APPENDIX 35
Memorandum submitted by Mr John Lock
I responded to your call for comments on this
matter at the beginning of last year. The Committee kindly published
a summary of the evidence I submitted (CMSC: 3rd Report, Back
to the Dome, Vol II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, pp 181-7).
The main points of my submission were as follows:
1. the East London area requires substantial
new economic activity to bring about full regeneration;
2. this will not occur without growth based
on exploitation of new information and communications technologies;
and
3. the long-term development of the Dome
could play a pivotal role in this.
In the 18 months or so since I started preparing
my submission, it continues to be clear that, notwithstanding
the failure of e-businesses which lack sound management or real
markets, the information and communications technology revolution
is gathering pace.
In contrast, the announcement that Ford Motor
Company is ceasing car assembly in Dagenham serves to emphasise
that production based on old technologies may well still be profitable,
but that profitability is premised on shedding labour not growing
employment and on concentrating production in fewer locations
not on new ventures.
Employment growth may well take place in what
now gets called the "have a nice day" economy, ie fairly
low paid, low skill, low prospect service jobs, but these still
depend on primary wealth creation elsewhere.
Thus, if East London is to prosper anew, on
a sustainable basis, wealth creation based on the development
and exploitation of new ideas must be a mainstream element.
I ask the Committee to consider how far the
two bids to be the permanent use of the Dome will each actively
promote on a sustained basis:
1. extensive links with further and higher
education institutions in East London to support innovation;
2. opportunities for creative talent to develop
in East London;
3. a new image for the area which profiles
not just the successor organisation itself but also the talent
and opportunities in the area; and
4. supply chain development so that the successor
body's procurement has additional local impacts, not merely opportunities
for well-established suppliers elsewhere.
If all of these were achieved, I believe this
would represent real added value for the support from public monies
for the Dome.
Lastly, given that regeneration was a central
reason for supporting the creation of the Dome on the Greenwich
Peninsula site, I propose that it would be appropriate to examine
how the income from the sale of the Dome is to be spent. How far
are the immediate beneficiaries (English Partnerships and the
New Millennium Experience Company) remitted to re-invest the funds
they receive in East London? Could funds from the sale be invested
largely or wholly outside of the area?
I ask because, while there is the prospect of
a very exciting outcome from the development of the Dome and the
Peninsula site, it could also turn out that the Lottery investment
merely passes through East London leaving behind a commercial
development whose principal effect is to sustain a large number
of lower skill, lower paid jobs. [I should make clear that my
point is not against such jobs, per se, but in favour of
there being a diversity of wealth-creating activity which supports
a wide range of employment.]
Thus, how the income from the sale of the Dome
is spent is an issue. If the ultimate effect of the creation of
the Dome is to invest hugely in a short-term project without a
longer-term strategic view, then there may be two outcomes:
— a brief opportunity for employment
and innovation that is succeeded by a long term use which doesn't
live up to the initial promise and therefore doesn't achieve sustainable
regeneration outcomes; and
— the net investment of Lottery cash
in East London's regeneration, once the legacy sale is factored
in, being considerably smaller than the headline figure for investment
in the Dome with the effect that the area is short-changed.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit further
evidence. As before, I should state that the above views are mine,
arising from my knowledge of the area and experience of regeneration,
and not presented on behalf of the University.
May 2000
| 
