Millennium Dome (Hansard, 20 January 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company was responsible for the Dome until June 2001 and incurred post-closure costs, met by the Lottery, of £4.3 million after deduction of income.
English Partnerships took over in July 2001. Up to September 2003 it incurred costs, after deduction of income, of £26.6 million. English Partnerships's expenditure will reduce when construction of the new arena begins and will cease when it is completed. English Partnerships's costs will be recovered from sale proceeds.

§ Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am appalled when I think how that amount of money could have been spent so usefully on, for example, schools, hospitals and other worthwhile causes. The Minister said that he expects the spending to end, but when will sums actually flow back to English Partnerships and NMEC under the Government's deal?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, the final Section 106 agreement for the planning application is being put together as we speak. It is probably the most complex and large Section 106 agreement ever conducted on any planning application in the UK. The deal will become unconditional later in the spring; construction cannot start for a year, because contracts have to be bid for and completed; and then there will be the time that construction takes. Meanwhile, English Partnerships is looking after the security, the rates and insurance for the Dome. The costs incurred by English Partnerships are infinitesimal, compared to the returns in due course once the arena is constructed. The income after the Greenwich peninsular is developed will make the figures that I have given today look like seed corn.

§ Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in the year that the Millennium Dome was open, although it should have been sited in Birmingham, it was the most well attended visitor attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he remind the House of the benefits that the Dome has left behind?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, there were 6.5 million visitors. It was the most successful visitor attraction in the country. Regarding its legacy: 300 acres of derelict 902 land have been dealt with; currently 800 homes are complete or under construction; there is an ecology park, 50 acres of parkland, a new primary school and health centre, a small hotel and a 14 screen cinema; and £280 million of private finance has already been invested. As for what will happen when the planning application is finally agreed and put together, there will be an arena with a capacity of 26,000, 10,000 new homes—4,000 of which will be affordable—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I apologise for falling into ODPM ministerial speak. They are all affordable but 4,000 will be for key worker accommodation. There will be a four or five-star hotel, a secondary school and community facilities, three and a half million square feet of commercial office space, significant transport infrastructure, £550 million of cash returned and 20,000 permanent jobs—including over 5,000 for Greenwich Thames Gateway. I could go on—

Noble Lords
Hear, hear.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, the legacy of what will come from dealing with a site that was left derelict for many years will be massive for people in that part of London.

§ The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, is the Minister aware that he left out one significant fact? The Millennium Dome proved to be the most wonderful venue for a recent carol service before Christmas, attended by more than 7,000 people. So it is not a totally wasted asset.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, no, it is not. One of the difficulties while income has been small is that the Dome is so large that there is a limited number of enterprises and events that can fill it. The best has been done to generate income and I am pleased to hear about that latest event.

§ Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem is that the Dome has not been affordable? I thought it significant that the word "affordable" was used. We have waited for 20 months since conditional contracts were signed with developers. In particular, what is the long-stop date in the contract after which the Government can withdraw should that be necessary if the negotiations can not be concluded? In a Written Answer to me on 11 December 2003, the Minister assured me: All of English Partnerships' costs in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. WA79.] We have heard that he is optimistic about that, but was that statement made with an unconditional guarantee by the developer or is it just a fond hope?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, no. I draw attention to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on 11 December at cols. WA78–79 of the Official Report. That remains the position. All of English Partnerships's costs in relation to the Dome, including those incurred over that year after the deal becomes unconditional, will be met and will be recovered from the substantial amounts of money received from the sale of the Dome—close on half a billion pounds, although that is £240 million at net present value.
I have said that as we speak the Section 106 deal is being put together and the deal will become unconditional around May this year, by which time there will have been a period of three months that has to be left in case there is a judicial review, but there is no sign that that will happen. The developer then will have a year to let the contract. It is expected that the arena built inside the Dome will be open in 2007. Many of the other developments that I mentioned will be ongoing while the arena is constructed. It is not a question of one thing following another. We expect that there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations, led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how much I have enjoyed listening to his exposé of Never Never Land? Have the Government ever undertaken an exercise to compare the cost and value to this country of keeping the Royal Yacht, compared with the cost and value of the Dome?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, it is not Never Never Land, because I invite the noble Baroness to visit the Greenwich peninsular and see what is there now —not what will be there in the future. Then she can return to this House and say that she would prefer it to remain derelict, as it was for many years. The nearest thing to Never Never Land was the recent announcement by the Conservative Party in its so-called campaign on waste regarding figures used for the Dome. They do not stack up and can not be justified by those who made the claim for what was put in Yard 10. I am not surprised that no one has had the gumption to raise that today, because they know those figures. That is the Never Never Land of the Tory Party regarding the Dome.

Lord Berkeley
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one item on the list of benefits that he forgot to mention was the construction of the Jubilee Line?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I mentioned transport infrastructure. There are 1,200 construction jobs at any one time during the 20-year period and the Dome may play a role if London is successful in the Olympic bid. There are one or two other little goodies that I could mention, but it would be unfair, given the time, to go over the goodies that will come from the Dome.