Press Cuttings Transcripts
Tourism – The Journal for the Tourism Society.
8th February 2005.
The Berners Hotel, London W1.
Robert Davidson FTS.
This debate on London’s meeting industry was chaired by Gerry Acher, Chairman of the Mayoral Commission which has been established in order to assess the feasibility of developing an International Convention Centre in the Capital.
The Panel included an impressive array of luminaries from the UK’s business tourism sector: Jeremy Brinkworth, Head of Business Tourism VisitBritain; Vanessa Cotton, MD for Conferences & Events, at the ExCeL centre; Nick Waight, Divisional Director of the ICC Birmingham; and Tony Travers, Director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics.
Many planners of international events will only consider London, if they consider the UK as a potential destination. Therefore a London ICC could attract more new business to the UK. However, Newcastle, Cardiff and Liverpool are also planning to build new conference centres. There is currently a glut of conference centres in the US, where an number of ‘second tier’ cities have conference centres under construction. Jeremy pointed out that this is good news for buyers – but raised the question of whether there was a limit to the number of conference centres we can operate in the UK. Overseas offices of VisitBritain say that the greatest challenge in selling London as a conference destination is the perceived lack of value for money. Nevertheless, the image of London is positive and even the perception of transport in London is satisfactory.
Vanessa Cotton pointed out that many businesses were doing well in the meetings industry, but added that it was important not to focus exclusively on the international association market. Corporate meetings were less visible, but the corporate sector can afford London prices. Because so many international organisations have their HQs in London, this should lead to opportunities for local sponsorship/support for their conferences. Vanessa expressed the opinion that London has a lot to offer, but added that:
Data collection needs improving, to provide reliable data to support the argument for choosing London as destination – for example, it is true that London based meetings are more successful in attracting delegates?
Subsidy is important, but so is civic hospitality and the general welcome that conferences receive.
We need to work more in partnership with hoteliers, concentrating on those hotels that fully understand the conference business.
Nick Waight reminded us that the UK has a number of ICC’s, including Birmingham, which make an operating profit. Yes, London does need a purpose built ICC, and Birmingham feels positive about this potential development. But there are challenges ahead: a strategic, nationally coordinated, approach to bidding for international events is required. UK cities are increasingly requiring their conference centres to make an operating profit, but many European cities rent out their conference centres at relatively low rates, concentrating on reaping the economic impacts that large events bring to the destination.
Tony Travers acknowledged that an ICC is the kind of facility that a global city such as London should have. But he pointed out that there is no inevitability about building one in the capital, as not all such cities have on (New York, for example, doesn’t). A few questions arose for consideration. How would a new ICC affect other London facilities? Would and ICC represent the best use of London’s resources (capital and land)?
When the debate was opened to the floor for discussion, Ken Robinson FTS asked: as an ICC would represent a substantial risk as the capital project, what did the panel think about the issue of ongoing public subsidy?
Gerry Acher replied that a London ICC would have to make an operating profit. But he qualified this by pointing out that no conference centre can exist without public support. For the private sector, Vanessa Cotton remarked that that as ExCeL is privately owned it must therefore make an operating profit. Some business is lost to other destinations such as Vienna and Madrid that have policies of long term subsidy. She noted that since business is being pitched for 2012 and beyond, conference centres need a clear indication of whether subsidy is going to be available.
Gerry Acher added that we must be careful with subsidy, and look not only at putting cash in the hands of meeting planners, but also providing other attractive elements such as hospitality, the presence of Ministers, etc. However, Nick Waight was more categorical, stating that on the international level, subsidy was indeed required, with long-term commitment to bring business to the UK. Furthermore, if there was to be a subsidy ‘pot’, then VisitBritain should control it.
Tony Travers added a note of dissent, claiming that economists would say that if London needs to provide ongoing subsidy to its ICC, then the market is trying to tell us something, namely: is this the best use of the city’s resources? Gerry Acher noted that although London is 10% more expensive than Paris, we are still successful in winning conferences. He was of the opinion that we should look to the industry to provide subsidy, rather than the government, since ongoing subsidy rarely meets with approval in the UK’s free market economy environment.
Michael Hirst FTS expressed the belief that an ICC could act as a catalyst for positive change in London, by stimulating more business tourism. This would be a most welcome development, given that the pattern of visitation is changing.
There followed a discussion of how large an ICC would be, and where it should be built. Gerry Acher stated that if London gets and ICC, it would have to be on a world scale – 2000 – 5000 seats, about 60 000m2, with sufficient exhibition space to support it. But Nick Waight disagreed, saying that a 5000 seat conference centre would be a mistake, as there are now very few conferences that require a plenary session of that magnitude.
On the issue of location, Ylva French FTS asked: is it now too late to find the ideal location for an ICC? She was of the opinion that many ‘dream sites’ had already been snapped up for other projects – The Dome, Kings Cross, Wembley. She also felt that it was vital to identify a location that offered sufficient space for hotel development. Tony Travers believed that locating an ICC far away from theatres, restaurants, etc would be inadvisable. According to him, a downtown location was most definitely required, in order to play to the strengths of London. But, inevitably perhaps, Vanessa Cotton riposted by claiming that London was changing at an exponential rate, with the centre of balance moving eastwards, in the direction of Canary Wharf and ExCeL. There was ample space for development in East London.
Gerry Acher claimed that there was no doubt that a conference centre would work – either in the centre of London or in fringe areas. But if it is set in the latter type of location, it would be a very difference conference centre. The Commission must calculate whether or not the economic impacts of a suburban conference centre would balance out the disadvantages of such a location. However, he intimated that the Commission was tending towards the city-centre option.
Harry Baum FTS offered a ready-made solution from the floor: the Methodist Central Hall in the heart of Westminster. He claimed that with the Central Hall’s proximity to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and Church House, the three venues could form a central ‘conference campus’ – assuming that the issue of Central Hall’s Grade 2 status and its licensing problem could be overcome. For her part, Sunny Crouch FTS suggested Stratford as the ICC’s ideal location – quickly accessible from central London. According to Sunny, there was currently pressure to create some legacies from the process of bidding for the 2012 Olympic Games, so that we have something to show for the effort, even if London is unsuccessful in its bid. If we do win the Olympics, the ICC could be used as the Games’ Press Centre, during the first year of its existence, then available for conferences thereafter.
Finally, not to be outdone, Patrick Doff suggested Newport as the location, claiming that the ‘Full’ sign was up, in London. He expressed the strong belief that, wherever it is located, we need an ICC with bedrooms included, since bedrooms are a revenue source that would make subsidy unnecessary.
The evening ended with a straw poll of the audience, returning to the question:
A London ICC: To be or not to be? Result? Unanimous support for a London ICC. Eat your heart out, Hamlet.
Rob Davidson FTS is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Westminster London.