Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-335)
WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2000
MR ROBIN
YOUNG, MR
M O'CONNOR AND
MR D JAMES
Chairman
320. Several individual items have not come
up which are probably worth raising with you before we finish.
Could you just tell us what your proposed treatment of the staff
is at the end of the operation?
(Mr James) We started the year with 2,175 staff and
at the moment we have 1,627. We have absorbed the wastage of staff
as some have gone. We are very concerned that those people who
have given such loyal and dedicated service will be dealt with
at the end of the year in the best possible way and given opportunities
for employment elsewhere. My colleague, Mr John Darlington who
joined with me on this project in September, and I have had great
success with an in-house form of outplacement and jobcentres which
we have developed on other projects. Earlier this year we scored
99 per cent in a company in Northampton on the same problem. We
are introducing here with the participation of our friends in
the personnel department a similar outplacement operation at the
Dome and we would expect to have at least 75 per cent and would
be very disappointed if we do not have at least 90 per cent of
all of these people with jobs by the time they leave on 31 December.
321. That will be very gratifying for the people
who work for you. Thank you for that. I want reasonably precise
answers to my other points and therefore I am willing to accept
notes. The first one is that in the NAO report there is a letter
from the Secretary of State to the shareholder. I should like
to know from you, and a number of questions have come up in the
course of today indicating there was not very much of a rapid
reaction to that, if there had been a rapid reaction to that,
what financial difference that could have made[28].
(Mr James) The letter dated . . .?
322. The February one.
(Mr James) I believe in fact there was a reaction
to it and I believe that the shareholder conveyed and participated
in the dialogues which led to a number of changes. It was consequent
upon that that significant management changes took place which
included the address to the issues of governance, but particularly
the marketing and operational site management of the business
as well. I think the letter was responded to.
323. There was a demonstrable effect.
(Mr James) There was a demonstrable effect as a consequence
of that letter.
324. Then I will have a note enumerating that.
(Mr James) You may indeed; yes[29].
325. I do want a note on this next one because
I do not want to spend too long on it. Why do you consider the
deal to sell the Dome fell through? It would be quite useful to
have a note on that.
(Mr James) This was the Dome/Europe deal.
326. You can give me a one-sentence reply but
I shall want a note on that.
(Mr James) I would refer you to the correspondence
which has been lodged in the Library of the House between Nomura
and myself in which they have raised their reasons and I reject
them. I have to say that I do not accept the reasons they gave
which are a substitute for some other private reason of their
own which they have never identified.
327. I should still like a note of your view
formally[30].
(Mr James) You shall have that also.
328. I have had a request from another Committee
member. I do not know whether you could do this, but the question
is: what visitor numbers were estimated had it been free entry
and whether therefore the enhanced profits from the contents,
catering, retail and so on, would have balanced it out? If you
can do that, fine. I shall understand if you cannot.
(Mr James) The only thing I can say is that on the
only one day we have offered free, we hit a figure of over 40,000
on that one day. That is not really a market sample. I cannot
give you more guidance.
329. A single day probably is misleading. Can
we have a copy of the Deloitte & Touche report, so we can
actually understand where these numbers come from?
(Mr O'Connor) In mid 1997.
330. Yes, that is correct; the basic Deloitte
& Touche report
(Mr O'Connor) Yes[31].
331. Are there others?
(Mr O'Connor) No. I think you are talking about our
analysis of the 12 million visitor target[32].
332. Yes, that is right. Earlier, in response
to Mr Rendel, you gave some figures on total cost which I have
to tell you were a little confusing.
(Mr James) Mr Rendel raised them with me in the break.
333. Could we have a spreadsheet showing us
the beginning, the end and the changes?
(Mr James) I shall reiterate for you how I explained
it in the time we had just now.
334. In writing would be clearer so everybody
can understand what is in and what is out. Can we have a copy
of the balance sheet and profit and loss of the cash flow statement,
the sort of thing that the board would have had available to it?
(Mr James) At which date?
335. Any date you like. I just want it to demonstrate
what is there.
(Mr James) We shall provide you with samples with
the information as it was seen by the board at that time.
Chairman: That would be helpful. Finally, a
matter which is not coming from you to us but from us to you.
You will get a copy of our two pieces of advice to show to you
why we take the view we do. I shall say to you that actually the
arbiter in this is made clear in Treasury guidelines: the arbiter
is Parliament's view not the Department's view and I hope we shall
get a letter of apology in due course when you have thought about
it. Otherwise, thank you very much indeed for turning up. It is
not an easy subject or an easy meeting to come to. Thank you.
28 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 4, page 000.
(PAC 00-01/40). Back
29
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 44, page 000. (PAC 00-01/40). Back
30
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 44, page 000. (PAC 00-01/40). Back
31
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 4, page 000 (PAC 00-01/13). Back
32
Note: See evidence, Appendix 4, page 000, (Pac 00-01/13). Back
| 
