Examination of Witnesse s (Questions
480 - 492)
WEDNESDAY 12 JULY 2000
THE RT
HON CHRIS
SMITH, MS
CLARE PILLMAN
OBE AND MR
MIKE O'CONNOR
CBE
480. Why do you leave it to Janet Anderson to
answer questions on the Dome in that way? Some people would argue
that with such a high profile project it is really up to you to
answer questions. When things happened under the last Conservative
Government it was assumed these people did not want to be associated
with failure so they left it to a junior minister.
(Mr Smith) No, incorrect. I refer you to the point
that I have just made that there would be clear impropriety if
I was both responsible for supplying the money from the Millennium
Commission and responsible for making decisions and, therefore,
being answerable for precisely how that money is spent by the
body that receives it. There has to be a distinction between the
two, as there was indeed under the previous Government where the
Chairman of the Millennium Commission was not the same person
as the person who held the share.
481. Poor Janet Anderson stands in the dock.
Can we clarify who is responsible for the distribution of funds
when it comes to the sale of the Dome because going on from the
questions we have previously asked Lord Falconer we are told the
Dome may well be sold as of 1 January next year to one of the
two bidders some time this week or next week. Will you be responsible
for taking that decision and will you be responsible for the distribution
of funds when that decision is taken?
(Mr Smith) No. The decision on which of the two bidders
to accept will be taken by a ministerial team that includes Lord
Falconer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Janet Anderson
and the Deputy Prime Minister. That decision will be taken by
them.
482. You will not be included?
(Mr Smith) I will not be included.
483. Okay.
(Mr Smith) Indeed, although at the outset I was included
in that group, the reason why I excluded myself was that one of
the bidders that emerged, Robert Bourne, responsible for Legacy
plc, has in the past given small donations to my constituency
Labour Party. As a result I felt it would not be right for me
to be part of that decision making.
484. It is not in principle because of your
role on the Millennium Commission, it is because of a conflict
of interest for receiving past monies?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
485. Nevertheless, as a Secretary of State you
must have a view on the amount of money that will be forthcoming
from that, both the project for the Dome and that that will be
returned to English Partnerships. Certainly I thought it was unacceptable
that Lord Falconer could not give us a view as to how much money
as a percentage—we do not know the final figure—we
will be looking for for the taxpayer who deserves to be refunded
by English Partnerships?
(Mr Smith) The only percentage which has so far been
set is the 7.5 per cent of the proceeds which has to go to British
Gas and that is there under contract with British Gas and always
has been. Any division of the remainder between NMEC and English
Partnerships will depend on a variety of things: the overall level
of the bid that is accepted, the particular purposes to which
the bidder wishes to put the building, the contents of the building
and the land around it, the amount of land involved in the sale,
the balance that needs to be determined between the value of the
land and the value of the building. Those are all things which
none of us can tell until we know exactly which bidder has been
successful and what purpose they want to use the building for.
Mr Faber
486. I am sorry, Secretary of State, but in
the latest business plan which is at the insistence of the Millennium
Commission, £30 million has been allocated to the Dome.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
487. If the Dome was to sell for £75 million
rather than £100 million the only people who would suffer
would be English Partnerships, they would lose their share of
the money.
(Mr Smith) The figure in the business plan is a provisional
sum which is in there as a reasonable stab at what might be forthcoming
from such a division of the proceeds between English Partnerships
and NMEC.
488. That is not guaranteed income for the Dome?
(Mr Smith) At this stage it is not guaranteed income.
That is because none of these assumptions about the legacy are
guaranteed until we know which of the bidders has been accepted
and for what purpose.
489. This new budget is no better than the last
one.
(Mr Smith) No, it is a reasonable—
490. —a reasonable stab.
(Mr Smith) —included as any provisional sum
is included in any ordinary contract. I am surprised that you
are not familiar with that sort of process.
Miss Kirkbride
491. Can we ask for any clarification that you
are prepared to give us as to how much money English Partnerships
is likely to pay the taxpayer or actually get out of the deal
when it is finally sold?
(Mr Smith) The balance of return to the Lottery players
via NMEC and the taxpayers via English Partnerships is something
that will need to be determined once we are clear about who the
successful bidder is, what the purpose of their bid is and what
a fair division of the proceeds would be. That is a decision which
can only be taken at that stage and I am surprised that you should
be seeking to pre-determine that decision in potentially an unfair
way at this stage.
492. We can assume it may well have to be zero
or will they get something?
(Mr Smith) I do not think we can say at this stage
what the percentages are going to be, simply because we do not
know what the successful bid is going to turn out to be.
Chairman: The reason I asked you, Mr
O'Connor, whether you are the accounting officer is because during
my own now very distant experience of Government I always found
that accounting officers were people who set themselves up quite
rightly as, when necessary, independent of Government and, if
necessary, disassociated themselves from Ministers if Ministers
were not behaving as they ought to. I was therefore particularly
impressed by your enthusiasm in which you in that role described
some of the projects. Perhaps I can wind up this inquiry by saying
this. I went to Guggenheim, Bilbao, and I was deeply impressed
with the fact that a part of a rather boring city, which was a
particular dump, had been turned into an international Mecca,
that riverside was really a waste land. Without contemplating,
let alone daring to use the word dump in relation to Salford—it
is a Mancunian word—the fact that Salford has now been turned
into an international destination with an icon building I think
is certainly one outcome of which the last Government and this
Government can be proud. With that homily I will declare this
inquiry closed.
| 
