Download 3. Appendix B 7 January 2004 RTF

Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon’s meeting of the
Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee of 7 January 2004.
We have an agenda in two parts. We are examining the issues around the New Year’s Eve
events of last year, 2003, and looking forward, we hope, to 2004 as well. I am pleased to
welcome the Mayor of London here; Murziline Parchment one of his policy directors;
Redmond O’Neill, who is Policy Director for Public Affairs and Transport; and David
Campbell, the Chief Executive of Visit London. David will also be staying for the second
part, which is when we are going to be looking at tourism in London.
Meg Hillier (Chair): We are here first of all to look at New Year’s Eve 2003, and I think it
is fair, if I could start by saying, that this Committee and the Assembly as a whole is very
pro-New Year and very keen to see things happen. Personally, though I perhaps cannot
speak for the whole Committee, I will give the Mayor about six out of ten for last year. We
got free transport, which the Committee thinks is a good thing – that is a Committee view.
We had something happen on New Year’s Eve, so good news so far.
Our big concern, and the main reason you are here, is that we were not given information
about how much this cost, and we actually had to go to unnecessary lengths, in our view, to
get basic information about the £1 million contract for New Year’s Eve. I know that the
Mayor would like to say a few words, but if you could say those briefly and then move on to
answering that question please.
The Mayor: Well, briefly, can I say that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the
nature of the contract. I keep reading in the papers that there was £1 million of fireworks
and so on. The total contract was for £1 million, but the fireworks element of this was
£273,360. Other factors, such as security and other things on the day were responsible for
the rest of the contract.
So it was a relatively small fireworks expenditure in terms of what happens in Paris
sometimes around the Eiffel Tower or what happens with the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The
key was that this was to be seen as part of our attracting tourists back to London. It was
very valuable in learning a lot, so that in a year’s time we will have something much more in
line with what I know the Committee wants; and we learnt a lot about the problems of
crowd control, how many people can be accommodated there and so on.
I think for the money spent it was massively successful in terms of the advertising. I have
got here world coverage from everywhere from Omaha round to Okinawa, where people
broadly took that image from the BBC coordinated coverage and flashed it around the
world. It got clipped into virtually every news thing, along with a clip of Sydney Harbour
and so on. That will help boost tourism.
The second point to make is on the question of sponsorship. We did get sponsorship in
kind of a quarter of a million pounds from BA London Eye, Live itself and the BBC. We
were on track to secure sponsorship of a quarter of a million pounds from two corporations
who are both within the FTSE 100, and one was negotiating with us for £150,000 of
Culture, Sport and Tourism
1
7 January 2004
sponsorship and the other for £100,000 of sponsorship, but both withdrew, citing the
negative political coverage that had appeared once the BBC London programme aired with
all the political controversy and politicians.
I do think the lesson of this is that if you want secure sponsorship from corporations, it is
not going to happen if there is a furious political row, and it was literally in the days
following the BBC coverage and the comments of Steve Norris and others that both these
major corporations withdrew that quarter of a million pounds of sponsorship. That is just
the sheer realities of life. If you want a corporation to sponsor, they do not want to do it if it
is seen as a politically controversial issue. All the nonsense about it being a ‘flop’ and
‘people have not been invited’ cost us directly a quarter of a million pounds.
Next year, clearly, we will want to move on. We have now established enough of an
understanding to build on this. There are options here; we have all got to learn from the
lessons of Edinburgh. You can spend as much as you like and have as many years getting it
right, but the weather can still screw you up on the day. However, I am hoping that we
would move to a much more substantial event, with events building up to the actual
fireworks. Clearly, we do not want to get into the position that Edinburgh is in where they
have to charge £35 admission. My instinct would be that the event that we do put on
would be one where perhaps it would be open to all Londoners through applying to The
Londoner for tickets in a ballot, as we did with the David Gray concert, because one would
not want to exclude people on the basis of price. Clearly over the next few months we will
want to discuss this with the Committee in much greater depth.
But overall, a very good first attempt and I think it has laid the foundation for what will be
a proper New Year’s Eve event along the lines of what I know the committee has wanted to
see for some time. As you know, and as the Assembly investigation revealed two-and-a-half
years’ ago, it takes 18 months to put one of these on. We are already well into planning
that, as we were planning this one for the best part of a year.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Thank you very much. I am heartened by the references to consulting
and discussing with the Committee, which we would be happy to help with. But it is
interesting that you mentioned this controversy. I think it was you that actually said at a
press conference that it was good to go home and watch this on television. Do you not
think that you have some responsibility for fuelling the view that it was best to go home and
watch it, as you actually said that?
The Mayor: No. If I had come out and said ‘we are putting on this fireworks display, all
turn up and see it’, we would have had real problems of public safety. It is quite clear that
without anyone being encouraged to come, enough people turned up that took us to about
the limit of what you can safely accommodate there. What alienated the commercial
sponsors was actually the political ding-dong. They were signed up on the basis, not of
having a big street party, but of this iconic image that would re-establish the London
reputation around the world.
Meg Hillier (Chair): You actually have said to us at the Assembly Mayor’s Question Time
just before Christmas that providing financial information to us, going back to the Mayoral
Approval Form, would have created a safety risk to London, or you implied that.
I wonder if you could perhaps elaborate on that, because it seems extraordinary that when
we are doing our job as a watchdog, asking how London public money is being spent, that
information was refused to us. We had to go to great lengths to get that information and it
Culture, Sport and Tourism
2
7 January 2004
was only received yesterday. Why is getting financial information about events a safety risk
to Londoners?
The Mayor: In our negotiations with the police about aspects of safety they were absolutely
adamant that, until everything had been agreed, nothing should be put in the public domain.
Of course, broadly, when you are involved with so many players, such as Westminster City
Council and others, there are an awful lot of people that have to be squared and brought
along. I think it was really only in the week before, or even in the last few days, that all the
final arrangements around security and safety were in place. That will almost certainly be
the case whenever we are doing this. Negotiations take place up to a very late period
because you are constantly getting more and better estimates of the likely numbers to come
and so on.
Given the propensity of the Assembly for the occasional small leakage situation, we would
happy to explore how we deal with this so you are in the loop, but we have to also, in
dealing with the concerns of the police, ensure that what is circulated does not get into the
public domain.
Meg Hillier (Chair): We were not asking for every dot and comma of chapter and verse;
we actually just wanted a simple break down of that £1 million figure that was so often
cited in broad terms. That would have satisfied us at that point. We are responsible
Assembly Members, Members of this Authority and we will abide by confidentiality where
that is appropriate. But for that sort of broad-brush figure, there seems to be no real
argument to back up what you are saying.
The Mayor: Can I say that if you are trying to get major blue chip companies to come up
with a quarter of a million pounds, they are very sensitive to that appearing until everything
is tied up. Whilst I accept that the overwhelming majority of Members of the Assembly do
respect confidentiality, I do recall, in a situation where a Chief Executive was being
appointed, a Member of the Assembly leaked to the press the confidential application forms
and people who had applied to come and serve London in this capacity had the
embarrassment of reading themselves being rubbished in the Evening Standard. So whilst
the majority of the Assembly do respect confidentiality, we know that some of them do not.
Meg Hillier (Chair): This Committee has a good record I think on this, but the point is
that we were asking for broad-brush information, not highly detailed. Why could you not
provide us that much? I still do not get it.
The Mayor: Well, we do not trust you, just based on past experience.
Meg Hillier (Chair): This is public information; this is not something that is private. If
you were in a local authority as a councillor or in Parliament, you could ask for information
about a contract that had been signed. Why is it that there is a different rule for either you
as Mayor or the Greater London Authority?
The Mayor: As we discussed this at the last full Assembly meeting, the vast majority of
Mayoral Approval Forms come to you once the event is resolved and done. There are some,
which have these very long lead times, where a contract is signed at an early stage.
We are still no doubt negotiating the final terms of the cost of that in the light of the
outcome of the event, and these take a long time. Anything that gets into the public domain
weakens our commercial position. The firm responsible for putting on these pyrotechnics
Culture, Sport and Tourism
3
7 January 2004
are obviously going to be concerned that, if they bid for next year and the contract they
have had with us is in detail in the public domain, they will be at a disadvantage against
their rivals who will know the basis of their bid.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I keep emphasising we are not after the detail in that sense; we
wanted a broad break down of how the money was being spent and what Londoners were
going to get for their pound. I think that you are perhaps wilfully misunderstanding what I
am trying to say.
The Mayor: It is not wilful.
Meg Hillier (Chair): It is by mistake, then?
The Mayor: Given that, people pop up on television, slagging something like this off on the
flimsiest of information. We do not want to give people the ability to go out there, as they
did, popping up on television rubbishing this, saying there is a party and people have been
told they cannot come. Then we find, as we found in this case, that we lose a quarter of a
million pounds of sponsorship. I have got a duty to try and minimise the cost of these
events. If irresponsible behaviour by a small number of Assembly Members, who are
looking to score cheap political points, is going to cost us a quarter of a million pounds
every time, I am going to do my best to try to prevent it happening.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Sponsorship, according to the Mayoral Approval Form we have seen,
was the responsibility of Live, the contractors. But that form was signed in early September
by you and various officers in this building. How therefore, if that was signed and sealed
and they were therefore supposed to be responsible for securing sponsorship, did that
subsequent media coverage, as you are alleging, affect that sponsorship?
The Mayor: I am not alleging. It is a statement of fact – two companies withdrew from
sponsorship the moment this was in the public domain.
Meg Hillier (Chair): This was a matter for Live though, not for you or the Greater London
Authority.
The Mayor: Clearly, the contract with Live is based on their being able to get adequate
sponsorship. If they do not get adequate sponsorship the cost actually becomes a problem
for us, as I understand it.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I do think it is a bit of a problem here. You seem to be
suggesting that any criticism of you, Mayor, results in a loss of sponsorship. Are you trying
to suggest that there cannot be some kind of lively debate about how you intend to conduct
things? Are you saying that that endangers sponsorship on these occasions?
The Mayor: That is exactly the situation. You are completely there to slag me off. All I
am asking is that you do not do it in a way that costs Londoners a quarter of a million
pounds every time you pop up on the television.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Let us start with the role of the Assembly. This Committee has been
totally supportive of having a world-class, effective and safe New Year’s Eve event ever
since the first report that Eric Ollerenshaw (Assembly Member) chaired and the second
report that this committee itself did more than a year ago.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
4
7 January 2004
Your Mayoral Approval Form, which is what brings us here today, acknowledges and
actually says in advice to you that, in making the decision, consideration should be given to
the Assembly’s scrutiny report on the cancellation of the 2000 event and any
recommendations. So the advice to you is that you should be listening to what we are
having to say about how to have an effective event.
That was all we were asking. What you have been talking about are comments around the
£1 million in December. We have been asking for two years to have our views taken into
account. That is our first bone of contention with you, that you have wasted public
resources. You have wasted our time and our resources in ignoring the helpful comments
we are making to get a successful event. That is just putting the record straight in terms of
where we are coming from.
The Mayor: We have based this event and our thinking on this event was based on the
scrutiny that the Assembly made of the failure of the 2000 event. There was no
disagreement between the Assembly and myself on that at all. That underlay our thinking.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): One of the things we said in both reports is that you need to plan
ahead and, taking me on to the second point on the sponsorship, get the funding package
straight, early on. On the two sides of the funding package on the sponsorship side, which
you have chosen to raise today, is it not extraordinarily incompetent of you to let a contract
at the beginning of September and not to ensure that the sponsorship arrangements are
actually contractually signed well in advance of a week or two before Christmas, which is
when this controversy occurred? Should not a properly planned event have got sponsorship
in the bag and signed up to well before the 10 or 20 December?
The Mayor: You negotiate with people and in this instance there was the added problem
that this was the first. In future years, having seen the success of what happened this time,
it will be easier. There you were talking about an untried event. Contrast that with our
involvement in the illumination of key London buildings, where there was no controversy;
you did not know anything about it so none of you could slag it off; the whole thing was
covered by sponsorship. If you had kept your nose out of this we would have saved a
quarter of a million pounds.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): This is quite extraordinary. The Orange sponsorship of the lighting
up events was organised and in the bag in good time and was therefore a success. This one
clearly was not, and that is down to you and your officials and your contracts that you let,
not down to us or politicians outside of this building.
The Mayor: I am afraid that those of you who chose to go on television, deliberately
misleading, deliberately politicising this event, have cost London a quarter of a million
pounds, and you cannot slough off that responsibility. To make a cheap political point in
the run-up to the next June elections, you were prepared to squander a quarter of a million
pounds of Londoners’ money, and that is why I do not trust you; that is why I often keep
information back, because you will use it to damage London, even though your intention is
to damage me.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can I as Chair just try and create a little more harmony here please?
It is unfortunate, Mayor, to talk about the Assembly ‘slagging things off’. Our role, as you
know, is to keep our beady eye on you, your officers, your policies and your spending. That
is what we are doing. If that sometimes leads to criticism – sometimes it is positive
Culture, Sport and Tourism
5
7 January 2004
criticism, sometimes it is negative criticism, sometimes it is positive proposals – perhaps you
could just see it is a slightly more positive light than ‘slagging off’.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): In terms of ‘you’, you as in me was not… I leave that to your newfound comrades to go on to television to slag you off. We will see if the slagging off
continues from here on in.
To finish on sponsorship, because I want to get on to the question I am supposed to be
asking you, if you are to have any credibility with this absurd allegation that a few people on
television a week before Christmas have cost a quarter of a million pounds, then you have to
name those companies and you have to allow them to put on record the truth or the untruth
of what you are saying. You cannot possibly have this wild allegation stack up unless those
companies are named and they get to say whether or not it is true. They are the judges of
whether they withdrew, not you. So let us name them now. Name them now.
The Mayor: Do you really think that these companies will be more inclined to sponsor this
event next year if we drag them into the mud here? What I will do is invite David
Campbell to confirm what I have said. You may not trust me, but I assume you will believe
him and he was involved in the day-to-day management of the run-up to this event.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I would not want to draw him into political controversy. I am saying
to you that if you want this allegation to have any validity you have to name those
companies, and they will say why they withdrew, if indeed they did.
The Mayor: I passed on to you the information passed to me by David Campbell two hours’
ago. I have not changed it in any way.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Can I also just put on the record that I do not think we can
actually continue the situation in which we are told that any criticism of you is somehow
going to impoverish events from the sponsors, because…
The Mayor: Sadly, it is.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): This is a ludicrous suggestion, and it is one that would, in
actual fact, make the Assembly’s work impossible, and you know that very well.
The Mayor: It is not impossible. Those of you that gave the information to Steve Norris…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Anybody that sponsors events around you will know that
they are already dabbling in highly political things, and I suspect that they would have
known that when they got involved. I do not suggest that it is possible for us to say ‘we are
not going to criticise in future, in case of the sponsors’. You know that very well, and you
are just up here to try and get some sort of red herring going, because you are basically
discomfited by some of the questions that we are asking.
The Mayor: Everyone has accepted that this was a great success.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I am actually keen that we begin to move on, but I know that Brian
(Coleman) was bursting to come in.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
6
7 January 2004
Brian Coleman (AM): I am just going to say, Chair, I am not going to take any lectures
from you (the Mayor) about losing London revenue when your comments on President
Bush have lost us tens of millions of tourist revenue to London.
The Mayor: And you can substantiate that can you?
Brian Coleman (AM): Absolutely! I have got e-mails on my computer from angry
Americans making that exact point. You know jolly well that your comments on President
Bush damaged London tourism more than any remarks on London regional television.
The Mayor: A flood of Americans who voted for Al Gore came here immediately.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can we just try and focus on the question?
Brian Coleman (AM): I was coming on to the question, Chair. You have said that your
planning process started over a year ago – I think you told us on 17 December. Can you
give us a bit more detail about that planning process and, frankly, why sponsorship was not
sewn up, as I think Mr Tuffrey was trying to get at, far earlier than mid-December?
The Mayor: One of my staff has the exact dates – who has got those?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: The first
step was putting an allocation of funding for marking New Year’s Eve into the Mayor’s
budget, which took place around about November 2002. That was then agreed in February
2003.
In parallel with that through to March we were discussing what type of event we should be
seeking to procure. You obviously cannot seek sponsorship for an event until you know
what type of event it was, therefore you will not be able to secure sponsorship until you
have finished your procurement process. It is a full EU procurement process, which takes,
what, six months?
Brian Coleman (AM): I do not want to interrupt Mr O’Neill; he is making a valuable point.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: I am
answering your question.
Brian Coleman (AM): Indeed, but surely on one aspect you could have secured sponsorship
much earlier, i.e. the free transport. There was always going to be a need for public
transport, whatever sort of event you staged, and you could have proceeded with seeking
sponsorship for transport, as we have had sponsorship previously on New Year’s Eve on a
number of occasions and various commercial enterprises.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: I started
meeting London Underground and London Buses and the train operating companies, I
think, around November 2002, on the question of free transport, because obviously that has
to be planned a very long time in advance. Also, you cannot really plan your event until
you know how much transport you have got to move people in and out of the centre of
London after midnight on New Year’s Eve.
London Underground were in a continuous process of discussion with potential sponsors.
As far as I know, in the end none of those worked out. But you are quite right, that is a
Culture, Sport and Tourism
7
7 January 2004
separate issue and on that I will get you precisely what happened on London Underground’s
discussions with sponsors and how and why they worked out.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Now we have the math, which we did not have before and we could
quite clearly have had before, but now we have finally got it out of you by exercising our
legal powers, I can see that there was a proper contracting process. I am not criticising
that; unlike some of the other events that have been organised, this one clearly was planned
and documented and the paperwork in front of us sets out clear criteria, none of which I
criticise. There is absolutely a need for a world-class event, a need for a safe event and so
forth. All of that is good.
What is clear is that the funding package was not clear, and that things started off with
rather less money and then there was a question about the tourism money coming in and
that needing to go through a process and you were not sure until later than perhaps would
have been ideal what the total funding package is.
But I do not necessarily disagree with that because I quite understand that it is a bit of an
issue of process and it does take time and those discussions were happening in the summer,
which should have been in plenty of time to get this straight.
What I am particularly interested in is to see how the event appears to have migrated. For
example, the paperwork talks about a combined contemporary lighting and pyrotechnic at
sites in central London to achieve the creative impact of the brief, which is a world-class – I
will find it in a minute – ‘proposals capable of showing London as an exciting, interesting
and world-class city’. I read that as saying that the original thinking was to have more than
just fireworks at one fixed point. Can you tell us how the vision of the events has turned
into one three-minute firework show at one location?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: Lets just
get the time frame: it was put into the Mayor’s budget; the Mayor’s budget was agreed in
February. In parallel with that, through March we were discussing what kind of thing
would it be appropriate to have. We reached the conclusion in discussion with the Mayor
that the appropriate thing would be to mark midnight.
That is what we would be looking for: a way of marking and welcoming in the new year
which would both be something Londoners could appreciate and celebrate and which would
put London on the international map as one of the places which the TV cameras all over the
world flock to at midnight and to say to people all over the world that London is a place you
might want to consider coming to and enjoying your New Year’s Eve.
That was our concept – as broad as that. It was not down to how many sites, any particular
place, or anything more than that. On the contrary, we then went out to a procurement
process to find out from basically the best companies around the place, in terms of
delivering these types of events, what ideas they had. I do not want to go into the
individual companies; you have got that information from the form, and it is sensitive for
the purposes of the companies.
But, from the point of view of our process, we were looking for the best creative concepts
which could capture London’s New Year’s Eve in a way that would create interest
throughout the world, and it was through that procurement process that somebody came up
with the idea of fireworks on the London Eye, which was now, as polls had indicated, the
most attractive single attraction in London. It was the unanimous view of the panel; and
Culture, Sport and Tourism
8
7 January 2004
David (Campbell) was on the panel. This was it; someone had actually come up with a
really good idea, which could really symbolise London on New Year’s Eve. We did not
have some other idea and then migrated to this greater idea.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): What I am saying is that the winning bid appears, in my reading, to
have been a bigger proposal than finally came to pass. That is my reading of what
happened; I am trying to understand it.
The other indication is on the funding. The Mayor has said that, in terms of the fireworks
element, £273,000 – that is the figure that you have put into the public domain. The actual
budget, however, had a figure more like twice that number. We have been enjoined not to
talk about individual financial amounts because of the commercial confidentialities, but I can
draw your attention to it in the papers on the third page of the budget there is a figure twice
that for what I read as the firework elements, which is another clue to me that the original
proposals you were planning were different from the final event. That is what I am trying
to understand: how, once you let the contract to the winning bid, the concept varied.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: There was
no variation in the concept. The concept was: fireworks on the London Eye…
Mike Tuffrey (AM): The actual planned activities.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: I am saying,
and perhaps it is a mistake. To my knowledge – and David (Campbell) and Murziline
(Parchment) were also involved in these discussions and correct me if I am wrong – there
was no change whatsoever in the basic concept.
We went into our procurement panel; we heard what they had to offer. This was the right
way of doing it; we agreed it, they did it and the basic concept did not change at all.
In terms of the delivery, as you will perfectly understand, they put forward a budget based
on estimates of what the different things would cost. The reason we have given you the
original budget in their bid and our budget to date, which is still not finalised because not
all the sub-contractors have been paid, so you can follow some of the variations. The bid
variations are in such things as public liability insurance, where their estimate was a cost of
£25,000 and I think the final cost was…
The Mayor: £131,000.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: £131,000.
That is one of the issues we would like to look at. But all the crowd control and safety
issues were very much bigger. On all of those issues we have to take the advice of the
Metropolitan Police. You need to understand, in terms of your previous questions, that one
of the reasons that the events after the Millennium fell apart, apart from the fact that the
transport operators said they would shut down the transport system one hour before any
fireworks went off, which could not be resolved until the Mayor took over the
Underground. The other factor is you have got to keep all the blue light services together;
they have got to have an estimate of what can and cannot be done safely. They impose
requirements in terms of what areas have to be sealed and in what ways, what barriers are
required and how many stewards you have.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
9
7 January 2004
All of these elements of the event increased substantially, and other elements had to be
reduced in order to keep it within the envelope of the broadly £1 million procurement.
That is basically what happened.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): That was my reading, that actually the amount of money spent on the
show was less than originally because of things…and it is quite understandable, I am not
criticising having proper insurance. But the effect was to have a lesser, as it were, show. I
now want to move on to the actual effectiveness…
Meg Hillier (Chair): Murziline (Parchment) was just shaking her head.
Murziline Parchment, Policy Director to the Mayor: It was not to have a ‘lesser show’.
It was a fixed term contract and they were going to get a certain amount as advertising
OJEC (Official Journal of the European Communities), and they had to deliver what they
said they were going to deliver within that contract. Obviously there were demands
throughout the period on crowd safety or whatever and they had to allocate accordingly.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I understand that.
Murziline Parchment, Policy Director to the Mayor: They had to deliver what they
promised to deliver within the budget.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): My point is that the money that was spent within that fixed budget
on the fireworks element appears to me to be half what was originally planned.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Could I suggest that there are some issues about the procurement
that we could usefully get some further information on, but we cannot really discuss here in
any meaningful way and we just write to Murziline (Parchment), Redmond (O’Neill) or
whoever and make sure that we get some clarification on some of those points, because it is
difficult for members of the audience who cannot see all these papers.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Okay, can we move on now to the actual judgement about the
effectiveness of the whole thing? A lot of effort and planning has gone in to this threeminute show around the London Eye around midnight. Are you satisfied with what people
tuning in at midnight, certainly to BBC One, would have seen, which was very little, to put
it mildly? The actual show itself did not actually get going for three or four minutes and
you actually had to be on cable or satellite to watch the television show in its full glory.
The Mayor: There was a problem in the sense that, with the cancellation of the Hogmanay
festival around Edinburgh, I think the BBC was particularly in tune not to be seen to just
drop Scotland and perhaps cut back more frequently than it might otherwise have done.
In retrospect, I think what we would want for next year is that, instead of the laser display
within the bubbles – the capsules – starting and running for about 40 seconds, we would
want to start at the end of the 12th bong with the fireworks cascading. That is something
we learnt for next year.
But if you were watching on Sky or BBC News 24 it was continuous all the way through
and the good thing about the BBC was that they can come back and re-showed it. As
somebody who watched it initially on BBC One whilst taping it on the other channels, I also
thought we should have done it the other way round.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
10
7 January 2004
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Okay, in terms then of and I am glad that you acknowledged that…
The Mayor: It is not just the Prime Minister who makes a mistake and admits it
Mike Tuffrey (AM): For those who were sitting at home watching Sky or BBC News 24 or
whatever, fine. Others did actually come into central London. What are the official
estimates, given that you said not to come? Can I just preface that? In New York they
managed something like a million people coming into the centre of town, so it can be done,
but I understand the sensitivities in London and the desire not to pile everybody into
Trafalgar Square, so your…
The Mayor: In New York you have a road grid system with very wide roads. You have
had decades of it being built up. We could never replicate that without demolishing central
London and having roads of equal width on the grid system.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Is that new mayoral policy now you are in the Labour Party?
The Mayor: The (Evening) Standard will no doubt have that as their headline tomorrow.
The other thing there is that as they turn up at one site and it fills up, that site is then
closed and people are moved on to the next one. We will never be able to match New
York’s million people, because we have not got a city structured like that.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Which is why the strategy attracting everything to one point was
right not to do that. However, in the end that is actually what happened, is it not? Instead
of having a variety of things at different sites in central London, there was the fireworks
show that people knew about and something like 100,000 people according to newspaper
reports, crowded into a not very satisfactory space on the other side of the river. What are
the official estimates?
The Mayor: About 100,000 people came to the north side of the Thames, and then there
were other people in Trafalgar Square and people in Parliament Square. All told, we
estimate that something like half a million people came into central London. As David
(Campbell) will tell you, we were advertising 14,000 things you can do in London over New
Year.
It is clear that you might be able to squeeze a few more people in around Embankment to
watch the Wheel next year, but we were pretty much at capacity. The police were happy
because on the television coverage you can see people’s feet as well as their faces. It is when
you cannot see their feet you are getting dangerously congested. That is why I said that for
next year we may look at a ticket event, but we do not really want to charge for it.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Where this is going is would it not have been better for next year to
have not just one set-piece central London event, but a couple of other things at least and
maybe something…
The Mayor: That is what we are planning for next year.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): So why could it not have been done this year, given that you have had
three years to plan it?
The Mayor: Well, no we have not had three years to plan it. Until the transfer of the
Underground you could not be certain that I would have the power to instruct the
Culture, Sport and Tourism
11
7 January 2004
Underground to run through the night, and right up until the end of June we were still
negotiating with the Government to get the extra £200m that we got. If we had not got
the £200m, we would have maintained our European Court challenge and we would still
not be running the Underground.
The absolute certainty about the package really only kicked in once we had the deal with
the Government about the £200m extra funding for the Underground.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Just a point of clarification, actually. You say that you were
just about at capacity with what we had – we might be able to squeeze a few more in next
year. But can you remind me, what were the figures that came up to London for the Rugby
World Cup celebrations? Why is it that they can be dealt with? I am told that it went off
remarkably easily without trouble.
The Mayor: The figure is that we might have had 70,000 people around Trafalgar Square,
but that was, firstly, in broad daylight and, secondly, before the pubs had opened. People
did not come drunk, whereas on New Year’s Eve quite a few people do go out with that
intention in mind, so it will always be more difficult.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): There were a few bottles hanging around.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: Not as many
as on New Year’s Eve, I can assure you.
The Mayor: There were quite a few bottles on the bus when I got on, but I did not see any
amongst the crowd.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): But also we should not forget the Golden Jubilee, when there
were literally millions of people milling around.
The Mayor: If New Year’s Eve falls in the middle of summer, we can do it. This is why
Sydney works; everyone turns up, it is a blazing hot summer, they lie on the grass with a
six-pack and it is wonderful. You have got the problem here that if you are anywhere near a
bit of lawn…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): It is dark at midnight, I think, in Sydney. Let us not kid
ourselves.
The Mayor: Yes and it is warm. Also what you have in Sydney is a huge harbour with, I
think, 35 vantage points taking thousands and thousands of people. We just do not have
that round the Embankment. Apart from the Embankment and Westminster Bridge, that is
all you have really got to see this from.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Can I just be clear about this? These events do sometimes
take place in the dark, as in Sydney on New Year’s Eve. So let us just be clear, it is possible
for people to have events that go on very well in darkness. It is also clear, is it not, that
London can actually entertain really rather a lot of people – up to about a million possibly.
It is possible.
The Mayor: It is possible, and as Edinburgh found out, sometimes it is also impossible.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
12
7 January 2004
Mike Tuffrey (AM): This is the final one from me on management and planning of the
event in the light of the information we now have before us. The project steering group,
paragraph 2.21 of the Mayoral Approval Form, as a proposed group. Can I be told how the
group was actually constituted? Who was on it, particularly from transport and police,
because I am interested in the coordination and how often it met? The bottom of page 7
paragraph 2.21 talks about a proposed group. How was it actually coordinated and
planned?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: The best
thing for us to do on that is to give you, because there were a series of groups, one of which
was the operations group involving all of the statutory agencies which met very frequently,
which was the police, the fire services, Westminster City Council, the transport authorities,
ourselves, Visit London. Then there was an overall project group within the GLA. The
best thing for us is that we will give you a note of all the structures that existed, how
frequently they met and who was on them
Mike Tuffrey (AM): That would be helpful, but, for now, could you tell us whether
Transport for London were an active participant in regular meetings?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: Yes.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Could you also tell us, on the policing side, how the arrangements
worked? It was quite clear to the Assembly when Sir John (Stevens, Commissioner,
Metropolitan Police Service) was in front of us just before Christmas – well, it was clear to
me – that he was not happy with the arrangements, but what he officially said was that
planning was still underway. Can you tell me how the police were integrated into the
planning?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: The police
were a central part of the operations group that met regularly and discussed all aspects of
the delivery of the event. Absolutely central, regular attendance, views taken as the most
important views that we had to accommodate from the point of view of delivering a safe
event, which it should be registered that we succeeded in doing.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Indeed, so you do not have an explanation for Sir John (Stevens)
saying to us on 10 December when asked to describe the plans and particularly the safety
and whether there was a safety plan in place, that was my question to him, If there was no
safety plan in place, why not? He said: ‘We are still negotiating on it’.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: Other than
to say if you fire an unscheduled question at the Mayor which he does not know is
coming…
Mike Tuffrey (AM): This is not the Mayor, who is very adept at answering those, but Sir
John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. I would have expected
to know a little bit more than we are still negotiating.
The Mayor: I would be really worried if Sir John Stevens, with responsibility for national
security, was involved in the day-to-day planning of how we are going to manage 100,000
Londoner’s around this area. Perhaps he is already focussing on the oncoming demands on
his time investigating the assassination of Diana.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
13
7 January 2004
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I did not ask him the details. I asked him whether there was a safety
plan in place and he said ‘we are still in negotiation’.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: I am sure if
he had had notice of the question he would have been able to give a very full response.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Well, what he was clearly saying was that there was no safety plan in
place and it was still being negotiated..
The Mayor: That is exactly the sort of attitude and interpretation that damages our bid.
The Commissioner did not know because he is not involved in the day-to-day situation and
therefore to assume that there was nothing is exactly the sort of attitude that cost us a
quarter of a million pounds of sponsorship, and you more than almost anyone else here are
guilty of that sort of negative approach to politics.
Meg Hillier (Chair): We are re-running a debate we actually had at that Assembly meeting
when the Commissioner was here.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): The enquiry into the royal affairs of Diana has also yet to
discover whether it was an assassination or not before you start making up…
The Mayor: It was a joke. I was not making a serious suggestion. Before anyone assumes
I have been given this role by Tony Blair or something, it was just a joke.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): A tasteless joke.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can we get back to the focus of the meeting?
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am trying to understand whether the police were firmly integrated
in the planning. It has been asserted that they were.
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: Absolutely
centrally.
Meg Hillier (Chair): But the commissioner was not briefed at that meeting.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I had a very clear impression otherwise, and I should say that he said
not just in front of us but also to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) the previous
day. The final question is what was the cost of policing the event?
Redmond O’Neill, Mayor’s Policy Director, Public Affairs and Transport: I do not
know that.
The Mayor: It is like everything else. The police bear the cost of a major public event, as
they do the Carnival, as they did for George Bush’s visit. They will eventually report to the
MPA on what the cost was to them.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Are we going to pursue that?
The Mayor: It is not an addition to our budget.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
14
7 January 2004
Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, but in terms of the total cost of the event, which was…
The Mayor: It was slightly more than they normally have to spend, because do not forget,
when no-one puts on anything you still get at least 100,000 people and perhaps more
turning up anyhow.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I am sure we will watch that figure with interest. Brian (Coleman), I
think you have to come in and ask some questions of Visit London and their role in New
Year’s Eve.
Brian Coleman (AM): I am looking around the funding issue. We understand that the
London Development Agency (LDA) provided about £1.8 million for New Year’s Eve,
including £800,000 of the costs of the event on the night. I wonder if someone can tell us
how much the LDA provided for Visit London’s New Year’s Eve overall campaign?
Meg Hillier (Chair): Maybe that is best for David Campbell.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Circa about £1.2 million in total.
Brian Coleman (AM): Right, and how was that £1.2 million spent?
The Mayor: Wisely.
Brian Coleman (AM): I think that will be for us to judge, Mayor, actually!
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Most of the £1.2 million was spent on
actually promoting events around New Year. It was spent on a series of guides that went
out in the UK, Germany and France, which I think you have got copies of in the packs,
which link into a website, which as the Mayor says has actually got 15,000 events rather
than 14,000.
Brian Coleman (AM): How many hits did you have on your website?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I have not got exact figures of that. I
can tell that the results we got in terms of …
Murziline Parchment, Policy Director to the Mayor: Number eight in the top travel
sites.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, the website ranks number eight in
travel sites and number two in accommodation booking sites in the UK, just behind
lastminute.com. We are running at 50% of the level of Easy Jet, 60% of the level of Ryan
Air, and I guess, more importantly, what this is designed to do is actually drive people into
London.
The results we got there were really encouraging. We have got so far Easy Jet saying a
31% increase in traffic to London; Eurostar has seen a 20% increase in traffic to London; and
GNER is showing a 10% increase.
When people actually got here they were spending money, so Marriott Hotels had more
than 2,000 rooms fully booked. Thistle Hotels, which is the biggest group in the city, with
Culture, Sport and Tourism
15
7 January 2004
more than 6,500 rooms, was 99% occupancy across New Year, and you would get the same
kind of results from people like Hilton and so forth.
You go and talk to restaurant chains, clubs and bars, they will all tell you that their
bookings are up on other years. City Cruises sold out seven boats. Bateau London sold out
all of their boats over a month in advance, the majority to people coming from abroad rather
than the UK. Conran’s, if you go to their restaurants, Quaglino’s could have sold out over
twice on the night, possibly three times, in terms of people going into it.
What we were doing was trying to stimulate economic business in London, and that is what
that achieved.
Brian Coleman (AM): I suspect that a lot of those places would have been sold out anyway
on New Year’s Eve and always are.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: All I can tell you is that if you spend
time talking to those people, as we do on a regular daily basis, all of them would tell you
that the results were far in excess of what they achieved in previous years. In fact, some of
them said the results were in excess of what they had achieved at the Millennium.
Brian Coleman (AM): Do you think you spent the right amount of money, or would you
have liked more to spend, or what?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: One can always find a good way to
spend the money. What you are trying to do is take a limited set of resources and make
them work as hard as possible.
Brian Coleman (AM): You can only fill out hotels and restaurants once, can you not? If
they are all sold out.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We did not achieve our objective; we
wanted to fully sell out London. There was 99% occupancy. In Thistle there was 1% of
rooms left there. We would like to sell it out fully.
Brian Coleman (AM): That was presumably the 19th floor – the linen cupboard, I suppose.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: 23 out of their 24 hotels were sold out.
I believe the hotel that was not sold out was at Gatwick.
Brian Coleman (AM): Visit London and stay at Gatwick!
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can I just ask a point of clarification? You talk about the £1.2
million. According to the Mayor, the LDA provided £1.8 million for New Year, and
£800,000 on went on fireworks. Can we just clarify the figures?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: There was originally, I believe, and I
am talking from memory here, but I can get you clarification of the number, there was a
budget in total of £2 million that was earmarked for new year, of which £1.2 million went
into Visit London to promote the New Year period and £800,000 went towards the event
at the London Eye, which makes the £2 million.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
16
7 January 2004
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I suppose the first thing is that it does seem to be a slightly
mixed message. On the one hand, you are busily telling people all to come into London,
while we have the Mayor telling everybody to leave London alone. A mixed message, do
you think?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No. Again, one of the things that keeps
getting hit at, particularly by the very nice people at BBC London, is that there are mixed
messages. It is very simple: this is describing a whole series of events. If you go through
and look at these leaflets, they are telling people various areas in London to go out; north,
south, and, if I take this page, it actually goes through and tells people various places that
you can go to in London, whether you are going out to the west, east, north or south. So we
are actually trying to disperse people across London.
Equally it goes out and talks to you about different things, theatre and comedy, eating out.
It talks about the top ten events; things that you can do for not very much money and new
things that have arrived in London. All of them link into the website, which gives you yet
more detail by different borough and by date of what you can actually do in that particular
thing.
The idea there was to stimulate people to actually go to places that were creating events at
that time, and equally to get people to book into hotel rooms. On the back of it here we talk
about different ways to actually get to London and some of the offers that come out of the
different trains..
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Yes, thank you.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I think Committee members would be delighted we have received a
copy of this because I know a number of them didn’t.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I would imagine that broadly tourists would certainly be it in
Central London would know. Is there any way of monitoring that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: All we can do is go back to the
individual venues and find out who is sold out and what occupancy they have got at those
individual places.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Forgive me, but people do not normally come over for New
Year’s Eve from France to spend New Year in Shepherd’s Bush or something, do they?
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): They would tend to come over to see the sights, would they
not?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: People were coming across for the New
Year period and very few come for one day, so people were coming in for a night, two
nights or three nights. During that time they will go out and see things; they will go out
perhaps to see the New Year’s Day parade, which is out on the streets on New Year’s Day.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): That’s in Westminster. The main parade is in Westminster.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes indeed. They may equally go out
and decide to go for a walk in Kew Park or go to Greenwich Park. They will do whatever
they are going to do, but they will do it across a period of time.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
17
7 January 2004
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Would it be helpful, do you think, if we are going to be
looking at what central London can and cannot hold, to actually try and find a way of
monitoring exactly how many people that are being encouraged to come into London by
yourselves, to find out where they do go so that we would know whether London is filling
up rather too fast or…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is very difficult to track individual
people once they come, particularly from Europe, where there are no actual border checks
on people coming in and out to the same degree. So it is difficult to actually track people
and know exactly what they are doing. All you can do is research and within the £1.2
million that we have got, we have got £50,000 allocated to research and evaluation of it,
with which we can ask those questions.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I think that is why, and you may be a little upset by it, people
do think there may be a bit of a mixed message, because I think the assumption is that most
people come to London if they are tourists to go to central London, largely, and special
events. Therefore, it does seem to be a bit of a mixed message, with the Mayor saying ‘go
away, keep away’ and you are saying ‘come on in’.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I think I have to correct you there, and
I have spent, as Meg (Hillier) will tell you, over a month correcting every single statement
on BBC London television and radio when they ridiculously state that there is a party.
Firstly, there is not a party; secondly, we have never said that people are not invited to it.
We have said that there is a limited amount of room available there. We have always said
and I have said ad infinitum on New Year’s Eve to come along.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): That is my point about the limited room. You are
encouraging all those people to come and advertising widely and then you say there is
limited room.
The Mayor: Coming to events across all of central London. What we were trying to avoid
was 200,000 coming to look at the Eye, because then we would have had a major safety
problem. It worked.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Moving on, can I ask you about your plans for the future?
You are talking already, I think, about plans for next year. I am assuming there is going to
be something a little more than just the fireworks. Are you going to be utilising all kinds of
open spaces, be they in the suburbs or indeed, dare I suggest, Trafalgar Square, which of
course has gone through a huge refit, Mayor, because you are so keen to have it as an open
space pedestrianised? Surely, that is begging for some kind of use. I would also say the
other spaces as well across London. Are they going to be utilised in a way they have not
been so far?
The Mayor: Clearly, you would not expect me…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): No, I would not.
The Mayor: …to announce here what we are doing, because we have not made final
decisions. We are looking at everything.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Is that the idea?
Culture, Sport and Tourism
18
7 January 2004
The Mayor: But we will let you know in about 15 months time!
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): For those who have looked at Trafalgar Square and the
nightmare traffic we had for all those years around there, while you were doing it up.
The Mayor: I do not remember that.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I think you do. I certainly do. Any chance that that is going
to be brought back into usage for these kinds of things?
The Mayor: We are using Trafalgar Square for a whole range of events, primarily geared
towards the time when we have got better weather. Clearly, we will now look with the
police at how crowd control went around Trafalgar Square and what we learnt. I turned up
there at about six o’clock on New Year’s Eve and it was going quite nicely with a lot of
people already gathering to watch the music on the telecast that we were doing. We will
see how it went and there will be quite a period of analysis before we decide whether to
build on that or whether that is the limit that is safe.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Can I just have a supplementary on the very positive increase in
visitors, which is to be welcomed. But I think the ones you cited were all short-haul, trains
and Easy Jet, which is continental Europe. Given that America is our biggest single, most
important overseas point of origin – 21% of visitors to London come from the US compared
to just 10% from France and 8% from Germany – what was the increase in long-haul
entrance into London over that period?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: One of the frustrating things about this
sector is that the data comes through very slowly. I have got some figures which I can
show you later on, which can show you US figures. The latest ones we have got are up until
October and those are only UK-wide, not London specific. Unfortunately London specific
numbers will not be through until some considerable time after that.
The kind of people that we are looking to attract across the New Year period are largely
short break orientated. Indeed, that is what we spent most of 2003 doing, attracting people
on a short break basis, because it was difficult to stimulate at short notice the long-haul
market.
You will see when we look at the numbers for the US later on that the situation in the US
was one whereby the first six months of the year were considerably down, but that situation
reversed during the summer and got more positive during the autumn.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Certainly, the marketing was…
Brian Coleman (AM): Because of the Mayor’s comments about President Bush.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Well, the marketing was clearly focussed on the UK and continental
and I was going to ask whether, given that back in May, when the Mayor made his remarks
about the President being corrupt and representing just about everything that was repellent
in politics…
The Mayor: It was February the 15th. Let us not be too precise.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
19
7 January 2004
Mike Tuffrey (AM): 15 February, fine. You (David Campbell) were quoted as saying that
you would not have advised him to say that. I am glad you said that as head of tourism.
Repetition would not be helpful and you could not see what the benefits of such comments
might be. I just wondered if the marketing strategy focussed on the UK and continental
Europe was partly based, in other words not in North America, which should be the most
important and lucrative market, because of these negative comments which had been made
and the negative messages that were being sent.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: First of all, the US is the largest and
most lucrative market and it is certainly something that we are intending to address during
the first half of 2004, providing there are no other world events that get in the way,
disregarding the Mayor.
The Mayor: Ego I might have, but I do not think I am a world event.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The events in Iraq are far more serious,
far more of a reason why people do not travel. If you look at the figures into the UK from
the US, they are not markedly different from anywhere else. In fact, countries like France
have suffered far, far greater. If you talk to people in Paris, and we have a good relationship
with our equivalent in Paris, they suffered far more from the fall-out of the Iraq war than
the UK.
Noel Lynch (AM): You obviously do not live in north London.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I have done in my time.
Noel Lynch (AM): Well then you would know there is more to north London than
Camden. There is Barnet and a few other places. How come there is only Camden on this?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What this does is…three out of 16
pages, some of the pages are advertising and in future editions there will be even more
pages of advertising to help fund it and bring in that sponsorship. What this is is planning
a day out; this is basically morning, lunchtime, afternoon and evening. It is a walking time
when people can actually go out and walk around that area, so unfortunately you have got
to pick one particular area of it.
Certainly, this time it has taken something that starts, I think, up at Hampstead Heath and
then works its way down to Camden through Belsize Park. Obviously there are other areas
of north London and what we are trying to do at different times is get out to different areas
and drive people into those.
Certainly, if you go into the website, which as I say has got 15,000 places, that is
comprehensive and does cover every event we can possibly get a hold of anywhere in
London.
Brian Coleman (AM): On behalf of the restaurant owners of Camden, I take exception to
the point that ‘Camden is not home to the best of London’s restaurants’. As the Assembly
Member for Camden I would be delighted to take you out to dinner to some of the best
restaurants in London that are situated in my constituency.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
20
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): Maybe harmony will break out over the dinner table. You may get
some bids from Assembly Members for plugging their area next year. Northeast London
seems to lose out.
I just have a few quick questions, David (Campbell), while we are still talking to you. You
talk about these 15,000, which sounds great, and maybe the Mayor might want to come in
very briefly on this as well. Mayor, you have talked about not wanting to charge people to
come into events like they do in Edinburgh. Actually, these 15,000 events are largely paid
for – restaurants, pubs, clubs. They are not cheap; they are not free. Is this not a privatised
New Year, Mayor?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Can I address part of that, which is just
to correct the Edinburgh misconception? If 100,000 people go the Hogmanay party in
Edinburgh, there are only 50,000 allowed into that for free. The rest of the tickets are
given to people who either buy hotel rooms, which is something we will look at in the
future, to encourage people coming in; or, rather amusingly, people who pay an amount of
money to belong to a thing called the First Foot in Club, which guarantees them a ticket
into it. One of the other many benefits, apart from getting a ticket into the Hogmanay
celebrations is that you get entered into a competition, and one of the competition prizes
this year was a short break in London, as a result of entering that. Some consolation there.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I think we can approve of that.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is important though, because it is a
small number of people getting into events for free, and what one also has to do is watch
that you are not creating such large public events that you are actually drawing business
out of the businesses in London. We would fail if we suddenly had an enormous amount of
people in London going to centre of London going to a free event at the cost of business.
What one needs to do is balance the two against each other.
The Mayor: What I would like to see, and this was part of the debate around the failed
attempt to put something together for New Year’s Eve three years’ ago, is something that is
on sufficiently early in the day that families can take children. As I moved round these sites
on the afternoon of New Year’s Eve, I was struck by the number of parents out with their
kids doing a bit of shopping and sightseeing. I do hope that, working with the borough
councils, because I do not think you want to haul everybody into the centre, we could try to
arrange some events scattered around the suburbs for next year that families can just come
to.
It gets dark sufficiently early that you could have small fireworks displays that kids would
really enjoy at a whole series of points around London, but we could not do it without the
boroughs really being the vehicle to take it forward.
Meg Hillier (Chair): You have given us that vision before. It is not one that we would
necessarily disagree with. You are the Mayor of London and it is your decision in the end.
Is that what you are instructing officers to look at?
The Mayor: I never instruct officers. We always move forward with a consensus. If we
can do it we will. I will talk to my new mate Tony Blair to see if the Government can help
with the funding.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
21
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): One point I wanted to clarify goes back to sponsorship, and it is quite
an important point. You said that it was not realistic to have expected Live to have secured
sponsorship for the Wheel display. Yet when you were looking at the tenders back in July
and August, the Brighten up London campaign had nearly secured a proposal with Orange,
it was nearly finalised. That was back in July/August. Yet you seem to be saying that it
was perfectly reasonable for Live not to have had sponsorship secured by a few weeks before
the event.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Having spent over 20 years in the
commercial sector on the other side of it, where you are paying for sponsorship, and also in
the media sector, where you are drawing in advertisers, every potential sponsor and
advertiser is just about to happen. That is the way it works and actually getting past that
final stage where you can transfer the money is a very difficult thing, which is why we were
at the stage, in this instance, where it was actually 5 December, when all the negative press
started happening on BBC London, that it actually…well, I am only quoting you that.
Meg Hillier (Chair): No sorry, I was hoping that BBC London would be a member of this
Committee.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I know the details of the Orange
situation with Ten Alps and I know there are people who are from there, but it is a
commercially sensitive thing and it is not something one can talk about. It has happened
over a number of years that that proposal has been developed and they did a fantastic job
with securing sponsorship and did a very good job of getting in space across London. We
are already talking to them about how we can try and help expand that in future years, but
it is not…just about to happen is every single advertiser; every single sponsor is just about
to be signed up.
Meg Hillier (Chair): We hope that next year we get something. The final thing was about
vantage points. The Mayor mentioned you could see from Hampstead Heath. Prior to New
Year’s Eve, we were told that you could see it from several places around London; I know,
David (Campbell), that you said that and the Mayor said that, but we never knew where.
Obviously, Hampstead Heath is high up, but are there plans to produce a map or a guide
about where you can go and see these fireworks because I certainly did not see them.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: As I said in some of the interviews and
the stuff that you and I both had together was basically anywhere you can see the Eye is
where you will see the fireworks.
Meg Hillier (Chair): If you arrive in London as a tourist with your suitcase and your hotel
room, you are going to run around London to find the spot where you can see the Eye to see
the where the fireworks are?. Could we not just produce a map?
The Mayor: I asked to produce a map. It was the strongest possible advice from the police
not to do this, because they feared it would lead to concentrations of people, which would
stretch their resources on the night. It was my desire to produce a map. On police advice
we decided not to do so.
Meg Hillier (Chair): It raises interesting issues about the role vis-à-vis the sites where
London holds the event, which is something this committee is very keen to look into.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
22
7 January 2004
Well, I think we have finished this section of the meeting. We have had free transport,
which I think we would all agree was a good tick in the box. We had a safe event, which I
think we can all agree across London was a very desirable thing. And we had fireworks, so
I think that is the start.
The Mayor: Halfway there.
Meg Hillier (Chair): What next? Mayor, you wanted to be in the party, we wanted a
party. You have got what you want can you give Londoners……
The Mayor: You thought that one up before the meeting!
Meg Hillier (Chair): If we can just have break now while David (Campbell) can just shuffle
his papers and get ready for the next half.
The Mayor: Thank you very much.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Thank you very much indeed.
[Committee breaks]
Meg Hillier (Chair): Let us resume after that brief break and welcome David Campbell in
his role as Chief Executive of Visit London. This is the first time David has been able to
attend a meeting. We did actually write to David a week before you were appointed, before
you took up your post. We are patient people and we have now got a lot of other things we
would like to talk to you about.
I broke the rule of the Committee and we did agree that David could give a very short
presentation, because having seen the question areas that we were keen to probe on, we felt
it would be perhaps helpful to address some of those early on.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I will just go very quickly through
this. It is really just to give some very quick background in terms of the context of the
visitor market in London and the main activities we go through.
In terms of importance in London it is about 10% of GDP, about £15 billion, 10% of jobs,
about 350,000. I guess the key point I would like to make on this is that it is very important
not just in terms of visitors and building the economy from a business standpoint but also
the first exposure for almost everyone who comes into London.
75% of students who come in for higher education have come as tourists first of all. In
terms of business people and inward investment, nobody is going to put inward investment
into London without first having visited. Obviously, it is also very important fro the
Olympics, in terms of the backdrop of London and how they view that in terms of making
the Olympic decision.
The context there, just in terms of London. London is in a very unique position versus
other capital cities with 55% of all international visitors in the UK, i.e. more than the rest of
the UK combined all coming to London. That is very different than you see in other
countries. For instance, in France it is 17% in Paris and it is 11% in New York. So London
has got a very, very big role to play in the UK. 42% of those visitors then go on and visit
the rest of the UK, so it is an important role, not just in terms of attracting people to the
UK, but also in terms of acting as a gateway to the rest of the UK.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
23
7 January 2004
Historically it has been massively underfunded. Last year, the financial year 2003/04, has
seen the first real improvement, but turnaround will require long-term investment. I
touched on earlier latest trends and I will also touch on the fact that it is frustrating that the
numbers do not come through more quickly, but this is the most up-to-date stuff we have.
London will tend to track the rest of the UK, because it is such a dominant part of it, so
what we have actually seen here, if you look at the brown numbers, the October numbers
and the blue numbers on the left are the year-to-date numbers, you can see western Europe
has been positive pretty much throughout. North America year-to-date is still down,
October quite strong, and for the year as a whole, we might end up in a situation where it is
about a zero sum gain. The rest of the world is again stronger in October than it has been
and the total again is stronger in October than it has been. Broadly, first half of the year
bad and the second half of the year a lot better, but particularly so in North America.
In terms of domestic numbers, there is one number here and these are the numbers and we
have double and quadruple check them. I am not sure I would totally buy the number on
the right, which is the expenditure number. It takes a while, as a rule, for them to be broken
down, but basically, what it is saying is domestic business is down, the number of
overnights is marginally up and expenditure is up significantly. It is good; if that number is
real, it is fantastic, but it looks like a very big jump to me, based on only 1% more
overnights in London.
Brian Coleman (AM): It may just mean prices have gone up.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is not the prices, certainly not. It is
the amount people who are spending on very good value things rather than prices going up.
Brian Coleman (AM): But expenditure is a cash figure presumably.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Absolutely, yes. They may just be
going out more often, doing more things etc. Certainly, if you look at things like hotel
rooms, which are a large component of that, hotel room prices generally have not gone up;
they have generally dropped rather than gone up.
Challenges to London, in terms of moving forward. Our market share is almost half of the
last 15 years; it has gone from about 3% down to about 1.5%. There is a very, very poor
visitor perception on things like price, food, new attractions and weather. The hardest of
those things to fix, the weather, was the one that was the easiest to fix last year.
Increasingly, there is strong competition everywhere; there are more and more people
recognising the importance of the visitor pound, dollar or euro. There is particularly strong
competition from short break destinations across Europe, where people are driving people
out on to the continent.
If you take an example like Cardiff, where they have just introduced BMI Baby, people used
to get on a train from Cardiff and come to London for a short break or a weekend break.
They now get on BMI Baby and go off to all the places that BMI Baby flies to. Long-haul
markets are, as I said, still very much feeling the impact.
Our role is that we work alongside the GLA and the LDA in a triumvirate relationship in
terms of delivering tourism. We are very much proactive marketing to visitors. The LDA,
under this structure, has taken the lead on support activities – that is their word rather than
Culture, Sport and Tourism
24
7 January 2004
mine. That describes things like quality, training, skills etc. We are involved in that in
terms of talking to the industry, but we are not actually the delivery partner for that.
Our mission is very, very simple, which is to market London as a world-class brand and
maximise economic benefit. It is all about the pounds that come in at the end of the day.
That can help protect and grow jobs, and actually some recent stuff out of the LDA, I think
just yesterday, has shown that, during the last few years, one of the few areas that is
actually growing in terms of jobs in London is actually tourism.
Basically, it is very important that we work towards world-class delivery and innovation.
London is a world-class city and leader and we must be very strong in terms of that role.
Another one of the very important roles from our standpoint is the sub-regional focus. We
are starting to try and promote more two-way communication through the sub-regional
forums, so we held, just before Christmas, a whole series of meetings around London with
all the different sub-regions of London. About 400 people in total attended from there; all
the different boroughs and the main businesses from within those boroughs.
We are also trying to, as we have done here, and obviously; we have not gone north enough
in London yet, but as we have done here, we have tried to encourage people to go out of the
centre of London and give more coverage to that. We are also doing things to try to
encourage excellence, so we run a series of tourism awards, where we try to encourage
things to happen on a regional level.
One of the other important things from our standpoint is diversity and dispersal. People do
not discover new things about the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey; they discover
things about areas they have not previously been to. We have employed a full-time
diversity executive within Visit London in the last four months. That is helping beef up
that particular part of our offering.
I am not going to touch on major events a lot, other than to say that they are really
important, in terms of the image of the city. They can be a big catalyst in terms of changing
perception and we mention the Sydney Olympics and Rugby World Cup. This year we are
looking to form a major event company called Major Events London, which will help drive
those forward with the GLA and the LDA. I guess the most important one is there at the
bottom of it, which is the London 2012 effort.
Most of the efforts that we put out in the last six to nine months have been under the
Totally London banner. I will quickly list them here. In spring we ran an ATOC
(Association of Train Operating Companies) campaign, transferring pound benefit to
London. Later in June, we ran the first Totally London Month. That created just over half
a million new leisure trips into London, with about £26 million of spending coming out of
that. In September 2003 we ran a Totally London tour. That started with a concert in
Trafalgar Square, which got coverage in Europe and also North America, and also
encouraged dispersal by running events in Richmond all the way out to Greenwich, Tower
Hamlets and so forth. Over a million people participated in that. New Year I think we
have, hopefully, covered in enough detail.
We started advertising domestically in near Europe on 13 October, really trying to shift the
perceptions in terms of what people believed about London. Obstacles are price, scale and
accessibility etc, so we broke it down into a series of four adverts that looked at theatre and
looked at museums. We talked about the fact that there are 70 free museums and galleries
Culture, Sport and Tourism
25
7 January 2004
of fantastic quality in London, trying the mix some of the old and new messages, so it is the
London Eye and Big Ben, it is the Tate Modern and St Paul’s Cathedral. It is trying to mix
these things together so that people get a more contemporary feel of London.
We are competing very much with short breaks in Europe. Amazingly, this is the first time
London has ever been advertised on television. Phase two of it will happen in France,
Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands in February and March, and that is
largely going to be print driven although some television as well.
Also in February and March there is a thing called One Amazing Week, which happens at
the end of February. It is tied into a trade exhibition called Confex that happens at Earl’s
Court, which is an international conference event that happens at Earl’s Court. It is a global
PR initiative, trying to show off the best of London. There will be designer London buses
by people like Vivienne Westwood, very similar to the Tate to Tate boat and so forth that
will be round the streets. There is a part of Tate Modern that appears at Heathrow Airport,
which will get us coverage in all the in-flight magazines of the airlines that come into
Heathrow etc.
Then in March, feeding off the back of the near Europe inserts, we are running a thing
called Go London, in which we are working with the ATOC companies, following on from
the success of that last year, driving people into retail, into hotels, into attractions. At the
moment we have just about concluded an agreement with a thing called far TOCs (longer
haul TOCs e.g. GNER, Scotrail informally called outer or far TOCs) and those will give
fares for anything under £25 from as far north as Inverness and Aberdeen to London, so
£25 return from Inverness and Aberdeen to London, which is a very strong offer.
The very last bit – and I am going to go massively quickly through these – is the website,
which is very important in terms of information getting out about London and what we do.
One of the important things there is hotel booking and theatre offers. We have got a site
here where we book stuff. Since we started two and a half months’ ago, we have got about
£800,000 worth of business has gone through here. It guarantees you the lowest price
hotel room, trying to hit this price perception in London. It guarantees you the lowest price
room or we give you your money back or refund the difference between them.
This is just going into the New Year to show you the kind of thing that happened. It
follows very much the same format as the kind of thing that happens in the printed material
that you have got. But then you can see here there are drop-down menus and areas where
you can look by area or date and get specific events happening. This is theatre; then the
home page there; and then moving on to this and taking somewhere like Croydon, giving a
list of the various places in Croydon, then here is a bit of information about Croydon,.
Obviously there will be a focus on north London from now on.
Meg Hillier (Chair): You did not do your research; not the committee to talk to …
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I thought it would be patronising to
pick one of your particular areas and say ‘look, here is something from Hackney’.
Brian Coleman (AM): You mean you could not find anything in Hackney!
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: That is it, basically.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
26
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): Thank you very much David (Campbell). Before we go into the broad
questions, perhaps it would be helpful if you could just give us a bit of an explanation about
how Visit London is set up, because you also mentioned the setting up of a new company,
which I want to move on to. But how is Visit London made up, and what have you done to
change that, or has it changed in its consideration? Do you get a lot of public funding? Are
you a private company?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We are basically a private company
limited by guarantee. We are funded by three different sources. We are funded by
members; people who belong to it, people like airlines, hotels, visitor attractions and so
forth. We are funded by sponsorship by corporate partners, so, for instance, we do a thing
called Kids Glove London, which focuses on getting kids to understand London and
discover it and that is funded, in that particular instance, by HSBC.
We are also funded by grants through the GLA and LDA and a number of other sources,
including the Association of London Government. Some money comes indirectly from the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport through the LDA to us as well.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Who would you say you are accountable to, apart from us?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: A board, at the end of the day. I think
you have got a list of all the people who are on the board. That has got representatives
from the GLA and LDA on it, union representatives and borough representatives. It has
also got people from most of the cross-sections of industry that we deal with, so people from
the Chief Executive of Excel, people from…
Meg Hillier (Chair): We know; we are reasonably familiar with the board. Do the board
members get paid?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The Chairman gets paid; the board
members do not.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Has that always been the case?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I cannot speak for previous boards. I
have been doing it now since the beginning of June, so seven months. I cannot speak for
before that, and the board has changed very much with the change from the London Tourist
Board and Convention Bureau to Visit London. It has a much, much increased board and
certainly that is the case now.
Meg Hillier (Chair): The Chair is paid presumably because that reflects the workload and
expectation?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, the board meets four times a year
and those people are representative of the various industries that they are in. The Chair is
probably a couple of days a month.
Meg Hillier (Chair): I imagine it is in the public domain what the Chair gets paid.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It has just been changed, so I am not
sure.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
27
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can you give us a ballpark? You must know. You must sign off the
budget.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I do. Let me come back to you. I know
what it is; I just do not know what, as a private company, you are allowed to put out, which
is in accounts and so forth. I think it is about £750 a day across two days across 12
months.
Meg Hillier (Chair): So, £1,500 a month.
Len Duvall (AM): Is your board private then? Does the Mayor nominate the Chair?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, the Mayor nominates the Chair,
which he did with Tamara Ingram.
Len Duvall (AM): And the rest of the board?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The rest of the board, the Mayor has a
number of nominations on the board, and then the rest of the board are appointed by a
nominations committee, headed up by the Chair.
Len Duvall (AM): What financial practices do you follow? I am trying to get in my mind
the nature of the beast. Are you like a non-departmental government quango, but a GLA
quango?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: There are quite a lot of words in there
to describe it.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Are you a GLA quango?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What basically happens is that the
Mayor has got statutory responsibility for tourism. That is exercised from a financial
standpoint through some of the other support services I talked about and through the LDA.
We are contracted with the LDA in terms of delivering those services.
Len Duvall (AM): In terms of financial procedures, do they give you advice? What do you
do?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We by and large operate – and let me
explain this before you say why only by and large – by normal government practices
through either COI (Central Office of Information) or other such procedures. 100% of the
time when there is grant money involved and almost all of the time when there is not grant
money involved.
Len Duvall (AM): Sorry, run that past me again. I have lost the thread.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: There is a private funding stream and
there is a grant funding stream. Where the grant funding is involved it goes through
normal government procedures; most of the stuff we do we do through the Central Office of
Information, because most of the stuff we are doing is buying marketing services and
therefore we use that as the means of doing that. They will run a process as they do for any
government department that they are buying on behalf of to get those services.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
28
7 January 2004
The mass majority of the time with anything that we acquire with private money, we
operate a similar process.
Len Duvall (AM): A similar process?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Well, not always through the COI,
because that is done with public money but not always with private money.
Len Duvall (AM): Why is that, then, why do you operate two systems?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It depends where the funding stream
comes from. If the funding stream is a public funding stream then it needs to go through a
COI process. If it does not, it is a private funding stream; it does not have to go through a
COI process. But the vast majority of the time it does.
Len Duvall (AM): So you operate two sets of accounts?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, we operate a consolidated set of
accounts.
Len Duvall (AM): Why would you not operate two sets of accounts if you are operating
two different systems?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Depending on where the source of
funding comes from.
Len Duvall (AM): Sorry, I will go back. So you operate on two sets of accounts?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I am talking about reporting accounts,
okay. You are talking about?
Len Duvall (AM): If you are operating in different systems, if I come and ask you about
such and such an event and how was this paid for and funded. You would be able to show
me?.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Absolutely, if you took the example we
hade earlier of New Year, there was £1.2 million of funding that comes from the LDA
within New Year. All of that money, 100% of it, will be allocated and spent under the COI
guidelines. That is what happens there.
If there is something…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): The sponsors that we never had.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: …like membership money coming in,
which pays for the photocopier, we will not…
Len Duvall (AM): Why would you operate two different systems if it goes into one pot?
Culture, Sport and Tourism
29
7 January 2004
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: As I said, the mass majority of the time,
we operate exactly the same thing. If we are getting a colour photocopier we will not
necessarily get a three-way bid for a colour photocopier but we would probably get a
number of different tenders, but we will not run it through a COI process.
Len Duvall (AM): Okay, we might return to this.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): If you do not then demonstrate the different ways of dealing
with the different accounts. You consolidate your accounts but as far as reporting …
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The accounts that are put into
Company House are consolidated. I guess the mistake I was making across here was we
can, on every individual campaign and every penny that comes in terms of funding, track
that back and, absolutely, pull out those accounts and show that they are dealt with in that
way.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): But is it open, accountable, understandable and transparent,
as far as anybody might want to look at those?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): It could be quite confusing to people, if it is not clear to people
precisely which bit of money has gone which way.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is very transparent and very open to
the LDA, to anyone who would check on the LDA, which would be people like the
Department of Trade and Industry. Beyond that, I do not know how publicly available such
things are or not.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Are they immediately understandable?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Some money is being treated in one way and some another
and they come together like that.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Absolutely, because every time there is
an individual piece of funding that comes from the LDA, we have to put in a long
submission for that particular part of money, explain where the money is going to be spent,
explain what the evaluation process is, have it agreed internally through the LDA, have that
approved by their board, before the money is allocated and given to us.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): But then if the money is coming from a private source it
would be included in the same consolidated accounts. Would there be some explanation to
explain why it had been treated differently?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is not treated differently. It is
coming from a different… I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I am just saying that if the accounts are consolidated, does
that reflect two separate processes? You need to be clear that each sum of money that
arrives in those consolidated accounts have been treated in particular way.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
30
7 January 2004
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: A consolidated set of accounts is a legal
formality that one files with the Revenue and with Companies House at the end of the day.
When you have got to consolidate everything together, it is not any attempt to try to put
everything together in a way that is not transparent to people. Every single penny of public
funding that goes through is 100% transparent, gets approved on an individual allocation
basis by the LDA, goes through their normal evaluation processes, gets approved by the
LDA board, and that gets checked by the DTI as and when they desire to do so.
Len Duvall (AM): We might return to this one.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What I do not want to do is… It is a
purely technical question. A consolidated set of accounts is a purely technical accounting
thing.
Len Duvall (AM): I understand about consolidated accounts. I think some of us around the
table will as well. I think the issue is how are you and your processes spending the money?
Primarily one of our concerns is how you spend the money and the processes that you go
through, actually trying to get to the bottom of how you juggle the various bits of money
you get from the various members to the LDA to the GLA. It is just getting to understand
that and how you account for that in a transparent way. How do you use it? What
procedures do you use and the rest of it?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: As anyone normally would do, we will
go through – hopefully what we normally would do – a process where we put forward a
budget, which we are in the process of doing, which goes to our board at the end of this
month, and get approved by the board. The same budget will go to the LDA. That section
of the budget was funded by the LDA.
Len Duvall (AM): When you spend money, does it matter up how you spend LDA money
to how you spend Len Duvall’s private sector money? Is there a different process? Is it
broadly similar? What got my colleague and myself not understanding about what
processes you do to spend. How do you spend your money and how do you account for it?
The same?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Len Duvall (AM): There is no difference, you are saying to us, about how you spend your
private sector subscriptions as how you would spend the LDA’s money. It is all one
process, all above-board, followed by government policy, I presume.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What I am saying is that if there is
something like… Recently there was a colour printer that did not go through a COI-driven
process, you would still get quotes and get the best quotes and bring that in.
Len Duvall (AM): Everything else and every major event you follow standard practice
where there is one procedure for all your spend?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Len Duvall (AM): Okay, right.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
31
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): I know Brian (Coleman) wants to come it, but I just wanted to ask
about the new company you are setting up, Major Events London, is that what it is called?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We are basically trying to form a
grouping, which technically ends up being a company. There are similar set ups that are
happening that have progressed greatly in Australia starting to happen in the UK, called
Events Scotland. What we want to do is focus on major events, so that there is a single
source that people can come to for a major event.
For instance, there was recently the MTV Music Awards that went to Edinburgh rather
than to London. One of the confusions they tell us through that was that there was not a
single entity that they knew they could talk to, so they did not know whether to talk to the
GLA, the LDA or Visit London or who to talk to. The idea is to bring together those
people to work as one on those things.
So if you want to organise a major event in London which has got economic benefit into
London, then there is a single group that you can come and talk to. When it comes to
interacting with the private sector, marketing and promoting it, we would take the lead in
that. When it comes to policing the event, working with the individual blue light services
in individual districts, then there is something where the GLA would take the lead in that.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Who would be in charge of this? You obviously do not know whether
it will be a company yet and where it would be based. Would you be running it?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is more likely to be a virtual
grouping of people rather than specifically a…
Meg Hillier (Chair): Really it is a contact point so that people go on to the website or the
telephone directory, find Major Events London, ring the number…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: There will be something called Major
Events London.com, that says ‘talk to this person’.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Right, a one-stop-shop for anyone planning a major event in London.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, because one of the confusions…
Len Duvall (AM): Can I just ask a question, please? In terms of your presentation, you are
quite successful. Why would you create another access point? Is not the whole idea that
you get people used to it and the rest of it and they keep coming back to it because that is
tried and trusted? You are establishing something and then you are telling me you are
establishing something new. Why would you do that? What was the thinking behind that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is slightly more formalising the
process that happens on an informal basis. At the moment if people know to contact us and
they know to contact the GLA, they do and they move things forward through those.
As we have done things from Trafalgar Square to, as I say, New Year’s Eve, moving
forward those things have worked from an operational standpoint with all the various
services and so forth. All we are trying to do is formalise that, and it is something that is
happening in other geographic areas and therefore it is something that we think it would be
better to formalise it. The reason I say I am not sure that it actually is a company is that I
Culture, Sport and Tourism
32
7 January 2004
suspect it will end up being no more than a very basic website and some contact points that
are probably people like myself or Jude (Woodward, Culture Team, GLA) or Redmond
(O’Neill) and people who are familiar to you.
Meg Hillier (Chair): We certainly want to pick up on that again. Sorry, Brian (Coleman),
you have been waiting patiently.
Brian Coleman (AM): It is a minor point of presentation. You talk about promoting
‘hidden London’. Presumably, the whole point about hidden London is that it is hidden. If
Visit London start promoting it, it will no longer be hidden, and will lose its attraction.
Surely, the great advantage of being a Londoner is one knows where these places are and
wants to enjoy them as a Londoner and does not want to be overrun with hordes of
European continental tourists or Japanese with their cameras.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: There are two or three points to make
there. One, it is always a dilemma whether you tell them it is a good restaurant or a good
pub, because there is always the chance they might turn up there as well. I guess London is
a pretty multicultural place; you are always going to be dealing with lots of different
cultures.
Brian Coleman (AM): But London is also for Londoners, is it not?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Very much so. There is no intention to
take away any of the joys of Londoners by…
Brian Coleman (AM): You are doing that by promoting hidden London.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Sometimes it is hidden because they are just not known about,
Brian (Coleman); it may be that they benefit from being known about.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Many venues would be glad of the extra publicity.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: If you go up Fleet Street to the
Christopher Wren church, not the better-known one called St Paul’s, but the lesser-known
one called St Bride’s, which not everyone knows.
Brian Coleman (AM): I am sure the Bishop of London would be furious if he was inundated
with coach loads of Japanese tourists with cameras.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The Bishop of London frequently has a
go at me for not pushing enough people to go and visit his churches, so there are always
different views.
Meg Hillier (Chair): There is a new prospect of faith in London.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Joking apart, something like 85%, from
memory, of the revenue of St Paul’s comes from tourism, so it is a very important part of
actually preserving those buildings and making…
Meg Hillier (Chair): I am aware that time is marching on and we do need to cover some
ground. In your presentation you gave a useful broad vision for promoting London to
domestic and international visitors. It is interesting because John Ross (Policy Director,
Culture, Sport and Tourism
33
7 January 2004
Mayor’s Office) has come to us previously and said that London cannot compete on price;
London is an expensive city, basically, and it is quality that has to be the thing. You talk
about the poor visitor perceptions, price being one of them. Is that something that you are
trying to address or do you agree with John Ross?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I agree that we cannot really address
price; what we can address is value for money. There are always going to be people who are
willing to spend a lot of money to go and stay at a hotel in Park Lane. There is no reason
why we should not encourage those people to come to London. But equally, we should try
and show people places where you can get better value for money.
So, if I take our hotel booking service, the lowest rate that we have had is £19.99 per
person including breakfast at the Ibis Hotel at Excel, probably not this week because the
Boat Show is on, but any other week. That is just showing people that with any expensive
place to stay in London, but you can easily access the rest of London. So it is trying to get
the point that there are different ways to see London that are not always going to cost a
fortune. Equally, trying to encourage people where there are reduced fares on buses for
kids at weekends. There are the 70 free major museums and galleries that people can get to
for free, so there are different ways to go out in London and enjoy it not spending a large
amount of money.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Okay, but spending money is what it is about, because that is where it
goes in the economy. How are you going to get the balance between the well-off American
tourist, if we can get them back in the right numbers, and the budget traveller.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is a difficult balance for you to do it.
The mission overall is basically to create economic benefits and you have got to get that
balance right. In very round numbers, somebody who is coming from… who is a daytripper in London, is spending about £40. Somebody who is coming from North America is
probably spending the better part of £500-600.
Meg Hillier (Chair): A day?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, in total in their visit if they are here
for multiple days. I wish. If we could find just the ones who spent that a day then we would
be very much concentrating on those.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): They would not care about the church too much.
Brian Coleman (AM): Lets attract the rich tourists and forget about the rest.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Obviously you are going to have to
generate about 15 day people to make up for one of those long-haul ones. It is a matter of
trying to get the balance right, and alot of the things in terms of long-haul in the last year
has been that people really do not want to travel. What we want to do and what we think
we can do this year, barring any other major world events, is to get into the situation where
those people are starting to decide to travel abroad.
Then we want to encourage them to come to London, rather than Frankfurt, Paris or Rome,
rather than actually trying to encourage them to travel in the first place, because we cannot
change their perceptions of how safe or unsafe it is to travel.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
34
7 January 2004
Brian Coleman (AM): How do you go about approaching the LDA when you have got a
tourism initiative for funding? What process do you use?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: To date the process has been one
whereby it has happened on a campaign-by-campaign basis. If we have been dong
something at New Year then we will… First of all, in terms of dealing with both…
Brian Coleman (AM): I am going to interrupt, it you do not mind. I am a bit confused.
You say you do an annual budget, right?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Brian Coleman (AM): Fine, which is a proper planning process approved by your board in
February. But now you are saying you go to the LDA on an ad hoc basis.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: If I can just go back, first of all, we deal
with the LDA and GLA on a multiple daily basis. We are talking to people on an ongoing
basis; it is not an unusual thing to be talking to them.
Second of all, it is important to differentiate between the two. To date, what has happened –
and that is through this financial year – is that it has happened on a campaign-by-campaign
basis. There has been Totally London Month, the Totally London Tour, there is a New
Year event; how do we put all these things together and get the funding for them? We have
done it one-by-one.
Moving forward, in the next budget year, and the year subsequent to that, what we are
looking at doing, and what we have been talking to them about and what everyone is
expecting to move forward with, is something where there is actually an actual budget
which covers everything, so it will happen on the basis that I talked about.
This budget will cover what we anticipate being the budget for the following year, rather
than an event-by-event basis. Which is not to say that there might not be an event that
happens outside it, but it will not be built up piecemeal.
Brian Coleman (AM): I believe in 2003/4 you have had about £17 million in public
funding.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I think it is closer to £15 million.
Brian Coleman (AM): Right, how much of that has been ad hoc money from the LDA?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The vast majority of it has been ad hoc
money. Ad hoc in the sense of it has been – just let me qualify what ad hoc is – a campaign
which is funded, and then we have gone back and asked for further money for an additional
campaign.
Brian Coleman (AM): How much are you budgeting next year roughly to get from the
LDA?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I would hope to get something close to
that, but probably slightly less.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
35
7 January 2004
Brian Coleman (AM): You will not be going back to them for more ad hoc monies during
the year?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It depends what the situations are. If
there are instances where, to give an example, there may be something a year from now
next November which we cannot anticipate, which would be beneficial in terms of the
London bid for the Olympics, whereby we decide that, in working with 2012 and the GLA
and LDA, that it may be beneficial to go back and put a bid in for additional funds, in that
case we will do that.
Brian Coleman (AM): Have you planned any ad hoc initiatives?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: By their very nature it is very hard to
plan ad hoc initiatives.
Len Duvall (AM): Can you give us the breakdown between the LDA/GLA money? Is that
£15 million including the GLA money or is there some more on top of it?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: All the money comes through the LDA;
it does not come directly from the GLA, it comes from the LDA.
Len Duvall (AM): Right, so that £15 million includes also the GLA money that was held
for tourism after the LDA to give to you? Is there any GLA money that you get in addition
to that £15 million?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No.
Len Duvall (AM): On ad hoc campaigns? Anything else?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, there is, as I think you will
probably have seen in the submission in New Year, some money that has come directly
towards New Year that was money originally moved. There was money going towards New
Year that was the £800,000 we talked about, which was Visit London money that went
towards the actual event, and there was money coming from the GLA, but not straight into
Visit London, no.
Len Duvall (AM): Okay, and from the private sector can you confirm that you get £6
million?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I wish we got £6 million from the
private sector.
Len Duvall (AM): What do you get from the private sector?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I do not have the exact number off the
top of my head; it would be closer to about just under £3 million.
Len Duvall (AM): Under £3 million? How much of that would be in kind?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: That is not in kind; that is in cash.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
36
7 January 2004
Len Duvall (AM): In cash. Do you get anything in kind, and how do you account for that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, very much so. We get a lot of stuff
in kind. For instance, if we are doing what are known as ‘fam trips’, which are
familiarisation trips for overseas journalists, then hotels will donate rooms or restaurants
will donate restaurants etc.
Len Duvall (AM): Have you got a value on that, roughly?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I do not, but I could get you a value.
Len Duvall (AM): Off the top of your head?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Probably a million in total, half a
million to a million.
Len Duvall (AM): How do you audit those sorts of sums when you do your figures?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: How do you mean? How do we audit…
Len Duvall (AM): Is it something that you do internally yourself, or does someone come
from outside to say ‘this is… On cash in kind, depending on the rules and regulations, is
there not some taxation on that, or whatever? How does it work? I am just a layperson on
this; just take me through it.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I am not a taxation expert; it would be
wrong for me to…
Len Duvall (AM): If you have to account for…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I can give you an answer. I am not
even going to get into taxation issues.
Len Duvall (AM): I do not want to know about taxation; but how do you account for it? If
I asked you to produce for me tomorrow morning a list of in kind that you have got, you can
point to it?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Len Duvall (AM): You can tell me what is in kind and what is not?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I might have a hard time doing it by
tomorrow morning.
Len Duvall (AM): But it is there, right.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Can I just ask? You say in kind, is that the full value of what it would
cost to the consumer, or is it the cost to the hotel?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What we basically do is if, for instance,
you have got a series of foreign journalists, if you have 20 journalists coming from Paris to
Culture, Sport and Tourism
37
7 January 2004
London, you will go and talk to the various bodies that potentially can help you with those
people, so people like Eurostar or British Airways.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Do you count that in kind as the full cost of a Eurostar ticket or what
the marginal cost is to Eurostar of sticking an extra passenger on?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I need to go back and get a proper
answer to that, rather than giving you a part answer.
Meg Hillier (Chair): It does massively inflate the figures if you take the top level price of a
Eurostar ticket and the top level price of a hotel, and we all know that most hotels never let
a room at full advertised price.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The number that I have given you
before of £2.5-3 million is a cash number, so that does not include any in kind at all within
it. Obviously, the money coming from the LDA is anything other than cash items. I can
get you a number for what it is in kind/
Meg Hillier (Chair): But there are numbered values about in kind.
Len Duvall (AM): This £3 million in cash, is this the subscriptions from the private
sector?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Subscriptions, sponsorship and then
money that people will pay. For instance, there is advertising from Radisson, so they would
pay money for that advert to appear there.
Len Duvall (AM): Okay, if we can turn to subscriptions then. One of the comments from
the Mayor in the past has been about match funding from the private sector. It is not £17
million; you have said that it is nearer £15 million total public subsidy. That is what we are
talking about. In terms of the private sector we have worked out we are not going to match
it. Is that realistic or not?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The statement was probably true on
previous… It is certainly not a one-for-one match on it. It is similar to what you are taking
about in terms of match, whether it is each x pounds equals y pounds for the other.
I think also that the budgets in previous years when there had not been the same
substantive marketing were probably closer to £6.5-7 million in total, so therefore that
£2.5-3 million was probably a bit lower than that but it would have been a bigger
percentage of it than it is at the budget this year.
Len Duvall (AM): You are from the private sector and the business world and little old me
is not I am just an elected member. For my £15 million of investment, what return to I get
on it, in that sense? But how do I make the private sector still put in their fair share? Are
they joining in droves? How many new members have you had in the last month? On the
back of your results, they must all be wanting to empty their wallets to come and join you
and be involved in this campaign. How members have you had since you have been with…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The membership works on an
annualised basis, so we go out and drive the membership from March.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
38
7 January 2004
Len Duvall (AM): It is quite a closed shop then.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Sorry?
Len Duvall (AM): Is it open to anybody?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is absolutely open to anybody, but
the effort in terms of driving people towards it happens on an annualised basis rather than
on a monthly one. We are adding members all the time; I can get you exact numbers of
what it is this year.
Sadly, it does not work exactly like that where people just turn around and come in droves.
I would suspect that the biggest impact we will see from the private sector will happen
towards the end of this calendar year, at the end of this financial year – November,
December, January, February of next year. The reason for that is the planning cycles and
the time it takes people to get into it. In the same way that our budgets run from April of
this year through to March of next year, the same will be true for a corporation and to get
into that budget we are going to have to be addressing them during this year in order to get
into the budget that starts in 2005 onwards.
The reason we have not done that before this is that we need that set of results in order to
go to people and say we are serious about it, we are actually doing something about it and
we are getting results from it, because every, in the same way that I have said before,
advertiser and sponsor is just about to sign up, which is, I promise you, how it always
happens. In the same way, there are countless people who come along and say ‘this is what
we are going to do, will you give us some money to go with it’ and it never happens. So you
have to take along real, tangible results to show people.
Len Duvall (AM): Some of your predecessors in this position always said about this sector,
of being that some of it was short term but also that some of the real problem about this
sector is about putting their, you know, they are paying out already for their investments
and they want their return, but actually contributing to other things is much more difficult.
Is that the case?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is difficult; I will not kid you that it is
easy at all. The way that we are approaching it is in a slightly different way than has been
done in the past. Rather than trying to get people to put money into campaigns, where it all
goes into a large pot and then you spend the whole thing, we try to do stuff whereby we can
get people to be able to identify the money that they are actually spending.
The example I gave here with Radisson, taking an advert in here, it is very, very specific.
That is an offer for a £99 deal at Radisson Hotels; it is up to them to make that offer work;
that is the space they get; they can evaluate that space. We do the same thing in terms of
television advertising. We run a 20-second ad for London that is all about London, which is
100% paid for by us, and then we will look to run a ten-second ad at the back of the break
that is 100% paid for by the commercial partner which has got their offer, which could be a
low price train or plane fare, a hotel or restaurant, whatever it might happen to be.
We are trying to get it onto a basis where people can actually look at the specific money
they are putting in and see it reflecting something that they would normally go and buy in
the commercial market. But they have got a benefit because we are actually advertising
London in front of it rather than saying why do we not just all put money in together,
Culture, Sport and Tourism
39
7 January 2004
spend it all together and all feel good about it, which is my experience, certainly in the
commercial sector, means you end up with an awful lot of losers and a lot of people feeling
they are hard done by and not very many people feeling fantastic about it.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Regarding Totally London, to what extent are promotions
like Totally London Month a short-term measure to address particular problems, such as
the drop in tourism because of the 11 September and that sort of thing?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Totally London Month was up and
running when I joined, so I can only speak from what I have seen happen. I endorse
everything that happened with it; there was nothing I would do differently. I think it was
very much a short-term thing; it happened over a very short lead time, about five weeks in
total, and it was really to add some stimulus into the economy on a short-term basis.
There is, in terms of marketing things, always going to be a trade off between short term
stimulus of sales and longer term building of the brand. What we are trying to do between
advertising London as a brand and putting up stuff like this, which is much more short term
and promotion orientated, is come to a balance between the two. The whole thing is a
balancing act; it is very much the same thing as between long haul and short tour people
coming to London. You have got to get a balance between building the brand of London
and getting a stimulus in terms of driving people into it.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): You may have picked up on the fact that in previous
discussions with John Ross, there were some criticisms bandied around, probably by me
actually amongst others, that a lot of people could see this as simply bunging money into
the pockets of private enterprise that is really quite capable of pushing itself anyway.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I think I saw some comments, which
were basically, correct me if I am interpreting them wrong, saying is this not putting
forward marketing that people would otherwise spend money on and therefore you are
subsiding…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): We were saying that it was hardly surprising that business
welcomed it with open arms; they always would, would they not? Was it absolutely
essential to feed them in that way when, frankly, you would have expected them to get off
their backsides and do it for themselves?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is very difficult to be specific about
that and say whether people actually would or would not have spent the money. In the
same way, they will tell you that they would not have spent the money and you are not
taking money away from them.
I think you are absolutely right; if you are throwing too much at one particular sector then
that is going to happen. It is a matter of trying to move it out amongst different sectors.
What we try to do is do things in large quantities. When we are trying to do stuff across
New Year, it is hitting an awful lot of different areas, so it is not specifically benefiting one
individual business. Again, when we did the Totally London Tour, a lot of those events
that we supported were public events – things like the Greenwich Festival and the Brick
Lane Festival and the River Race from Richmond. They were not actually private sector
events. They generated much larger attendance.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
40
7 January 2004
If you talk to people in Greenwich that was beneficial to them in terms of being part of
Totally London and driving people towards the Festival. But it would benefit the
businesses around the site; I do not think they would have got the same benefit in another
way.
One of the big learning lessons is to try and package things together. Whether it is by
particular area geographically or particular area in terms of interest, it is actually in putting
them together that you can create a bit more interest than you would with one individual
thing.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Rather than just being one-off stimuli, or whatever the word
is, for particular sectors of the economy, you said yourself that you need to perhaps spread it
out wider so you are not seen to be favouring one particular sort.
What is the vision? By actually using this kind of money and this kind of effort, do you
actually create some kind of building block for a vision of doing something specific longterm? Rather than just saying ‘ooh, having a bad year, better get in there and help out’.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: As I said to you, though I inherited it, I
would applaud what happened. It happened over a very short period of time and got things
moving, which was good. It is difficult to make things work in a very short period of time.
I think the vision is in terms of trying to create momentum and then try and transfer some
of that momentum to the private sector. For instance, if you can get people understanding
that… if I take shopping areas, I think somebody is from Kensington and Chelsea, so they
will probably tell me. You are? Okay, there you go.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Can you not tell?!
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I shall talk about Putney then, but I
have conversations with people in the Town Hall in Kensington and Chelsea about why can
we not do things in Kensington Church Street and you do stuff with Regent Street, why
will you not do stuff there? It is very simple; the economy and the retailers in Regent Street
organised themselves into an association, put money into events and create events. They
have also got a very understanding landlord in the Crown Estate who equally puts money
into it and does that.
What we would try and do in that situation is make that work harder, so the Regent Street
Festival, which is a largely public event rather than, although it gets people into Regent
Street, it is not just to drive people into stores, it is actually to get people out enjoying the
events that go on in Regent Street when it is closed off. It has been going for about four or
five years. We did it as part of Totally London this year, and it went from 120,000 people
last year to 200,000 this year going to it. As part of that, we would gladly do a similar
thing in Kensington High Street.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): But you need the galvanising force.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We have not got the resources, time or
ability; nor do I think it is our role to go around each of the stores in Kensington High
Street and say: ‘You should all organise yourselves together to be an association that can
say on this day we will run something that will have this, that and the next thing
happening’.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
41
7 January 2004
What we are trying to do is go to places where people have already got things organised
and people have already invested themselves in it, and make that work harder rather than
go off and… We are not a funder of these events, we are a marketer of these events.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Do these people come to you? Are you also on the lookout for
things?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is a two-way process. We are
definitely on the lookout for things, absolutely. But, as you do more and more of it, then
people hear about it and people come to you, so it is probably less of us going out and more
people coming to us, because we have done a lot of activity now.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): What kind of evaluation work has been conducted into the
success of the promotions under the Tourism Investment and Recovery Programme
(TIRP)?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The TIRP thing is the programme
under which all of these, as we call them, ‘ad hoc’ events have actually happened. As we
move forward, that will not be under the TIRP banner, because that was a short term
programme.
Everything that we do has got a research and evaluation element attached to it, so any of
the things that we actually do have got money. At New Year we had £50,000 in terms of
research and evaluation. The first Totally London had £200,000; the second one had
£100,000 against it. If I take the first one, because that is the one that is most completed,
we did pre- and post-research in terms of the number of people going to the events and the
number of people in that particular area the week before something happened, and the
number of people in that area the week afterwards.
We can show something like, in Soho, where there was a street festival, from the top of my
head the numbers went from something like 80,000 to 160-170,000 the following week by
just clicking the number of people in that particular area beforehand. That is done by
MORI, NFO and CEBR and they come up with all those results together and say ‘this is
what we think you have done in terms of stimulating the number of people into it; this is
what we think you have done in terms of business going into it etc; this is what we think is
new business; this is what we think is business that was already there.’
On the first Totally London Month, I think there is a summary in the packs that you have
got. It is the one we have got the most analysis on; it said we had 526,000 new visits, so
that was people who otherwise would not have visited, as a result of it. What we do not
measure in those and I think it is actually important, is I think there is a legacy that comes
from all those things. Even if you do not go to it, you know there is something happening,
and one of the things we want to do, and one of the things we are trying to do with the
website is stimulate the fact that there are always things going on in London, so people
know there is something to do, you do not have to go and look for it. This week there
might be something happening, or next week there might be something happening; there is
always going to be something that you can go and do.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Any lessons learnt from the evaluation that would encourage
you to do things differently?
Culture, Sport and Tourism
42
7 January 2004
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, very much so. One of the things
we took from, even before we got the evaluation back, the first Totally London was that,
firstly, it was too centrally London focused, so we wanted to move it out and create, so with
the tour we went out to Richmond, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and so forth, so we tried to
move it more across London to get people moving across London. I think in the first one
we tried to address that in terms of reduced price tickets for kids and stuff like that, because
it got people onto buses. But the events were still, with shopping weeks and theatre weeks,
too West End focussed, so that was one of the things from there.
Secondly, was to try and go into things that were… While things like retail are important,
we tried to get into things that were like the Greenwich Festival or River Race, which were
better things to try to encourage people to go to rather than just go and shop or go to the
theatre etc.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Before I move on to Noel (Lynch), on this subject of the evaluation,
are you evaluating things yourself or are you paying that money to…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, in that instance that went to
MORI, NFO and CEBR, so it is all independent evaluation.
Meg Hillier (Chair): On the theme of special events and the Get Into London Theatre
campaign – what was exactly your involvement with that? Society of London Theatre
(SOLT) evaluated that themselves you see and that is quite interseting.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It happened beforehand; I started at the
beginning of June and that was way before.
Meg Hillier (Chair): But you are going to be very involved in this one that is about to
start.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I am somewhat involved. I know you
have had a couple of quite prolonged periods with people on that before Christmas, but
people like Paul James (Society of London Theatre) and the Chief Executive Officer of
SOLT are far more involved with it than I am.
Meg Hillier (Chair): It must be something to do with you.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Absolutely, but our input into that from
a Visit London standpoint has really been to try to encourage them, again going back to the
thing I said before. We do not want to be a funder of events; we want to be promoter of
those events. We have taken very much the same attitude towards the Get Into London
Theatre campaign, which is what we have done is try and encourage and, well, I think what
has happened is that there are not subsidies for tickets; it is actually that all the money is
going into marketing and promotion of the events and not into subsidising the theatres.
My understanding is that the only money – and you will probably be more across this from
me having had the conversations with them – that is going into any subsidy is for special
groups which are on the outside of the mainstream. Unlike last year, subsidising
mainstream tickets is not happening.
Meg Hillier (Chair): What is your involvement? Has Visit London got involved and
suggested that?
Culture, Sport and Tourism
43
7 January 2004
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, very much so.
Meg Hillier (Chair): So they have changed tack partly because of your…
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I cannot say they have changed tack.
All I know is that when we met with them in October/November, we said: ‘This is how we
think it should work; it should have Totally London involvement in it, in terms of that is
the banner that we should have placed on it in some place there; and what we should be
doing is using the money that we have got to promote the event and market the event
rather than using the money to actually give to theatre people to do that’.
The other thing that we are trying to do is bring in other areas so you have got travel to the
theatres and hotels as well, so we are actually trying to stimulate other bits of the economy
that fall off the side of it rather than just getting people into theatres.
This has not run yet, but most of the money – I think it is about £270,000; I can get you
exact number – goes into marketing of it. A lot of it goes into PR, and I will explain that,
PR/Promotion, and the rest of it goes into advertising. So there are things like this – I
think this is almost the final ad – which is Totally London but it has also got three-star
hotels, restaurant deals etc, so you are trying to drive people beyond just the theatre. None
of that goes into theatre subsidies, just into that, and most of the PR and promotion is
working with regional newspapers so that, when you have got the Birmingham Evening Post
it will have a strapline above it.
Meg Hillier (Chair): This is because Visit London says it is a good idea? I am keen to
know what Visit London’s role is in this, because it has changed tack a lot. We made the
odd criticism and comment.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It is doing all the marketing and
promotion for it. So again going back to one of those communiqués and get the message
out there to people. The only reason I am being hesitant is I think it is maybe being a bit
unfair on SOLT. I do not know whether they would have done that in any case, or I do not
know whether they would just have thought that it was good to have subsidised tickets.
We pushed the door, the door was open and it worked. Whether that door would have been
open in any case I cannot comment.
Noel Lynch (AM): You have sort of answered some of my question. I am glad to see
Totally London is moving a bit outside the West End, but I still do not think we have seen
any of you in north London.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Is there a particular area where I should
be focussing?
Noel Lynch (AM): Finchley, to be specific. Or even East Finchley to be more specific.
Are tourist promotions and initiatives assessed against environmental criteria?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, we are trying to get people… We
can probably still do better in terms of doing that. Firstly, we have tried to move it into
some more favourable things by employing, for instance, a diversity executive who is
Culture, Sport and Tourism
44
7 January 2004
focussed full-time on just that issue of it, aware of things like dispersal and trying to move it
in that area.
You will see on the theatre thing that it has got a specific note of disabled access and so
forth in there, and we would rather have people using public transport, walking and cycling.
We have been quite involved with Transport for London (TfL), in terms of the bid to try to
get the Tour de France to start in London and looking at another cycling event that
happens here so, yes, we would rather do that.
The other thing is that 30% of London is green spaces, and we are just starting to scratch
the surface in terms of working with people like Royal Parks and so forth to get people into
those open spaces.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I think we have got some feel from you about which events
you are looking to sponsor and promote, although looking at the concert in Trafalgar
Square – the David Gray concert – 12,000 tickets were given away in a draw conducted by
the Evening Standard. The event also launched the second phase of Totally London, which
is focused on encouraging short breaks. How did you settle on that concert as being the
launch pad for that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: What we wanted to do was try and
change people’s perceptions of London. The perception of London abroad is a very
antiquated one, so this last summer in France…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): With all the history.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Sorry?
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): The Tower of London.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, France is just across the Channel
but it started coming back that London is foggy and it is full of people with bowler hats on.
You laugh, and every time I say that people go ‘ha ha’, but that really is the perception of
these people in France of what London is all about.
We all know it is very different, so one of the things we are trying to do is, while not
ignoring things like the Tower of London, which is important, particularly in a long haul
market like North America in terms of driving people here, trying to get people to
understand that London is a lot of different things, a lot of contemporary things are
happening and things are changing. Change is really important, so if you have not been to
London recently, you have not been to London. The whole Trafalgar Square thing was
trying to say there is a brand new, world-class square; it is not about the actual event on the
day, it is about the fact that this is a great world-class square and people can come out and
enjoy it all summer long and there are lots of really good smaller programmes and we do
not have to close off the whole thing.
Trafalgar Square is the real bane in my life, because…
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): You are talking about my constituency here.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I have already had a go at Kensington
High Street, so I might as well go for Trafalgar Square now.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
45
7 January 2004
We should be able to get a lot more people into Trafalgar Square and we should be able to
do that on a much bigger scale, but we have to go by what we can do from a Westminster
and police standpoint. My view towards those things and how we try to approach them is
to do what those people want is to do; do it properly; do it safely; make it successful; and
then we can make a bid to go forward and make it bigger.
I would hope that we can repeat those kinds of things with two big differences. One is we
can get more people into the Square by quite a substantial number. The second thing we
can do with it is we can bring in commercial sponsors, so we have already, as a result of
that, been talking to people; there are two or three people we are talking to in terms of
creating events within the Square. The Square is quite difficult, because is has to, by law, be
a free event for the majority of London, therefore you cannot be somewhere where you
charge, and I do not think it is right to be charging necessarily for it. But we need to try
and make that work, because that is the whole scheme to try and get people in there.
It did the job in terms of getting pictures in Europe and pictures in North America of ‘look,
here is Trafalgar Square; it is fantastic, it is right in the centre of London’. And it is a great
iconic venue.
Len Duvall (AM): Tell me the exact relationship that you had with that event in Trafalgar
Square? What was the role of your organisation?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: In that instance we were the, as
Westminster would call it, the event organiser. We were the principal organiser of that.
Len Duvall (AM): That means what? You got money from the LDA or the GLA?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The event got money from us and from
the GLA.
Len Duvall (AM): That would be which part of the GLA?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I can check exactly which part but I
think it was a cheque from the GLA.
Len Duvall (AM): Would it be the events bit? Or the cultural bit?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes. Then the rest of the money would
come from the LDA.
Len Duvall (AM): The LDA, right.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Sorry, it would come from Visit
London, but that would be funded by the LDA.
Len Duvall (AM): But you said earlier on that you do not really want to get into running
these events. Why were you running this event then?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Because we wanted to create something
in a short period of time that happened at the end of the summer, and we were not going to
do that with… Sorry, there are two different things. One is that what we do not want to be
Culture, Sport and Tourism
46
7 January 2004
doing, you are absolutely right: there is a slight difference between the two the two different
views there.
We do not want to be somebody who is either organising lots of different festivals and
events, or somebody who is necessarily contributing towards other festivals that people
have done. What we would much rather do is do the marketing of it. In that instance, in
similar instances to New Year, we felt it was important to create an event that created the
image and the view of London that I just explained in answer to Angie’s (Bray) question.
That we needed to do ourselves; we could not, at that stage, go out and bring in a third
party.
What we would like to do is go and do that with a third party moving forward. One of the
things of having done that is that we have now done it, we have shown it can work, we have
got footage of it working that we can use in terms of promotion and going to other parties
to try and get them to do it. It has got to be the right event; it has got to be the right kind
of thing that fits there.
A classical music concert in Trafalgar Square or something like the English National
Orchestra works very well. Ozzy Osbourne’s proud return to the world music scene is
probably not what we want to run in Trafalgar Square.
Len Duvall (AM): Why?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It attracts an audience that may be
harder to control and take care of etc.
Len Duvall (AM): President Bush at his inauguration seemed happy with him! So you
undertook all the procurement issues associated with this event, did you?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We did.
Len Duvall (AM): What rules did you follow on those procurement rules?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We went through that with the LDA
and COI etc.
Len Duvall (AM): That is all documented, is it?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I would imagine so. I do not
personally…
Len Duvall (AM): So if I approached the LDA, they would be able to provide that and
substantiate that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Let me check on that. I cannot imagine
why they would not, but I will find out for you
Len Duvall (AM): So you undertook the whole lock, stock and barrel of that, and the GLA
officers stood back and allowed you to do that? They gave you the grant and said: ‘It is
your event totally under your control’.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
47
7 January 2004
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: We were in partnership with them in
this, so basically the events team will drive and coordinate. We will work together on it so
we will work in partnership in terms of they will drive the coordination of the blue light
services and with Westminster and so forth. We interact with Tim Owen at Westminster
or any of the other boroughs as we need to do; we interact with the police etc.
Len Duvall (AM): Are you going to confirm to me and the committee that you have
followed all the procurement practices?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I will confirm how that was procured.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Who decided no to Ozzy Osbourne and yes to David Gray?
Whose decision was that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Basically, within that, through Harvey
Goldsmith, who was the person who put on the concert, the services of David Gray,
Morcheeba and Nitin Sawhney were donated, so they were given to London for free as a
result of that. That was part of the thing; it was also part of having the right mix of music
that went into it and part of creating the right atmosphere.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Who actually said David Gray works but Ozzy Osbourne
does not? Whose vision was that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Oh God, I wish I had never brought up
Ozzy Osbourne. I think Ozzy Osbourne is a very nice person and we will be looking to
have him in concert soon.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): No, it is a point of taste and vision. Did Harvey Goldsmith
say: ‘I have got these lot rattling around who have got nothing to do, you can have them for
nothing’? Or was it a case of ‘No you can’t have them’?.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Is it your musical taste David?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): I am fascinated by this; it is a real issue of taste.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, it is not issue for taste. I have
spent a lot of time in the music and media business. Different kinds of music will attract
different kinds of audiences. A slightly heavy metal, if I can say rather than personalising it
to Mr Osbourne, that will attract a younger group of people.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Did you have an expert? Did you have some kind of New
Musical Express expert who said: ‘Ooh, do not have him, because you will get that sort, but
have that because it will look good on your tourist advert’.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): You did? And who was the person that decided that?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Harvey Goldsmith.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
48
7 January 2004
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): It was Harvey Goldsmith.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): And he just happened to have David Gray kicking around?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: No, not at all. We talked about who
were the various kinds of artists that we could get. In that particular event, because we
were limited in the number of people going to it, we have to get the right kind of artist who
will attract a good crowd and be popular. We cannot get a large artist that is potentially
cause security problems within the area. We need to get an artist who will attract a crowd
that will be well behaved.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): He was able to advise you on that.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Absolutely, and also I spent seven years
running Virgin Radio and Ginger TV, TFI Friday, CDUK etc.
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Was there anything in it for Harvey Goldsmith?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: In terms of?
Angie Bray (Deputy Chair): Supplying his artists, apparently for nothing.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: The artists got expenses only, so they
did not get paid any fees other than their expenses for appearing at the event. He got paid a
fee for bringing the thing together.
Brian Coleman (AM): So he got a fee but his artists did not?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Let me get you all the…
Brian Coleman (AM): I am sure they would be delighted to hear that one.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Does that not sum up the music business? I am not the best qualified
around the table to comment. I am aware that we have now run over the revised end time.
I did want to hit on two very quick points.
We talked a bit earlier about the board membership and the fact that the Chair gets paid.
Was that a decision made by the board, to pay the Chair?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I am not sure when the decision was
made.
Meg Hillier (Chair): But we could get that information?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I will get you that information, yes.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
49
7 January 2004
Meg Hillier (Chair): I know that you have gone through some reconfiguring; you have had
your new logo launched. Has there been any loss or changeover of staff from that? If so,
did the board consider that plan as well?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: In terms of changing the staff?
Meg Hillier (Chair): Yes.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes.
Meg Hillier (Chair): So any staff who left, it was all considered by the board?.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes, it was considered by the board.
Meg Hillier (Chair): What time frame was that done in? It seemed that very quickly after
you arrived there was a reconfiguration. It was remarkably quick.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: It was; I arrived in June and it
happened in July. It was discussed at the board meeting at the beginning of July and
implemented right after that board meeting.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Right, so very swift.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I can get you a date.
Meg Hillier (Chair): That would be helpful, thank you. Has anyone else got any final
quick points?
Thank you very much for your patience. I am sorry it was a much longer meeting than we
normally have.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Can I just check what I am providing
you with? I am going to get you something on in kind and how we treat that. I am going
to get you hook, line and sinker and what the rider was in Mr Gray’s contract on Trafalgar
Square. I am going to get you when the Chair was paid and I am going to get you the
changes in staff.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Yes, and the in kind costs.
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Yes I have got that here
Meg Hillier (Chair): Are your board paid through the public?
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: I can find out.
Meg Hillier (Chair): Sorry I should know that. Yes I do know that.
Brian Coleman (AM): it wil be a relief because the LDAs are anyway.
Meg Hillier (Chair): That is a bit of a beef of ours, because it is a publicly funded body.
Culture, Sport and Tourism
50
7 January 2004
Thank you very much David (Campbell).
David Campbell, Chief Executive, Visit London: Thank you.
Meg Hillier (Chair): The next meeting is on 21 January.
[Ends]
Culture, Sport and Tourism
51
7 January 2004