network, but, equally, the continuation of some transport links created initially for the year 2000 will rely upon a long-term use for the Dome that generates demand for public transport. The Government has made it clear to potential bidders that "developments for the site must be largely predicated on the use of public transport with car parking on the site kept to a minimum".[134] Mr Hill expected that bids would "maximise on the existing excellent public transport facilities which have been provided to the site".[135] London Transport stated that most of its services to North Greenwich would continue after the year 2000 regardless of the use of the Dome, although services might be modified in the light of changed travel patterns after the closure of the Millennium Experience.[136] The Government noted that the tendering process for river passenger services after the year 2000 took place before it was known that the Dome would have a long-term future.[137] It is nevertheless evident that a future use of the Dome attractive to large numbers of leisure visitors will be of benefit to the legacy river passenger service.

51. We have previously argued that North Greenwich Underground Station should be re-named "Dome" in advance of the Millennium Experience.[138] London Underground rejected our proposal on cost grounds.[139] NMEC continues to believe, like us, that a change of name would be of value, but considers that the chance has now passed.[140] While a change may be too late for the purposes of NMEC, a re-christening of the station should not be ruled out for the longer term. Mr Hill offered to examine a suggestion that the name might be changed as part of a financial agreement with the new owners of the Dome.[141] We recommend that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions instruct London Underground Limited to signal its willingness to re-name North Greenwich Underground station as part of a financial agreement with the new owners of the Millennium Dome.

Other legacies

52. Lord Falconer was "confident that we will find a fitting and sustainable future use for the Dome and leave a tangible and lasting legacy".[142] We expect to examine in due course whether such confidence is justified, but the Millennium Experience should also leave other less tangible legacies, including an enhancement of expertise and knowledge of the management of major events. The requirement for such qualities, not least at the centre of Government, is one we have noted in a recent Report on Staging International Sporting Events.[143] Lord Falconer accepted that:

"it would be incredibly enhancing for the country if there was within Government immediate access to and some experience of how events like this are run ... I think we should look to see how that experience and expertise is preserved for use in future similar events."[144]

We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office commission a study of lessons of the Millennium Dome project relating to the role of Government and public agencies in major events. We further recommend that the Cabinet Office establish a Major Events Unit drawing upon expertise associated with the Millennium Experience.

53. This Committee was the first body outside Government to welcome the Dome and to express excitement at its possibilities. We have exerted influence on its progress and have helped improve its transport access. While never starry-eyed or over-enthusiastic about the Dome, we have recognised its potentiality for local regeneration, for national celebration and for enhancing the economy through attracting tourists from both at home and abroad. While critical and searching about some of its aspects, we have admired the qualities of project-management which have brought it to near-completion on time and on budget. We hope that our support has been justified. We shall soon see.

109 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 48. Back

110 Q 132. Back

111 Q 127. Back

112 Evidence, p 47. Back

113 Ibid. Back

114 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 52. Back

115 Q 137. Back

116 QQ 137, 138. Back

117 Q 138. Back

118 Q 136; Evidence, pp 48-49. Back

119 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 52. Back

120 Evidence, pp 50-52. Back