Q61 Jim Sheridan: I think everything that can be said about the Dome in terms of criticism has already been said, and indeed the further north you go, or west or east, outside of London then the more the frustrations are felt. I have to say that even now people are talking about using the experience of the Dome as a reason why we should not be entering for the Olympics, using the Dome as a perfect example why taxpayers money has been wasted. If I could draw your attention to the conclusions? The theme running through the conclusions seems to be that public bodies are not equipped or experienced enough to deal with major projects like this. Is that a fair assessment?
Dame Mavis McDonald: I think it depends on the nature of the public body and the skills which that public body has and the help they get from professional advisers, and English Partnerships is the Government's regeneration agency and it has been in the business for a long time; it has a track record of development and working with partners and throughout the Dome process it was supported by very well experienced advisers in the field of property development and regeneration.
Q62 Jim Sheridan: Are these professional advisers consultants? Can you tell me how much these professional advisers cost?
Dame Mavis McDonald: There is a table in the Report, which sets out exactly what they cost.
Q63 Jim Sheridan: £10 million or something?
Mr Walker: It is figure 5 on page 9. The costs within the sale process-
Dame Mavis McDonald: The cost of advisers, figure 12, page 25.
Q64 Jim Sheridan: Is that almost £8 million on advisers?
Mr Walker: Yes.
Q65 Jim Sheridan: Again, I have some difficulty with public bodies taking on projects like this and then handing out money to consultants, professional advisers-it is duplicating things. Anyway, moving on, also on page 11 we talk about 87% of receipts going to the English Partnerships and 13% passed to the Lottery. What is the rationale behind it? Why do you arrive at these figures?
Dame Mavis McDonald: The Ministers decided that was a fair division of the proceeds on the basis that they had already said it was fair to return something to the public through the Lottery funds because ofthe way in which the presence of the Dome would help speed up the development of the Peninsula. The actual figures were put together, again taking advice from JLL, who had benchmarked the added value of the Dome to the Peninsula and the Dome without the Peninsula.
Q66 Jim Sheridan: Was that 13% negotiated as an acceptable figure?
Dame Mavis McDonald: Ministers agreed that collectively as an acceptable figure.
Q67 Jim Sheridan: The Chair referred to this as a white elephant and refunded to the taxpayers in 2008?
Dame Mavis McDonald: Yes, the £30 million.
Q68 Jim Sheridan: Are there any barriers that may be in the way to stop that being offloaded?
Dame Mavis McDonald: That is based on the estimate of the current plans for rolling out the development on the Peninsula.
Q69 Jim Sheridan: So you are confident that by 2008 the taxpayers' responsibility will be gone?
Dame Mavis McDonald: I think by the end of 2009 the additional extra, that we hope is less than £3 million, will have been provided for.
Q70 Jim Sheridan: I think one of the few benefits of the Dome is to provide cheap, affordable housing for people in that area, hopefully. What is the guarantee that it will not fall into the hands of unscrupulous developers who have other objectives in mind, other than providing affordable housing?
Dame Mavis McDonald: Because the individual roll out of the sites will need detailed planning permission. The parameters for affordable housing are set out in the outline planning permission and the individual developers and partners, who might be Housing Associations for example, will have to produce plans to show they are going to achieve the proportions of affordable housing.