Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
THURSDAY 15 JUNE 2000
MR DAVID
CLAYTON-SMITH,
MR KEITH
FAULKNER AND
MR ADRIAN
HOSFORD
Mr Faber
80. The weekend Jennie Page left her job an
unnamed senior executive of one of the sponsors was quoted in
the Sunday Telegraph as saying "We got what we wanted".
Would any of the three of you like to own up to having made that
remark?
(Mr Faulkner) No. Not own up to it but indicate very
clearly we expressed our support at that stage.
81. For Jennie Page?
(Mr Faulkner) Yes.
82. The stories that dominated the press that
she had to be removed at the instigation of the sponsors as far
as you were concerned were totally untrue?
(Mr Hosford) Totally untrue.
(Mr Faulkner) And we took action to establish that
no-one within our organisation had made such a comment.
83. Mr Clayton-Smith, I would like to take you
back to Mr Maxton asking you about the payment of sponsorship
money because I could not help noticing that when he asked you
the second time whether the money had been paid you lowered your
voice and you said "will be paid". So it has not been
paid yet?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) The last instalment of our payment
schedule will be paid because we have now got completion of the
outstanding issues.
84. When was that payment schedule due to be
paid, the last instalment?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) It is conditional on the completion
of the outstanding issues. Those outstanding issues were resolved
this week.
85. This week, how convenient. Is it not the
case that on 22 May when NMEC had to go to the Commission to ask
for extra money it was your sponsorship money that they were holding
out for until the very last moment in the hope they would not
have to ask for more?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) I am not aware of that specifically,
no.
86. Can you tell me how much is still outstanding?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) The final payment is £2 million.
87. There is still £2 million outstanding
out of a total of?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) £12 million.
88. £12 million, so you have paid ten and
there is still £2 million outstanding and we are nearly half
way through the year?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) The sponsorship is a £12 million
sponsorship, the detail of it I have to say is part of a confidential
deal that we have with NMEC.
89. That is fine. What have been the outstanding
issues in the last few weeks that have meant that you have not
paid the final £2 million?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) I do not have absolute detail on
every single one of them but they range from issues we had initially
over the queuing management for the Body Zone or the Body in particular
which were particularly acute, we had issues over the operation
of some of the electronic equipment in the Explore Zone. We have
had some issues over the sponsor recognition boards which have
been resolved. They are largely operational issues about the smooth
running of the Dome.
90. Mr Faulkner, your Zone has been changed
substantially since the opening of the exhibition.
(Mr Faulkner) Yes.
91. That was largely because of concerns you
had expressed?
(Mr Faulkner) It had not proved possible under the
conditions that I think Jennie described very well earlier to
complete all aspects of the Work Zone design. It was opened in
January, unlike many other exhibits it had to remain open while
those adjustments were made. They were made rapidly and, yes,
to our satisfaction.
92. How would the three of you react to the
argument that has been put I think by one or two members of the
Committee, and certainly by others, that the sponsors have exerted
undue influence for the amount of money that they have put into
the Dome as compared with really the influence that the Millennium
Commission should have had and others given the vast amount of
Lottery money?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) Certainly I can only speak for
Boots as a sponsor there. I think it would be fair to say that
from the very start it was made clear to us that we were sponsoring
an existing Zone rather than creating a Boots Zone. Therefore,
the amount of influence we had on the development of it was fairly
constrained.
(Mr Hosford) We very much see it as a constructive
partnership.
93. You did construct your own Zone?
(Mr Hosford) Yes, we did, in partnership with the
NMEC. We are in a position, a happy coincidence, between the fact
that the agenda of the whole Millennium Experience, which is roughly
about equipping people for the new century, coincided very well
with our agenda which is promoting the advantages of better communication
in the new century. We had a lot of skill that we wanted to bring
to that partnership and it worked very well. I do not think we
had any undue influence. We worked constructively around the Talk
Zone in specific areas to get a good result for visitors and I
think the results speak for themselves.
(Mr Faulkner) I have been personally associated with
the commercial negotiations since the autumn of 1997 when we first
committed. There is nothing that I can recognise that I would
describe as undue pressure on the NMEC.
94. You heard my questions earlier to Ms Page
following on from the Auditor-General's letter to the Chairman
of the Public Accounts Committee in which he identifies how close
the Dome came to being insolvent on 22 May. He quotes also a figure
which the NMEC have given me of £200 million had it had to
close at that time. Presumably a great deal of that £200
million is a contingency for repaying all of you. How would you
feel about that? Let me put it another way, were the Dome to close
suddenly would you be suing NMEC? Would you be seeking the return
of your money? Would you be seeking damages for brand damage?
(Mr Faulkner) At this stage, as a Board, we have never
discussed that option and, therefore, we have no position on that.
As part of our commercial negotiation, as in any sensible commercial
negotiation, there are facilities in there to protect us if the
Dome does not complete the year as it is expected. We would much
prefer to regard that as hypothetical and if it occurred we would
then determine what our position would be.
(Mr Hosford) We have no contingency for that at all.
95. You must have thought about it? It must
have occurred to you?
(Mr Hosford) As far as we are concerned the success
of it speaks for itself. It is obviously in our interest that
that continues for the year as we agreed. We have not looked at
the option of closing it whatsoever. I think it would be a very
silly option to look at. It does not make sense for visitors,
it does not make sense for the company, it is really in nobody's
interest.
96. You just said a few moments ago that you
would not put your hand in your pocket for any more money but
the taxpayer, or the Millennium Commission or the Lottery player,
may have to?
(Mr Hosford) If the £200 million figure you quoted
is true, and I have no knowledge of that whatsoever, it would
cost the Lottery player even more if you closed it.
97. That is a matter of some dispute. The same
letter from the Auditor-General suggests that it might fall on
the Treasury rather than on the Millennium Commission so then
it really would be the taxpayer. How do you feel about that?
(Mr Hosford) I feel that it makes no sense to close
the Dome whatsoever and I do not think it is a possibility.
98. Mr Clayton-Smith, have you discussed that?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) No, I am afraid that my reply is
rather repetitive on that. We have protection in our contract
about the reputation of our brand but as far as the option of
the attraction closing early, we have not been through that position.
We have assumed that it would remain open.
Derek Wyatt: None of us could have anticipated
the queuing fiasco on the night which, sadly, since that was what
most editors reported in most newspapers in most media players
in London, caused somewhat overbearing anti stories appearing
for weeks and weeks. But if you look at the media strategy of
the Millennium and NMEC, we have nowhere to go actually to get
good news because the BBC is not an integral partner as a public
service broadcaster in the Dome. There are not good news stories
everyday anywhere on any television or radio.
Mr Faber: Sky.
Derek Wyatt: Sky has access but I am
saying if the BBC was the player.
Chairman: I would just intervene and
say that even if the BBC was a partner it would be utterly deplorable
if the BBC was to want to be critical. Certainly, talking about
the BBC news coverage and language, for the BBC to angle stories
in favour of the Dome just because it was a hypothetical partner
would be an abrogation of whatever journalistic sense it has.
Derek Wyatt: Of course I support that,
Chairman, but what I am saying is if the BBC had won that contract
then Blue Peter might be there every week for the year
or they would have looked at Top of the Pops and said "Wait
a moment, we have an agreement to do this, there is a way in which
we can also enable". I am just asking you is that a weakness,
do you think, in the strategy on the media side? Did it occur
to you at all in your thinking before this dreadful night on 31
December?
Chairman: Only partly dreadful.
Derek Wyatt: We liked it but we got our
tickets early.
Chairman
99. After some effort.
(Mr Hosford) I think it is wrong to blame the media.
The media have a different agenda it seems to me. What we are
saying is that the visitors really do have a terrific day out,
they love it. There is a big opportunity there. That story is
not getting across despite the NMEC's best efforts and I believe
the sponsors' best efforts. The media are on a different agenda
and they are independent, and so they should be. We would love
it if all of the media just commented about the visitor experience
separate from any other issues and made something of that. Good
news stories do not go down particularly well in this country,
unfortunately.
| 
