Q41 Mr Williams: But it still will not replace the value that is being denied to the taxpayer in the meantime, will it? That is a self-evident fact.
Dame Mavis McDonald: It is very difficult for me not to say this taxpayers' money could have been spent on something else because Ministers could always have chosen for it to be spent on something else. Within the parameters that we were working we do not think any longer that that runs, and we do not think it runs because we have had it tested several times by Jones Lang LaSalle and there are added values now to the values in the Peninsula because of the presence of the Dome. The other thing about the current deal is it is actually quite a dense deal and it does not minimise the development on the Peninsula, it actually is maximised up to the capacity that we are advised you could usefully do so with the current transport constraints. In 2018 we may have some more knowledge about things like whether there is a third river crossing that needs to come to the Peninsula; we may have some other views about the then current view of whether the Dome has been successful or not that can be taken into account, and I think that is reflected in the Report itself.
Q42 Mr Williams: Would you not agree that in value for money terms the deal you struck has put a white elephant on life support and, in the meantime, the taxpayer is losing the use of that £48 million that could be available?
Dame Mavis McDonald: No, I would not agree with that view because I think the long-term benefits to the Peninsula and the east end of the Gateway from the deal we now have has significant potential for regeneration of a much wider area than just the area we are talking about.
Mr Williams: I invite you to read your own words after the meeting; I suspect you will squirm with discomfort. Thank you, Chairman.
Q43 Chairman: Leaving aside the policy question of whether it is good to have a Dome there or not in terms of regeneration, or whether it is an icon and all those other fairly questionable propositions, just look at it purely from the sake of the taxpayer as a businessman: is he or is he not better off with the Dome being demolished and the land immediately sold off?
Dame Mavis McDonald: At this point in time in this deal he is better off with our keeping the Dome.
Q44 Chairman: With the Dome being demolished?
Dame Mavis McDonald: No, with the Dome being used in the way it is.
Q45 Chairman: With the Dome being used?
Dame Mavis McDonald: Yes.
Q46 Chairman: Do you want to explain to us why because it is not entirely clear to us? Or your colleague can, we do not mind. Mr Walker, you try.
Dame Mavis McDonald: I think paragraph 3.29 in the Report.
Mr Walker: I think if you look at the words in the Report, what it says is that if all of the land was sold off immediately, which I think is probably the point you are making, there is usually a very heavy discounting by developers in taking the land upfront because of the amount of risk.
Q47 Chairman: I am sorry; you will have to go a bit slower on this. Explain yourself, please.
Mr Walker: If somebody was to buy the 48 or 68 acres you would get a less price for that upfront rather than you would in the longer-term, mainly because they would discount the amount that they would pay to alleviate some of the risk of the unknown in the future.
Q48 Chairman: I am afraid we do not understand that, Mr Walker.
Mr Walker: As it says in the Report if you sell a large piece-
Q49 Chairman: I am not suggesting to you that we should rush into this and that we should offload it as quickly as possible and all the rest of it-you have a parcel of land, 48 acres, hopefully now in a prime position near the Jubilee Line, good road connections and all the rest of it, and all the rest of the site being developed-in a measured way would you not be better off in selling that to a developer for prime office and housing use now?
Mr Walker: You said with all of the rest of the site being developed?
Q50 Chairman: Yes, in time.
Mr Walker: In time, which is probably 20 years time when the rest of the site is developed, and at that time under the terms of the agreement if, for instance, Anschutz and MDL decided that they wanted to pull the Dome down and then redevelop, the taxpayers' would share in any value.