Millennium Dome

HC Deb 21 February 2000 vol 344 cc1306-48

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.44 pm

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey)

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the fact that Government interference in the Millennium Dome has rendered it a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money. It is nice to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the second time today, but I regret that, because of the time taken during our first encounter, there is so little time left to debate the dome. It is also a pity that the Minister responsible for it, Lord Falconer, is safely ensconced elsewhere. He, not the Secretary of State, answers for the Government on dome matters.

Let me begin by making what may be a slightly embarrassing confession. From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome and an enthusiast for the Greenwich site. I know that there are domophobes on both sides of the House—people who think that the whole project was destined to be a failure and a waste of money. I am not one of those people. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber and who is often credited with having inspired the project and enabled it to happen at all. Back in 1997, in evidence to the Select Committee, he said: I feel that it is right in the conduct of the nation's affairs every so often for nations to make a great statement of confidence, of great commitment to their own pride in the past and optimism in the future. There could be no more obvious moment to do that than on the anniversary of the millennium. I entirely endorse those sentiments. I wish that that aspiration had been fulfilled, but no one visiting the dome today could say with honesty that it has been.

The problems at the dome have resulted directly from the meddling and interference of Ministers. In fact, the problems began before the last general election, with the refusal of the Labour Opposition to make up their mind about whether, if elected, they would continue with the project. As a result of that prevarication, a valuable nine months—at least—were lost. Partly as a consequence of that, time, instead of being a theme for the dome, became an enemy.

Following the decision to proceed with the project, the Government made their next big mistake. They appointed the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), Labour's archspin doctor, to be the sole shareholder in the project. The warnings were there: the only other project that the right hon. Gentleman had masterminded was shallow, confused, all things to all people, long on height and bereft of vision. It was the monstrous blancmange of Labour's general election victory—a monstrous blancmange that is now going squishy at the edges, past its sell-by date and liable to give voters the runs.

Not surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman's appointment was seen as harnessing the dome—and, indeed, all millennium projects, whether they originated from religious faith or from a sense of community spirit—to Labour's campaign to win the next general election. I am happy to say that most of the other projects, especially the smaller ones, have been reclaimed by the people up and down the country, but for the dome there was no escape. The arrival of the right hon. Gentleman began a process of obsessive secrecy, which has been one of the abiding characteristics of the way in which the project has been handled and of its public relations—obsessive secrecy illumined occasionally by flashes of the absurd or surreal.

I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you recall the trip to Disneyworld, and the photo-call with the world's most famous mouse. In view of recent events, it was a somewhat ironic trip. Do you recall the birth of "Baby Dome"? Whatever became of "Baby Dome"? [Interruption.] No doubt it was the victim of a ruthless infanticide, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—to whose contributions to our debates on the dome I pay tribute—so admirably points out.

Do you remember "surfball", the exciting new game, Mr. Deputy Speaker? "Surfball" turned out to be a figment: it turned out to be "surfballs". Then there was the tantalising glimpse of the body zone, which involved first a giant man, and then a man, a woman and a baby—another baby that disappeared. Finally, there was an androgenous figure; at that stage, no one knew that, sadly, it was infected with pubic lice.

Not surprisingly, the dome became the butt of jokes. According to The Times: Attacking the Dome has become the nation's favourite sport. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should go and have a look.

Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth

I will, but I shall not do so very often, because we are short of time.

Mr. Plaskitt

If the dome is a joke, as the hon. Gentleman says, can he explain why it is now the most popular tourist attraction in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ainsworth

The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that. I was quoting The Times, which pointed out that the dome had become the butt of the nation's humour.

There is a lack of candour in financial matters. That was regretted by the Select Committee on more than one occasion, but not addressed by the Ministers concerned. At one point last year, several different figures for the amount of sponsorship that had been received were spun simultaneously. That is par for the course perhaps from a press office that has been heavily infiltrated by Millbank implants and described by one former insider as "really rather nasty". The handling of the press office and its bullying approach to journalists over time might have done more to undermine the dome's reputation than even the shenanigans on new year's eve, of which I should record that my family and I were beneficiaries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I use the term "beneficiaries" advisedly.

With the demise, albeit temporary, of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, there was a golden opportunity for a fresh start on the project. We argued then for the appointment of a person with relevant business and tourism skills and knowledge to head the project.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has announced that he went on a free trip because, previously, he had announced to everyone in the Chamber that he had paid to go in the dome. Perhaps now we have had the clarification that we expected.

Mr. Ainsworth

The hon. Gentleman is silly and is wasting time. I went to the dome on new year's eve. I went back to the dome after the opening and paid for my own ticket. I understand that that is one more time than the Secretary of State, who has been there only on new years's eve, according a recent parliamentary answer.

The impression of control by the political image doctors was only reinforced by the appointment of Lord Falconer—not just any old crony but the apogee of cronydom, the Prime Minister's trusted former flatmate. Although less prone to surfballing and more convivial than his saturnine predecessor, Lord Falconer did nothing to stem the tide of bad publicity. The project was characterised by exactly the same lack of candour and blithe reassurances to genuine questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As things got worse, the Government decided on a new tack: anyone criticising the dome, or the way in which it was managed was suddenly unpatriotic or a whinger.

Ms Hazel Blears (Salford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth

No, I will not.

Ms Blears

rose—

Mr. Ainsworth

All right; I give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms Blears

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that his constant denigration of the dome has a terrible effect on those children—hundreds of thousands of them—who are going to the dome to do the "our town story", as Salford children did last week? They are proud of their cities and their heritage. He should be ashamed of his constant denigration of those children's activities.

Mr. Ainsworth

If the hon. Lady had paid attention to any of the discussions that we have had on the dome in the past 18 months, she would have heard me being supportive of the project. It is not Conservative Members who have made the dome what it is today. It is not they who have enabled children to visit only two of the zones. It is not they who have given rise to children from Yorkshire being offered an 8 am slot for their visit to the dome, which would mean their getting up at 2 am. She should look at what is going on before criticising Conservative Members.

Last autumn's draw-down of the £50 million facility from the Millennium Commission is another prime example of appalling media relations. That £50 million had always been in the budget, but it had never been referred to, so, not surprisingly, commentators saw it as a new cash injection and that is how it was portrayed.

Similarly inept was the attempt to spin the emergency cash-flow boost in January as perfectly in line with expectations. Shortly after the opening night, I warned that the project might run into cash-flow difficulties in the near future and need an injection of funds, but not even I had expected that need to arise so soon. No one in their right mind plans to receive an emergency cash injection to avoid insolvent trading. To have pretended otherwise was absurd.

Incidentally, I have yet to meet anyone who favours giving more money to the project. Perhaps the Secretary of State has. If so, I will be delighted to hear who. I will also be delighted to hear what guarantee he can offer that the dome will not be back for more. He is silent on that, but I hope that when he answers he will offer some relevant remarks.

The media had just about had their fill of patronising and misleading claptrap when it was suddenly claimed that, instead of needing 12 million visitors to break even—the figure that had been in the public domain for about two years—the dome would need only 10 million visitors. I am certain that that miraculous change in the economics of the dome had nothing whatever to do with the fact that, at that time, the public were staying away in droves.

Dome watchers had worked out by mid-January that, as crisis followed crisis, there would be a need for a scapegoat. They had also worked out that under no circumstances would that scapegoat be a Minister.

Jennie Page, redoubtable and feisty as she is, is a public servant by instinct and training. She had possibly the worst job in Britain and she did it very well. It was made even worse by the constant interference from Ministers, which she found exasperating. To deliver the project on time and to budget by 31 December was no mean achievement. She deserved better than a public and acrimonious dismissal.

We are told that it was Lord Falconer himself who, on the day of Jennie Page's departure, personally telephoned a number of the sponsors to tell them about her replacement. The Secretary of State has written to me on the subject. He played no part in the shameful affair. He is exonerated, but I should be grateful if he confirmed that it is his understanding that Lord Falconer telephoned the sponsors on the day that Jennie Page left. If so, will he share with the House his understanding of what Lord Falconer said to the sponsors because there seems to have been some misunderstanding? They were left with the impression that the dome's new chief executive was to be the man who saved Disneyland Paris. That was Philippe Bourguignon, not P-Y Gerbeau. It was another masterly display of cack-handed spin, in which the Minister was personally involved.

I wish P-Y, as we must grow to know and to love him, very well. It is not his fault that his appointment prompted Le Monde to gloat: A Frenchman, a garlic eater, a vulgar frog is to rescue the failure of what Tony Blair only 2 months ago called 'This extraordinary Testament to British creativity'". The dome is indeed a national embarrassment.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the dome has become in the public mind and certainly in the media's mind is a testament to new Labour, the epitome, a paradigm—all spin and no substance?

Mr. Ainsworth

My hon. Friend is right. If he waits, I may dwell briefly on that theme, too.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth

I will not at the moment.

P-Y appears to have got off to a good start, helped by half-term and by the weather, although people do not have to pay £20 to go to the dome to watch a rugby international, however gratifying the result. He faces an unenviable task, hampered again by time—the project's enemy—and by money. He is also hampered by the content of the dome itself.

The original vision for the dome was noble and thoughtful: a symbol of Britain on the cusp of the new millennium, a celebration of our past. History has been air-brushed from the dome. The theme of time has become a mere memory. It was a chance to take stock of ourselves as a nation and to glimpse the future with the help of the best of our creative talent and cutting-edge technology, but the dome is not a symbol of Britain. It is a symbol of a trite, self-regarding and bossy Government who believe in nothing and have to their credit only a mounting pile of broken promises and malfunctioning zones, such as health, crime and rural areas. The Government have fashioned a dome in their own image, partly on purpose, partly by mistake.

When the creative director, Stephen Bayley, walked out on the project because he could not hack the daily intrusions by Ministers in a project that was meant to be above politics, the dome was consigned to whatever fate bureaucrats, long-suffering and competing sponsors and Ministers could incompetently contrive between them. The result is the noisy, brash, part dull, part sensational exhibition that we are discussing tonight.

Sure, people will go, and good luck to them. I hope that they have a great day. Sure, children will enjoy the day out. When did children ever not enjoy a day out?

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)

Often.

Mr. Ainsworth

The hon. Gentleman obviously leads a sad life. We took the children to Brighton at the weekend. They had a very good day out and I do not think that Brighton has had £400 million of lottery money. It does not take £400 million of lottery money to give children a good day out.

The staff at the dome are universally helpful. I am told that the show is good as well, but on the day I went—and paid for my ticket—I was told that the show that I wanted to see had been cancelled owing to a lack of visitors.

What do people say about value for money at the dome?

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)

The cost of the dome is continually presented as not being a charge on the taxpayer. It is not clear whom the Government think that £400 million of lottery money came from if not from the taxpayer by another means. Unlike the Government, my hon. Friend has paid some attention to tourism. Could he make a guesstimate of what £400 million might have done for the seaside heritage of Britain?

Mr. Ainsworth

My hon. Friend tempts me down a road that I do not wish to travel. The Government have many times admitted that lottery money is public money. Obviously, £400 million could have done a great deal for our tourist areas. However, the British Tourist Authority anticipates that the dome will attract a significant number of visitors, although I doubt that the claim that it will attract £1 billion of extra spending is anywhere near the mark.

People who go to the dome have a reasonable day. There is no doubt about that. However, do they think that the money spent on it was well spent? A handy website—www.DomeVote.co.uk—has been set up to enable those who have visited the dome to voice their opinions. The first question is, "Is the dome worth £758 million?" So far, 16 per cent. say yes and 78 per cent. say no. Some 48 per cent. rate the dome as a waste of money and 39 per cent. say that the queues are too long. The dome is not cutting it in terms of value for money.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a few moments ago, the dome is an emblem of new Labour. It betrays a failure of vision. Worse, it betrays an inability to understand where politics should give way to art, design, science, architecture and history. It is not a triumph of spin over substance because it is not a triumph at all.

In the long run, what happens after the exhibition closes will be of far greater importance than the exhibition itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will confirm, Greenwich was chosen partly because of its location on the meridian line, but also because of the immense possibilities for regeneration in that part of London. It is worrying that Ministers have got off to such a delayed start in seeking bids for the site. It is worrying that nobody seems to have calculated the cost of decommissioning the exhibition. It is worrying that there appears to be a dispute with British Gas over the site. I am sure that the last thing that any of us wants is for the dome to stand idle for months after the exhibition closes at the end of the year. We want to get on with creating jobs and creating a development that will bring something of great value to the capital city and to the nation as a whole.

All that is for the future. For now, our message to Ministers is that they have done enough damage: leave P-Y to get on with the job, and leave the dome alone.

8.5 pm

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith)

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

believes that the Millennium Experience—and the many other Millennium activities—represent both an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations; further welcomes the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission; and, in particular, notes the record attendances at the Dome in the week commencing 7th February and the recent high satisfaction ratings amongst visitors. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important subject, if not for a speech that amply justified the title "monstrous blancmange".

I am sure that our discussions this evening will focus on the dome, but it is important that we see it in its proper context. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that context matters. We have always said that the dome was the centrepiece of the country's overall millennium celebrations. Those celebrations comprise a rich and colourful tapestry of projects and schemes that embrace the whole country and will enrich our cultural life for many years. There are projects as diverse as the immensely successful dynamic earth centre in Edinburgh, the new Tate gallery of modern art on Bankside and the spectrum of new village halls and greens that are being supported throughout the country.

There are also projects such as the millennium awards scheme, which enables thousands of ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things. It has helped 10,000 people to date, aged between 16 and 92. Grants from the millennium festival fund will enable communities in villages and towns across the country to mark the millennium in their own special way. Two projects were opened to the public just last week—the new art gallery and conservation centre at the Peter Scott wildfowl and wetlands trust headquarters at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire and the access no barrier project, which is a centre providing facilities for the physically handicapped and able bodied club in Jarrow.

Of course the dome matters, but it matters because it is part of a wider entity, not because it is the entirety of what we are doing. Let us remember that four fifths of Millennium Commission funds are going to projects, events and people other than the dome.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

The right hon. Gentleman has made our point. Because everything has been so dome-centric, attention has not been drawn to all the other worthwhile and magnificent projects. With all their appalling handling of the situation, the Government have ensured that attention is focused on the dome. That has discredited the whole millennium exercise.

Mr. Smith

I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it might have been better if the Opposition had tabled a motion about the entirety of the millennium celebrations, events and projects if that was how they felt.

It saddens me to hear the hon. Member for East Surrey criticising the project and trying to make the dome a partisan issue. One of the project's greatest strengths is that it has enjoyed good cross-party support. Neither the dome nor the other millennium projects should be seen as the property of one political party. The Conservatives are trying to do that. I am sorry that they are unable to feel some pride in their initiative to use part of the national lottery for millennium schemes. It was their idea to have a strand of lottery spending devoted to the millennium, their idea to establish the Millennium Commission and their idea to develop the dome. It is not, and should not be seen as, a political entity. The same is true of the other millennium projects and events. The aim of all the projects is to represent the aspirations of a nation and to provide an opportunity for enjoyment for communities and individuals across the UK.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I am sure that everyone applauds the successful millennium projects to which the Secretary of State has referred. What does he feel about the second millennium failure—the plastic cone-topped tower in Portsmouth? It has been four years in the planning with three false starts, but still there has been no contract, no planning permission and no works act, yet £14 million of lottery money is still tied up in the project. Will he give us an update on that project and tell us when it will be built?

Mr. Smith

I understand that the rest of the Portsmouth scheme, involving the rehabilitation of the waterfront, is forging ahead very well. The city council is in discussion with the Millennium Commission about the tower. It has some proposals that appear to be viable. They need to be tested but, if they are indeed found to be viable, they will be proceeded with.

The hon. Member for East Surrey talks about political interference in the project. I cannot accept that accusation. The Government are not running the millennium experience, nor should we be. The previous Government recognised the national significance of the project by appointing a Minister as sole shareholder of the operating company. We have retained that arrangement because we believe that it is right for a national project of this scale to be subject to proper parliamentary accountability.

It was important that the Minister holding the share should not be the same Minister as the one chairing the Millennium Commission—that is, myself—and ultimately providing the finance. As the New Millennium Experience Company shareholder, Lord Falconer is accountable to Parliament for the millennium experience. That means that he needs to take an active interest in the project's development and progress along its critical path, but that is very different from interfering in the day-to-day management, which is the responsibility of the NMEC board.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth

How then does the Secretary of State explain the frustration and exasperation repeatedly expressed by Jennie Page about the constant, almost daily, interference by Ministers in affairs that she considered to be her own?

Mr. Smith

That is not something that she has ever said to me. If it had happened, it would have been regrettable; but it did not. The shareholder of the millennium experience set the overall parameters, along with the Millennium Commission, which is funding the project, but the day-to-day development and running of the experience are up to the board of the company and those running it. The Government believe in proper accountability, not unnecessary interference. We are not in the business of directly running visitor attractions.

I am proud to account for what has been achieved so far. Let us consider the first weekend: the turn of the millennium year. Well over 4.5 million people joined in the festivities in the 22 cities that received special grants from the commission to celebrate the run-up to, and the arrival of, 2000. As the report that I placed in the Library the other week shows, the celebrations were a great success and were well received by both those who attended and those who watched on television.

The dome opening celebrations involved more than 10,000 people, the majority members of the general public, and was viewed by 1 billion people on television around the world. The four millennium Church services on 2 January in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast involved more than 5,000 people: members of communities and Christian congregations the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, as well as members of the royal family and both Government and Opposition Members of Parliament.

Mr. Ainsworth

Will the Secretary of State remind the House how much compensation was paid to those who had their evening spoilt on new year's eve?

Mr. Smith

If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I am just about to come to that.

In addition to the millennium Church services on 2 January, the shared act of reflection and commitment by the faith communities of the UK, held in the Royal Gallery here at the Palace of Westminster the following day, was a very special and historic occasion, bringing together faith leaders and others from communities throughout the country to focus on the values that we need to shape society for the future.

Not surprisingly, there were a few glitches. Perhaps the most widely reported—or milked, depending on the agenda of those commenting—were the delays at Stratford tube station for those travelling to the dome for the opening celebrations. The arrangements for guests using Stratford did indeed go wrong. People should not have experienced the lengthy delays that they had to endure. Both NMEC and the Metropolitan police have apologised to those affected, and NMEC has offered—this is the answer to the question that the hon. Member for East Surrey asked—all those who used Stratford complimentary tickets for use during the year.

Despite the problems, virtually everyone enjoyed the evening, including many who travelled through Stratford. The millennium celebrations have continued since that first weekend. The dome opened its doors to its first paying visitors on 1 January. So far, 700,000 people have been, and the overwhelming verdict has been one of satisfaction and enjoyment. People like the dome.

Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)

To reinforce that point, a letter in the Brighton Evening Argus of 17 February says: I would like to put the record straight over the bad publicity concerning the Millennium Dome. It is a great achievement to build such a modern building. It is impressive and functional. It is a splendid exhibition centre with many interesting displays with something for everybody. The afternoon spectacular show is really something worth seeing. I shall go again and I am a senior citizen. Is that not the true reason for the dome?

Mr. Smith

That is indeed the overwhelming verdict of those who go to the dome. Indeed, some primary school children from Hull visited the dome this very morning. Louis Dorton, who is 11, said: I loved it all, the show was absolutely terrific, it's the best thing I've ever seen. Kimberley Barlow, who is 10, said: The millennium show was amazing—the gymnasts are incredible and I don't know how they manage half the things they do. I'm amazed at it all. Time after time, those are the sort of comments that people who visit the dome make about their visit.

Despite what the media and some politicians may say, people who visit the dome thoroughly enjoy it and most would recommend it to their friends. Of course, the dome is not the first example of the professional critics misjudging the public's reaction; nor is the visiting public's positive feedback some kind of hyped-up spin from NMEC or the Government: it is more than borne out by independent polls commissioned by the very newspapers that in the same breath criticise the dome.

The Sunday Times found that 85 per cent. of visitors said that they had enjoyed their visit to the dome and 74 per cent. would recommend it to their friends; a poll in The Mirror found that 71 per cent. rated the dome as "good" or "very good"; Independent Television News found that 91 per cent. of those interviewed thought the dome worth the trip; and 61 per cent. of those interviewed by The Independent thought the dome and its contents spectacular. That same poll found that 0 per cent. thought it dull, yet in the self-same edition of the self-same paper, the leading article asked why so many people found the dome dull.

When I visited the dome myself as a paying visitor on Saturday—and had an extremely enjoyable time—it was obvious that the very large number of people there were enjoying themselves; quite a few of them came up to me to make that very point.

With immaculate timing, as always, the Opposition have called for this debate at the very time when we have had the four best-ever days of attendance at the dome. On Friday, there were 27,000 visitors; on Saturday, 24,700; on Sunday, 26,200; and this morning the dome was totally sold out by 11.30.

The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned the recent change of chief executive at NMEC and the resignation of the operations director. The House will be aware that Jennie Page stood down as chief executive earlier this month. The NMEC board has appointed P-Y Gerbeau to succeed her, reflecting the view that a different set of skills was needed to manage the project during its year of operation. I will comment in a moment about Mr. Gerbeau's appointment, but I wish to pause briefly to reflect on Jennie's achievements on the project.

When Jennie accepted the post of chief executive of the then Millennium Central Ltd., three years ago, many people thought that completing the dome on time and on budget was an impossible task. Indeed, many thought the same when she previously took on the post of chief executive of the Millennium Commission. Both tasks required a unique vision and both required commitment, dedication and determination—skills that Jennie has in spades. Jennie met both of those challenges with her customary enthusiasm, intelligence and style. To build the dome on time and on budget was an enormous task in anybody's book. To do all of that under the intense scrutiny of both the media and Parliament was even more of a challenge, but it was a challenge to which Jennie was more than equal and I wish to put firmly on record my gratitude for her tremendous achievement in bringing the project to fruition.

The NMEC board's decision to appoint Mr. Gerbeau in no way detracts from Jennie's achievements. I can tell the hon. Member for East Surrey that it was a decision of the board. In answer to his specific question, Lord Falconer did telephone sponsors on Friday 4 February. He informed them that P-Y Gerbeau would replace Jennie Page and he indicated that P-Y was part of the team who turned round Disney in Paris.

Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Smith

No, I must make progress. The board believed that running a major visitor attraction required very different skills from those required to take that unique project from concept through development of content, including the national programme linked to the dome, to construction and fit-out of the dome itself. P-Y Gerbeau's experience as part of the Disney team will help to deliver the visitor experience that the visiting public anticipate. He has been in the job for two weeks and already decisions have been taken to improve signing, to provide more entertainment for visitors between the zones, to develop more activity in the central arena, to provide a better management of visitor flows, and to bring in greater flexibility in ticketing and marketing.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the additional grant that the Millennium Commission has agreed to make available to NMEC to help with its cash-flow requirements in the early months of this year. As the House is aware, I am the chairman of the commission. The commission has recognised from the outset that cash-flow difficulties are often associated with large-scale start-up businesses. Provisions to deal with such potential difficulties in the case of the dome always formed part of the arrangements between the commission and NMEC. The commission has therefore agreed to provide up to £60 million in additional cash-flow support, subject to demonstration of need and to vigorous appraisal.

The commission has so far released £32 million of additional repayable grant in that way. The release of the remainder will similarly be in accordance only with demonstrable need. Both NMEC and the commission keep the company's budgets, commercial plans and operational strategies under review and the latest such appraisal by the commission will be completed shortly. The final decision on how much additional cashflow support might in fact be needed, and when it should be paid, will be taken in the light of that appraisal.

In all this, let us not forget that, even before it opened, the dome had already made a major impact on the economy of the local area. Thanks to the dome, one of the poorest areas of the country has undergone a transformation. The dome has been a catalyst for a whole range of environmental and infrastructural improvements that will leave a very tangible and lasting legacy for the people of Greenwich and the wider United Kingdom. A derelict gasworks site has been cleaned up, in what is widely recognised as a model for brownfield site development across Europe. One can now travel between central London and the north Greenwich peninsula on the new Jubilee line extension in only 12 minutes and the new river boat services have once again brought the Thames into play as one of the great communication links of the capital. We have the new millennium village, with its mix of social and commercial housing and its modern, energy-efficient designs, and £300 million to £500 million extra tourist spend is expected across the UK this year as a direct result of the dome, with a halo effect of double that.

Regeneration is not just about money and places: it is about people. Perhaps the greatest testimony to the dome is that it has been the catalyst for the creation of around 13,000 jobs, both in itself and in the developments around it on the peninsula. The impact that those have made and will continue to make on the life of the community is, in my mind, far more important than the empty whingeing from the Opposition. The millennium celebrations are about making a real difference to the lives of the people of this country, through jobs, through boosts to the economy and through regeneration. That is what is at stake and that is what we should focus on tonight. Anything that can have such an enormous positive impact on the life of both its local community and the national economy should be encouraged, not knocked. We need to stop talking it down, get behind the project, give our full support to the NMEC team at the dome and together make it work.

8.26 pm

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

I am grateful to be called. The House will know that it is now some years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, invited me to become a member of the Millennium Commission. As the House will also know, the commission was one of the distributor bodies set up under the previous Government to distribute funds gathered by the national lottery. It cannot be disputed that there has never been such an infusion of funds into good causes—the charities, arts, heritage, culture and sport—under any Government policy ever initiated in this country at any time in our history. That is a proud claim to make on behalf of a policy initiative by my right hon. Friend.

Part of my right hon. Friend's vision was that it should be an all-party concept, and when the Millennium Commission was set up under the chairmanship of the responsible Minister at the time, a representative of the Labour party, the late Michael Montague, was invited to join the commission to ensure that it was conducted on an all-party basis. There has never been a party political discussion in the commission. Having attended meetings for some years, I do not even know the party choices of the members of the commission. They have not been relevant to our deliberations.

The decision to attempt a great celebration was predictably controversial. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was stopped in its tracks by Tory Members of Parliament who complained about the design, which led to the redesign by Paxton that enabled the project to proceed. The 1951 celebration, the Festival of Britain, was equally controversial and, on a tiny and humble scale, the Liverpool garden festival, for which I was responsible in the early 1980s, was treated precisely the same way as we anticipated the dome would be. And so it has been. As the Secretary of State said, the dome was designed to be an all-party statement about Britain's prowess. That was the context of the birth pains that such projects characteristically undergo in this country.

Looking back, I remember that people said we would never do it, but we did. They said that we would never do it to cost or to time, but we did. The headlines screamed that we would never get the Jubilee line open and that no one would be able to get to the dome, but the line did open and people are getting to the dome. At every turn, the whole process has been attacked—ruthlessly and irresponsibly—by the national press. Unlike many hon. Members, I have spent my life in the commercial world launching projects. I know that they are always a risk, that there is always, by definition, an element of unpredictability, and that things go wrong. In my experience, it is impossible to conceive that a project could be successful if every question were asked at every stage, and if those managing the project were held to every decision that they ever took.

The most obvious example involves the project's sponsorship. It fell to my noble Friend Lord Levene to help in raising the money. He and I advised the commission that we thought that we could raise £150 million. From that moment, the media rendered that task well nigh impossible. Every time we opened our mouths, we were asked whether we had secured the money—if we said, "Not yet," the headlines claimed that we had failed to get the money. When asked how much we had secured, we would say that we had a list of prospects, that some were firm, some less so, and that we still had to talk to some of them. The press response then was to ask, "So you haven't got anything you can prove?" We had to admit that we had not, and from that moment on the attacks began to build.

As confidence began to be undermined, a number of company chairman who had been broadly sympathetic to our aims asked how they could continue with the project. They said that their under-managers believed that their companies would be made laughing stocks, and the same questions were asked—about value for money, about whether the dome would be ready on time, and about how people would get there. On and on it went: I believe that our national press cost the project at least tens of millions of pounds in lost sponsorship because of the uncertainties that were built up into crises.

In the event, Lord Levene and I secured more than £150 million, as we had always believed we would. However, problems remain. Some sponsors have not paid yet: although the sponsoring companies' chairmen came on board with good will, their underlings tried almost immediately to turn the zone that was being sponsored into something closer to a trade show than the editorial concept behind the project allowed. So the process unfolded.

The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was accused of being obsessively secretive. I find that hard to recognise: every Tuesday, Simon Jenkins, my fellow commissioner and a former editor of The Times and the Evening Standard and I met the right hon. Gentleman and subsequently his successor, Lord Falconer, to go through every relevant detail about the dome. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) were invited, on various occasions, to see the same presentations that we had seen. I can only assume that they took advantage of those offers and were relatively content with what they witnessed. Therefore, I do not believe that there was excessive secrecy.

Mr. Baker

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) did not utter a word in the Chamber about the project for many months into the life of this Parliament? In fact, no debate was held on the subject until 1998, and the then Minister with responsibility for the dome was required only to answer questions before the House for five minutes once a month. That hardly amounted to parliamentary accountability.

Mr. Heseltine

It is within the gift of opposition parties, if they feel that they are not getting the answers that they need, to hold debates on matters of their choosing. In fairness, I must admit that I would not have wanted to debate the matter either. How can a project of such complexity and sophistication be debated as it unfolds? How seriously can people be expected to pin down answers?

Before the House becomes convinced of how it will determine the outcome of tonight's debate, I suggest that hon. Members consider two other great projects undertaken in this country on the same time scale. First, Covent Garden opera house has been rebuilt, and is now one of the great opera houses in the world—and the clamour for it to be closed because of teething troubles has now gone. Secondly, the millennium wheel is one of the most inventive tourist attractions ever created in this country, but its builders had to delay its opening for a month until they could be sure that it would work safely. The fact is that things go wrong with great projects. I would be the first to say that there have been plenty of examples of things going wrong, and the Secretary of State has mentioned some of them. There was the catastrophic opening evening, with the Stratford delay. The fact is, we must look at these matters in context.

The dome is now operating, and the numbers of people visiting it are building significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey spoke of a test on an internet website regarding people's view of the dome. As I listened, it occurred to me that that was a fairly narrow test of opinion. How many people in this country are able to access the internet? Who will bother to access it? It would be more realistic if all the national newspapers, which have headlined the weaknesses all the way through in the polls to which the Secretary of State has referred, revealed that the majority of people going to the dome like it, and think it well worth while. How is it that that view is never flavoured in the headlines of the same newspapers, which go on repeating the same arguments that they have run ever since the concept was initiated some years ago?

Mr. Peter Ainsworth

There may be a misunderstanding. The poll to which I referred dealt with the public's attitude towards value for money, not with their reaction to a day at the dome.

Mr. Heseltine

I understood the point that my hon. Friend was making, but I remain where I began. What sort of people would go to the trouble of accessing that site and from what sort of background would they come? Do they meet the test that we faced, as millennium commissioners, of providing an experience that was not just entertaining but educational, and would appeal to the majority of people? How does one appeal to elderly people who are retired, to young people, to children and to middle-aged people and avoid the charge of producing something that is relatively wide in its appeal as opposed to narrow and intellectually excellent?

Ms Claire Ward (Watford)

Might I help the right hon. Gentleman and suggest that the kind of people who would access that dome site are sitting on the Conservative Benches? They clearly do not have the ability to look much further than what is being projected on to that dome site by some very sad people.

Mr. Heseltine

Before the hon. Lady gets carried away, if she has criticisms of my hon. Friends, she should have listened to what her party was like in opposition. The lengths to which they went to exploit difficulties made what we have heard today seem as nothing.

There is one point on which I would like to follow the Secretary of State. Jennie Page has been replaced, following her resignation as chief executive. I have known Jennie Page since her days at English Heritage, and then as chief executive of the Millennium Commission. She is, in my view, one of the outstanding public servants of her day. The fact that her arrangements were terminated, with or without agreement, by the New Millennium Experience Company, is a matter of the most profound regret. However, that does not make it the wrong decision in the circumstances.

Jennie Page confounded the critics and delivered the project to time and to budget. As the great civil servant that she is, she had to assess a whole range of conflicting professional advice and to take from that the means by which the project was delivered. That is a different skill from feeling in one's bones, from long personal experience, how to deal with day-to-day problems. The board could well have felt that someone who was not reliant upon outside expertise but who had hands-on personal experience was needed to cope with the teething problems. It would be very difficult to run those two people in harness. Jennie Page is nothing if not a determined and extremely talented deliverer of results. Those results are in the classic public sector mould, and I have not the slightest doubt that her future career in the public sector will build on the excellence of what she has achieved to date.

I have one last point to make, and it is the last point to which the Secretary of State referred. In 1979, I looked with horror at the east end of London. The Labour-dominated Greater London council and the Labour-dominated London boroughs had ensured that there were thousands and thousands of acres of derelict land, apparently with no future. The Government of whom I was a member took over some 6,000 acres on the north bank of the Thames. We left untouched, at the express request of the London borough of Greenwich, the 300 acres of dereliction now known as the dome site.

When I returned to the then Department of the Environment in 1990, that land was as derelict as it had been in 1979. On my best judgment, derelict it would have remained if we had not taken a decision to enable English Partnerships to acquire the site, clear the toxic waste and give the land a hope of life. It is today a site of huge potential. Once again, the critics have been confounded. Far from having no use for the dome, we are besieged by people who seek to acquire it for after-use. I do not know what decision will be made, but those of us who backed the concept from the beginning always believed that if we had the faith to see it through, it would deliver a massive surge of regeneration in that important and historic part of London.

The dome is a national project. It is important in the eyes of both the British people and the world. Everyone knows what we have invested in the project. We must be seen to support it and to give it every chance to be the success that I have always believed, and still believe, it will prove to be.

8.41 pm

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

I must respond to the final point made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) by saying that the Greenwich peninsula was never in the ownership of the London borough of Greenwich. The site was heavily contaminated and the cost of clearing and decontaminating it had always prevented development. That is the historical reason why the site remained derelict for 20 years.

When the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) opened for the Opposition, he said nothing positive about the dome. However, the project was bipartisan from the outset. It was conceived under the previous Conservative Government, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley and others for their bravery in supporting it from an early stage. I recall attending a reception on the Cutty Sark at Greenwich almost a decade ago, when I was a councillor, and I spoke with the world's media about the potential of Greenwich for millennium celebrations. We discussed the possibility of regenerating the site, but we knew it would take a scheme of the magnitude of the millennium experience to generate enough investment to clear the site for development and regeneration.

Those 300 acres were London's largest derelict waterfront site, and they had been empty for 20 years. Greenwich is within the Thames gateway area, which includes seven of the 20 poorest boroughs in the country. One third of London's unemployed live in the gateway area. The dome was initially intended to create 7,000 jobs, but by the end of the year it is expected to have created about 25,000. Between 1991 and 1993, Greenwich lost 500 businesses and more than 10,000 manufacturing jobs. Regeneration of the millennium project site was much needed.

The wider benefits of the millennium project were never forgotten during its development. The masts that have become such a feature of the dome were built by a steel company based in Bolton and Bristol. That company provided 1,600 tonnes of steel and 70 km of steel cabling. Construction contracts for £38 million were issued throughout London. A further £9.6 million was spent on labour. Construction contracts issued throughout the rest of the country totalled £130 million.

During the construction of the dome, the long-term benefits were also considered. The British Tourist Authority estimated that the millennium experience could generate up to £500 million from additional overseas visitors, and that the halo market effect would be £1 billion. Tourism is among the five largest UK industries; it is worth £40 billion a year.

South-east London lacked the infrastructure enjoyed by many other parts of the capital. We did not have direct access to the London underground. Anyone travelling to central London from north Kent, east Sussex or south-east London had to rely heavily on the rail network. Buses were not seen as an option because of heavy traffic congestion—which grew during the 18 years of the Conservative Government.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was until recently the shadow Transport spokesman wrote an article in The Guardian in which he criticised the dome because it was not possible to reach it by car. People in my constituency think that is one of the benefits of the scheme. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has never tried to drive through Greenwich during peak periods. Visitors to the dome will have to do that if they are to spend a full day there. Commuters who queue to go through the Blackwall tunnel every morning will be mindful of the fact that they would be enjoying the company of several thousand car users trying to get to the Greenwich waterfront if the Conservatives had won the last election.

The dome will be a major attraction for many years to come. The transport scheme will benefit south-east London and the dome for a long time. A huge car park on the Greenwich peninsula would have encouraged people to bring their cars and ignore the public transport alternatives. Even the Conservative Government acknowledged the need to limit out-of-town developments when they changed planning guidance in order to restrict car use in new shopping developments and encourage greater use of public transport.

People who visit the dome do not want a long traffic queue to be the beginning of their millennium experience—or of future events that may take place in the dome.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Looking to the future and to the success of the dome in its passage to other hands, does my hon. Friend agree that the funds generated could be redeployed—perhaps to the midlands or the north-west—where the dome should have been built in the first place?

Mr. Efford

I have already explained why it was necessary to build the dome in Greenwich—the place that gave its name to the way in which we record time. In my opinion and that of my former colleagues on Greenwich council, that was the only site for the millennium experience.

The Jubilee line extension brings enormous benefits to south-east London. It will be available for future generations of people who want access to jobs in the east London corridor. For far too long, people in south-east London have been forced to rely solely on rail services or to undertake long car journeys. Moving around the perimeter of London has meant either a long bus ride or a train journey into and out of central London. The opening of North Greenwich station and the extension of the docklands light railway to south-east London offers many public transport options for people in the area, and will assist in minimising the traffic that has blighted it for far too long.

People in my area are very concerned about the dome's future. The dome has created many jobs in south-east London, and the prospects for its future use concern them greatly. I have recently raised with London Regional Transport issues to do with its transport planning and the way that it has linked other parts of south-east London and the south-east with the new options that have been created by the extension of the new transport links. The prospects for employment in the area are extensive as a result of the development that is taking place along the entire river frontage.

The dome has been a victim of its own success. Initially, the headlines were about the length of time that it was taking to queue for the attractions—there was no suggestion that too few people were making it to the dome to enjoy a day out. Then the headlines focused on the fact that there were not enough people at the dome to form a queue of any sort. I understand that today the reports are that people are complaining that they turned up at the dome to buy a ticket and were unable to do so. I have to conclude that, whatever happens at the dome, it will never be reported as a success.

The attendance figures for January need to be viewed in perspective. All the large theme parks with which the dome has been compared do not open at this time of year. Nevertheless, attendance figures for the first week in February show that 105,000 people attended the dome, and that figure has shown a steady increase despite the amount of negative publicity that there has been recently.

As the Secretary of State said, in the last four days 25,000 to 26,000 people have attended the dome, which means that it has reached almost capacity every single day. We need to put those statistics in perspective and consider the prospects for the dome in an entire year. The hon. Member for East Surrey has taken the opportunity to criticise the Government while few people are attending the dome, but he has not taken into account the forecast attendance figures for an entire year. He should focus on the forecasts to assess whether the dome will be a success in the long term.

The Secretary of State drew attention to surveys of those visiting the dome. The London tourist board surveyed visitors from abroad to London during the last summer period. It found that eight out of 10 of those who were planning to return to London next summer intended to visit the dome. The dome also compares favourably with all other major attractions in London. In a recent MORI poll undertaken on behalf of the New Millennium Experience Company, 82 per cent. of those interviewed said that they were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the new millennium dome.

The Opposition are attempting to fill the void that is left by their total lack of any coherent set of policies. The dome is a success. It now features on many corporations' logos. It features in the work of the advertising industry, which would not associate itself with something that is likely to be a failure.

Visitors continue to vote with their feet and express their approval on leaving the dome. We should celebrate this achievement and seek to maximise its benefits instead of continuing to undermine it. We should also seek to enhance the regeneration benefits that it has brought to an important area in south-east London.

8.54 pm

Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

The Secretary of State—who, sadly, is not in the Chamber at the moment—said that the dome should not be a partisan issue. He implied that anyone who had criticisms of it was in some way disloyal to the country, which has the dome as its national icon as part of the millennium celebrations. I hope that he will accept that Liberal Democrats try to judge the issues on their merits. Earlier, I gave warm support to his statement on the funding of the BBC, which contrasts with the comments that were made by Tory Members.

It is no use saying that those who have qualms about the dome must be quiet or that they are somehow being disloyal. Questions need to be answered and they relate to the Government's performance on the issue. I hope that they will answer the questions rather than seek to portray those who have queries as being disloyal.

The Conservative party was right to call this debate. It was right because we have not had proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issue since day one. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that there has been no secrecy and that everything was properly accountable However, from the time when the Prime Minister gave the green light to the dome project on 19 June 1997, we had to wait months for the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was then responsible for the dome, even to turn up in the Chamber. He went more than a year without saying a word here. After intense pressure from the media, me and others, we finally received a five-minute question session to deal with the millennium dome. The time was eventually extended to 10 minutes and the first debate took place only in 1998. We cannot say that the issue has received proper parliamentary scrutiny.

This is the first debate that we have had since the dome opened, and it is been called on an Opposition day. The Government have not made statements on what happened on 31 December or on any other event related to the dome, despite the fact that we are told that it is so important. The Government cannot have it both ways. They have been happy to take the credit for the dome where appropriate, but they are happy to run away when problems occur with its running.

Secrecy has been a feature from the beginning. In January 1998, a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), called for details of spending on the dome to be published each month. That was refused. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), also called for the dome's cash-flow forecasts to be published on a monthly basis. That was refused.

I and others have asked countless parliamentary questions, but they have simply not been answered, on the so-called ground of commercial confidentiality. Any student of Westminster will say that that is the easiest way for a Government to avoid answering parliamentary questions.

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)

Just the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Baker

No, not just my questions, but questions from many Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard more closely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when he was going through one of his bouts of asking many questions about the dome, I took the trouble to invite him to meet my officials and members of the New Millennium Experience Company, so that they could answer his questions. Will he now kindly acknowledge that offer?

Mr. Baker

I am happy to acknowledge it. However, I point out that there is a difference between off-the-record briefings behind closed doors and proper parliamentary scrutiny on the record and in the House.

The questions that have been answered on the record have not been answered fully. I asked one question in November and another in December. Both received holding answers and, when they were finally answered at some length in late December, they received exactly the same answer even though my questions were totally different. Someone pressed the button for the acceptable form of words for that month, and the same answer came out.

I have also asked the Minister about the tendency for so many questions to receive holding answers. When I asked her how many holding answers had been issued, she told me that she would reply to me shortly. In other words, that was a holding answer to a holding answer.

The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has also examined the matter. It has said that getting information about the dome is "akin to drawing teeth" and that it is

"not so much a journey through time as a journey into the unknown."

Mr. Bermingham

If, like many of us, the hon. Gentleman had been in the House before 1997, he would have known that formal and informal discussions went on about the dome. There were arguments about its location, cost and everything else. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that once a commercial operation is up and running, there is a need for confidentiality? That is simple common sense, and to carp and gripe from ignorance is not very edifying.

Mr. Baker

There are occasions when certain matters have to be kept confidential, but that excuse has been used to refuse an answer to many legitimate questions asked by hon. Members—including Labour Members who do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather rosy view.

When the Government committed themselves to the dome project in June 1997, they set five conditions: it would result in no extra burden on the public purse; its content would entertain and inspire; it would be a truly national event; it would provide a lasting legacy; and the management structure of the operating company would be strengthened. There was, incidentally, no mention of jobs or the benefit to Greenwich. I accept that Greenwich has benefited and that jobs have been created, but that was not one of the five conditions that the Government imposed when they decided to go ahead.

The key to this multi-million pound project has been private sector sponsorship. There has been confusion about exactly what has been promised to the sponsors and exactly how much they have paid. Those are more unanswered questions that ought to be cleared up by the Minister in her response. For example, in answer to a parliamentary question on 24 February 1998—two years ago this Thursday—the then Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), told the House that the NMEC had that day announced the first four sponsors, and the list included Sky. In a parliamentary answer of 3 December 1998, he confirmed a number of sponsors, including Boots the Chemist and Sky.

On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary, who has inherited this portfolio, revealed that three sponsors have not yet signed on the dotted line, including Boots the Chemist and Sky. The same three companies were named in a parliamentary question that I asked on 11 February, and again it was confirmed that they had not signed. That was confirmed again on 14 February.

Why have those companies, which were confirmed as sponsors two years ago, not yet signed on the dotted line? What reservations do they have? What are they trying to extract before they sign? Is there any doubt about whether they will hand over the money? If there is no doubt, why have they not signed and why have they not paid the money? The Minister must answer those questions. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to duck them and to set a loyalty test in respect of the dome.

On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary said on sponsorship: we are confident that contractual arrangements will be finalised in the very near future."—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 476W.] Perhaps we can find out what the Government mean by "very near future". Is that an early pledge that those sponsors will be providing money for the dome?

Mars, which is another sponsor that has not signed, and Boots use the dome and millennium experience logo on their products. Perhaps Sky does too. Why should they be able to use that marque when they have not handed over the money? In the meantime, who is stumping up the cash to make up the shortfall or cash-flow problems that the sponsors are causing by not handing over the money?

We are told that the dome is a massive success, that people think it wonderful and that everybody is flocking to it. The average number of visitors in January was 11,820 a day. If that rate continues, the dome will attract only 4,000,300 people over the year. That would fall short not only of the long established visitor target of 12 million this year, but of the new target—I wonder where it has emerged from—of 10 million. The 10 million target will still require an average of more than 27,000 visitors a day, which answers the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who was saying what a great success the dome is. It will not reach the new target, even with this weekend's performance.

Mr. Efford

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a quiet time of year for tourism? Most of the country's major attractions are not open, but the millennium dome is achieving high attendances. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that and explain to the House what he would consider success for the dome?

Mr. Baker

I am happy to deal with that point. Given the hype, the attraction and all the newspaper coverage, positive and negative, nobody could be unaware of the millennium dome. I should have thought that those who wanted to visit it would be queueing up in January, when it was allegedly quiet; January should have been a good month for the dome, not a poor one.

Will the Minister clear up the question of the target number of visitors? The target was 12 million. In a letter dated 6 December to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary wrote: I am confident that NMEC will achieve its 12 million visitor target and that the resulting income targets will be met enabling the project, over its lifetime, to be delivered within the £758 million cash budget set for it in February 1997. As recently as 6 December, the Minister was committed to a 12 million target. Why has that target now been dropped to 10 million? Who dropped it? Is that based on revised expectations of the number of visitors who will attend, or is there some other explanation?

Is it not true that the Minister and those involved in the dome are trying to drop the target so that they can, at the end of the year, claim that it has been met? Is there to be a further drop to 8 million later this year? According to the Financial Times, 75,000 visitors made it to the dome between Friday and Sunday, which makes it the best weekend yet. However, even if that success were repeated every day this year, the number of visitors would not reach 10 million over the year.

I shall not dwell on the troubles of the opening night, which have been well rehearsed both in the debate and in the newspapers, but I am concerned about the questions surrounding the management of the dome. Why, despite the fact that visitors are not turning up in the expected numbers, are there long queues, at least for certain zones? Those are apparently now being sorted out by the repair man from France, Mr. Gerbeau. On the issue of repairs, he might like to deal with the broken exhibits listed a week ago by The Times, whose impromptu survey found 10 exhibits broken in the living island zone; three in the work zone; 2,000 robots—the majority—not working in the mind zone; 18 exhibits broken in the learning zone; nine broken in the money zone; and the heart beat irregular in the body zone. All that suggests that the repair man from Disneyland is needed.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the exhibits that has broken down is a laughing toilet bowl? I am pleased to report that it is being repaired and, in the meantime, a life-sized sculpture of a rhinoceros has been erected. Does he agree that the rhinoceros is an admirable symbol for the dome, given that it is known for its lack of vision and its tendency to charge a lot?

Mr. Baker

With my animal welfare hat on, I am tempted to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should perhaps leave that matter to one side.

It was said that the dome would be a truly national event, yet only 34 per cent. of visitors have come from outside London, with only 5 per cent. coming from northern England, 2 per cent. from Scotland and fewer than 1.5 per cent. from Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

There was a fiasco about the dismissal—let us be frank, it was a dismissal—of Jennie Page. We have been told tonight that she was wonderful, fantastic, the best thing since sliced bread; but if she was so good and we owe her so much, why was she dumped out on her ear and left to cry in her office? Was it treachery, or was she not as good as has been suggested? If she was that good, she should not have been treated in that manner. Is it not the truth that the sponsors are in control and they demanded her head on a plate?

Mr. Bermingham

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two questions. First, is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members do not attack people who cannot reply for themselves? Secondly, is it not the case that we do not read speeches unless they have been circulated in advance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

First, there is no question of a person outside the House being attacked. Secondly, no Standing Order states that speeches may not be read, but "Erskine May" has something helpful to say on the subject and I should be pleased if more hon. Members read it.

Mr. Baker

For the record, I am not reading a speech; I am reading notes and improvising as I go along. Other Front Benchers have the benefit of the Dispatch Box on which to rest their notes, but that facility is not currently available to the Liberal Democrats. Let us hope that it will be when the House is reconstituted after the next election—but that is another debate.

The dome is architecturally a great achievement. The Jubilee line extension and the tube station there are great achievements, as is Westminster station. The staff at the dome are extremely friendly and helpful. However, the dome lacks cohesion, because the entire process has been driven by a small clique which started under the Conservative Government and continues under the present Government. Decisions are taken behind closed doors. It is not a people's dome; it is the dome of a small clique.

Mr. Efford

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker

No, I shall finish my remarks.

If a committee designs an animal, it comes up with a camel. The dome is all right, but it could have been so much better. It is not worth £758 million. It is not the icon that it has been talked up to be. The Government are not wholly responsible for that, but they had a role in it. Some serious questions have been asked in the House tonight, which the Minister has a duty to answer when she comes to the Dispatch Box.?

9.10 pm

Ms Claire Ward (Watford)

I am amazed by the Opposition's choice of subject for this debate. It represents political opportunism of the worst kind on the part of the Conservatives. They are exploiting what was a cross-party venture, yet apart from the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) who has just wandered in, there were at one point in the debate only three hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, including the Front Bench. That is rather strange. The Opposition initiated the debate, yet as a party they have no interest in attending or speaking in it.

The one speech that we heard from the Conservative Benches, from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was positive in tone. It took a great deal of courage for the right hon. Gentleman to make that speech.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)

Was not the great distance between the right hon. Member for Henley and the rest of the Conservative party also significant?

Ms Ward

The right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately is not present, is distant from his party not only on the subject of the dome, but on Europe, I am pleased to say.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) spoke about parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps he has forgotten that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport held a number of inquiries into the millennium dome. There is no doubt that parliamentary scrutiny took place; there was even a debate in the Chamber on one of the Select Committee's reports.

Those of us who started off with a degree of scepticism—I include myself among them—have been convinced by the project. As a member of the Select Committee, I was involved in quizzing the right hon. Member for Henley intensely on his ideas for the dome. At that time, I was not impressed, but as the project progressed over the past two to three years, it has developed into a good project that is right for the country.

It is right that we should have a focal point for the millennium, and there is no doubt that the millennium dome provides that focal point. We should be proud that the project has been delivered to target, on time and within the budget that was set. It was built with public money, not taxpayers' money, and that represents only one fifth of the total amount of money available to the Millennium Commission.

Whether or not hon. Members supported the millennium dome project at the beginning is no longer the issue. The dome exists, and it is viewed around the world as an emblem of Britain. We must make it work. No matter what the views were before, it is important to ensure that it does not fail now. That would not be in the interests of the lottery players who contributed the money. It is not in the country's interests for the dome to be perceived as failing when we are the focus of world attention. I hope that Opposition Members will reconsider their views.

Mr. Pound

France marked the millennium with the partial sponsorship of a yacht race, and in Germany there was a trade fair. Can my hon. Friend imagine the reaction of her constituents, mine and the people of this nation, if we had not had such an achievement as the dome?

Ms Ward

There were mixed reactions to the millennium dome in my constituency, as there were in my hon. Friend's. However, there are mixed reactions to a range of lottery projects. It is important that as well as providing a national focal point, the Millennium Commission funded a range of initiatives around the country that allowed people to celebrate the millennium in their communities.

The millennium dome has meant investment in what was a waste site in Greenwich, provided thousands of jobs and played an important part in regenerating that area. No one can deny that the dome has had a difficult start. We should not make excuses for the mishaps on the opening night. It is unacceptable for people to be kept waiting at Stratford station and not to receive their tickets on time. However, one incident is not a reason to criticise the dome for the rest of the year. Perhaps the lesson that we should learn is that it is not good public relations to keep six newspaper editors and their families waiting in the cold.

Some people have always wanted the millennium dome to fail. No matter what happened on millennium eve, the dome would have had its critics. It was interesting to read the newspapers in the first few days and weeks when the millennium dome was open. First, they criticised the queues and the fact that people had to wait a long time. Then they criticised the dome for being empty. Newspapers cannot have it both ways. The dome is either a popular attraction that people want to visit—in which case, queues are to be expected—

Mr. Baker

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ward

I shall not give way, because of lack of time.

I challenge those who have criticised the queues to compare the dome with other attractions in the United Kingdom at this time of year. I have recommended that my friends not visit the dome in January, February or March, but wait until later, when the weather will be much better and the dome will have an improved programme in the form of other facilities that will be open on the site.

It was interesting to note the names of the six Opposition Members who tabled the motion. Only one of them is present at the moment. I wonder how many of them have visited the dome apart from on millennium eve, when, as I found, there was no opportunity to view all the zones. If those Opposition Members had visited the dome apart from on millennium eve, they would have realised that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in a day at the dome.

The independent MORI survey showed that 83 per cent. of those polled were very or fairly satisfied, and that 68 per cent. believed that the dome represented very or fairly good value for money. Furthermore, 26 per cent. of those questioned believed that the dome was much better than expected, 23 per cent. believed that it was somewhat better and 25 per cent. believed that it was about the same as they had expected. Many attractions in the United Kingdom would love to achieve such a response. More than half those questioned would definitely recommend a visit to the dome to a friend, a further quarter would probably do so and 92 per cent. rated the show in the centre good or very good.

Mr. David Faber (Westbury)

If the hon. Lady thinks that the dome is such a success and everything is going so well at the moment, why did she and her fellow Labour MPs on the Select Committee reject my suggestion last week that we should reconsider it immediately?

Ms Ward

The hon. Gentleman knows very well why we decided not to hold another inquiry into the millennium dome. That is not to say that the Select Committee will not hold an inquiry—it has been said that we will and I am confident that one will take place—but this is not the right time. We should not hold an inquiry until we have considered both P-Y Gerbeau's new administration in office and the figures over a more reasonable period. The hon. Gentleman accepted that argument at the Select Committee meeting and I am most surprised that he has raised it in an attempt to cause difficulty. I am afraid that that will not work.

People of a good mix of ages have visited the millennium dome, and its links to the community—for example, the McDonald's our town and the Tesco school net—all show that it is a success and will continue to be so, no matter what the Opposition and one or two newspaper editors think. There are 10 months to go, and P-Y Gerbeau should have the nation's backing to make the project work.

I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will leave politics outside the dome and consider it a national event deserving of cross-party support, as at the beginning. The Conservatives had the original idea and I invite Opposition Members to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley and provide cross-party support where it is needed.

9.22 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

I confess to feeling a certain air of surrealism because the debate has been conducted largely in terms that might apply to a bingo parlour: it is marvellous that the dome got up on time, or a little dangerous that it took rather long; it is splendid that so many people visited, or a pity that so few attended. The same might be said of a popular television series or some such thing, but remarkably this particular object is not like such a series or a bingo hall. [Interruption.] I say to hon. Members who are amusing themselves that I do not have an interest in either of those items so I have probably used the wrong terms for them. However, the point is valid.

Ms Ward

Has the hon. Gentleman been to the dome?

Mr. Letwin

No, no. Not only have I not visited the dome, but I have absolutely no intention of doing so under any circumstances. I shall explain why.

The remarkable thing about these populist events, whose success or failure can be measured in terms of the number of people who do or do not visit them, is that people pay to see them and do so because they like them. I do not happen to like them. The public and the sponsors between them have not contributed £750 million. I know that we live in an age of inflation and that the Chancellor is spending an ever-greater proportion of our gross domestic product on numerous matters, but £750 million still strikes me as a lot of money. Were it invested, it would yield about £60 million a year on a modest appreciation. What would that sum support? Many things could be mentioned, but I want to attend to one in particular.

The Secretary of State, many Members on both sides of the House and I attended Cambridge university. What does it receive from the Higher Education Funding Council? About £60 million. What are we saying? A combination of public money via the lottery and the sponsors' money was used to fund this object, which I shall come to in a moment, in place of funding Cambridge university in perpetuity with as much again as it receives from the HEFC at present.

Whether many people went or did not go, whether schoolchildren did or did not get in and whether the Secretary of State or his Ministers were hopelessly at odds with reality when they thought they could make the thing work financially does not matter. What matters is that a colossal sum has been spent on something that is indeed—in the words of the motion—a "national embarrassment". It is a national embarrassment not because it does not work particularly well—which, goodness knows, it does not—or because the food is awful, or for some such trivial reason, but because it constitutes an extraordinary denial of the fundamental aspects of our culture that we should spend time applauding this dreadful object instead of applauding Cambridge university. I say "Cambridge university", but I could just as well name any other great university.

First, there is the question of how this object relates to our national past. In a great university, what is celebrated, what is taught and what it handed on to other generations is a heritage in the proper sense. It is a cultural heritage—something that is inherited, and in that sense a heritage—but also something that is worth having; something that is the foundation of our understanding of the world. In our great universities, however, there is also a conception of the future. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I did not hear what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said from a sedentary position.

Mr. Efford

How many people have visited Cambridge university in the past four days?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I encourage the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) not to provoke a sedentary debate.

Mr. Letwin

I am grateful for your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I fear that, if the hon. Member for Eltham believes that the measure of a great university is the number of people who visit it, he is subject to exactly the problem that has afflicted the debate, and afflicts the Government's understanding of this object.

In a great university, we also think of the future in a certain way. We think of it as something that is not disconnected from the past, but is continuous with it. In a great university, what is passed on is not merely the heritage of the past but the foundation of the future. A culture is seen as something that comes from the past and goes to the future, understands the past and the present, and provides the basis for an understanding of the future.

All those aspects are entirely missing from the confection that is the dome. No Labour Member has remotely attempted to defend it this evening in cultural terms. The Secretary of State had an ample opportunity. I remind the House that he is the Secretary of State for, among other things, culture. He made a remarkable speech, which contained not a word about our culture and not a single attempt to defend the expenditure of £750 million on an object with no cultural value whatever.

Ms Ward

First, the £758 million that was spent was not public money. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should have made his remarks during the education debate that took place earlier. If he wants to consider the contents of the Dome, I suggest that he goes and looks for himself, rather than criticising from a position of no knowledge at all.

Mr. Letwin

I shall resist the temptation to explain to the hon. Lady the degree to which, were I to visit the dome, my future actions might be impeded by the depression that I would encounter. Let me respond to her other point. Does she really believe that a world exists in which we ought to forget about culture because we should not concern ourselves with anything that has only £400 million of strictly public money, and should pay no attention to the fact that a great part of the Government's efforts was devoted to raising another £300-odd million, which could have been devoted to raising that £300 million in addition to the £400 million of public money for one of our great universities? If she thinks that a world exists in which we should not attend to any of that because only £400 million of public money was spent, her conception of culture, and of the state's relationship to it, is different from mine.

The odd thing is that, until prompted by my remarks, the hon. Lady did not even mention that. There she was, another Labour Member, making an eloquent speech—excellent, as always—but uttering not a word about the purpose of this thing. Apparently, it was visitor attraction.

It is sad—I mean it genuinely, not in a partisan spirit—when a nation has been so corrupted, perhaps alas in part by the rhetoric of the present Government, although not wholly, that it begins to think that it is reasonable to spend as much money as would keep a great university going in perpetuity on an item that is so entirely vacuous that its defenders do not have a word to say on its behalf in cultural terms.

Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)

May I advise the hon. Gentleman that, on 14 January, I joined 640 young people who had travelled from Blackpool to visit the dome? They thoroughly enjoyed its educational value, the spectacular show there and the zones. Every one to whom I spoke wanted to come back, thoroughly enjoyed it and benefited in both educational and cultural terms. They also enjoyed coming to the capital, which many of my constituents have never done.

Mr. Letwin

I close my remarks on a note that the hon. Lady prompts. I am sure that she is right. I am sure that what she describes could be replicated manyfold. I am sure that many children and even perhaps some adults much enjoyed the experience. I have no doubt that they would much enjoy many other things. Had they come to a football match, visited the tower of London, walked around and seen the pigeons in Trafalgar square, they would have had a pleasant day. If she really believes, when she reflects on it, that the nation should spend £750 million to celebrate the millennium by giving some schoolchildren a pleasant day out, her conception of what a Government preoccupying themselves with the cultural necessities of our nation means, is, I regret to say, shallow.

We have a responsibility in the House to ensure that our Government do not celebrate a millennium in so superficial a fashion. That is what has happened. It will be a matter of regret for some decades and perhaps centuries. People will look back at the dome and see in it a symbol of the shallowness of a culture that has been corrupted.

9.32 pm

Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath)

I know that time is short, so I will contain my comments to a few points.

I speak as someone who lives, in my London home, close to the dome. More relevantly, I also speak as Member of Parliament representing the centre of Birmingham. Those Members who were here before the last election will be aware that Birmingham was one of the cities that bid for the central millennium festivities. It was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), along with his colleagues, who, for understandable reasons, decided that those festivities should take place at Greenwich.

It is interesting. If Members read Hansard, they will find that, when the right hon. Gentleman, then Deputy Prime Minister, made the decision about which bid should be successful and defended it in the House, not one Member who is now sitting on the Opposition Benches criticised his decision then, or subsequently.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godsiff

Forgive me. Time is short.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) refers to political opportunism, she makes a valid point.

The reason why I mention Birmingham is because, as a consolation prize, Birmingham got one of the big projects from the Millennium Commission: Millennium Point, a futuristic science park that will enormously benefit the people of Birmingham and stand for many years as a testament to that great city. Many people in Birmingham would say that that £50 million was a better prize than the original prize of getting the central festivities.

I have been to the millennium dome and it is an interesting day out.

Mr. Pound

As bad as that, eh?

Mr. Godsiff

I shall ignore that remark.

I do not get carried along by the hype. I have never believed that the dome ranks with the Taj Mahal as one of the great wonders of the world. However, it is an interesting building.

I am sure that the Government are aware of the public concern. Those who have been to the dome often come away with the feeling that there is an unresolved clash of themes: the understandable commercial theme of the sponsors, who want to push their brands, and the theme of the artists, who are trying to project something relating to Britain's past and its future. I have had the pleasure to go to Disneyland and, more importantly, to the Epcot centre next door—the futuristic science theme museum and park. The dome is not a Disneyland or an Epcot centre. I regret to say that many people say after visiting the dome that it is really just a pumped-up trade show.

That is sad, because it undermines many of the successes that the dome has brought to the area, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) referred. That part of London, which I know well, has greatly needed the vast amounts of public expenditure. The money that has gone into the infrastructure will bring lasting benefits to the community. I have no doubt that whatever succeeds the dome will stand the test of time. The money that has been spent will be recouped and we can be proud of what we have put there. It is just sad that the clash of cultures and themes could not have been resolved before the dome was opened.

9.37 pm

Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)

This has been a short debate, long waited for by the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) set out the mishaps surrounding the project and the Government interference that has dogged it. Unlike the Secretary of State, I shall restrict my comments to the dome and not drift off to other issues. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), as ever, asked the Government many questions that remain unanswered. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made some telling and intellectual observations on culture and the history of this country.

Some hon. Members have pointed out that the project was conceived by the Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) confirmed the purpose of the project. He articulated why the dome was to be built and portrayed the philosophy that the previous Government believed would be at the heart of the dome and what it would stand for—an image of a country at the forefront of cultural, artistic, engineering and scientific activity and attainment. It was to be about a sense of unity, bringing the nation together, and the regeneration of a derelict and contaminated area of London. That was my right hon. Friend's vision, embraced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not a concept that should divide Members.

The noble vision of all that is best of British was destroyed when the Millbank machine took control and the Labour party decided to make the millennium dome a symbol of new Labour. Ever since the Labour Government finally proclaimed that they would, after all, allow the dome to continue, political interference has dogged the project. If proof were needed of the Government's determination to interfere with the project, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, it was found in the appointment of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), Labour's Mr. Fixit, known colloquially as the Dome Secretary. There is a wealth of evidence of the Government's interference in the millennium dome project. That has been nothing but detrimental to the success of what should have been a national celebration and an object of pride.

If new Labour could not come up with five meaningful election pledges, how could it possibly have been expected to come up with 14 meaningful dome zones? If only the Government had left NMEC and its chosen advisers to get on with the finer details, how much more inspired the zones and the whole experience could have been.

Perhaps the most troubled zone has been the faith zone, which was in true politically correct fashion renamed "faith zone" because the word "the" was thought to imply that only one faith—Christianity—was to be celebrated. It has been the target of much criticism from the Church of England, as a symbol of all that is wrong with the dome itself. On many occasions, we have said that the Government's mantra is one of style before substance; in this case, it is style before content.

The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who serves with me on the Select Committee, summed it up: It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be. It is a shame that she did not say the same today.

Ms Ward

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser

No, there is no time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I must carry on.

It comes down to the fact that a Government who so pride themselves on the ability to get the message across and concentrate all their efforts on communication have failed to get the positive message out on the millennium dome. They have thus failed not only the dome but the nation itself. That failure has understandably created apathy in Britain and made nonsense of the Prime Minister's prediction in 1998 that the British people would seize the moment.

The dome is a project that the people of Britain rightly wanted to support. They wanted to be inspired by a new wonder of Britain to visit in the new century. Even the Deputy Prime Minister must have recognised that the Government were pushing against an open door when he was reported to have told the Prime Minister: If we can't make this work, we're not much of a Government. He also said—the words will come back to haunt him—that the dome would be the Labour Government's

first big test of competence". Muddle, dither and delay were features of the Government's approach to the dome even before they took office. Even then, their failure to get behind the project was inexcusable; but, as soon as they assumed power, their inability to make up their mind meant that, quite understandably, the private sector was reluctant to commit money. I warned the House two years ago that there would be serious repercussions. Now we know just how serious they are. Even now, nearly two months after the dome opened, three high-profile sponsors are yet to sign their contracts.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are seeking cut-price deals to get themselves out of this hole? Ministers must learn that, in the real world of business, companies do not like throwing good money after bad. Mr. Michael Grade, a director of NMEC, asked the Select Committee to consider the dome in comparison to two key sporting events. He told us that the organisers had known for more than 100 years that the Olympic games would come in 2000, and that the world cup, as a very predictable event, is planned six or eight years ahead. On behalf of NMEC, he explained that "we are playing catch-up." Playing catch-up two years before opening night? Surely NMEC realised when the millennium would come, or was it playing catch-up because of Labour's dither and delay?

Even now, at the end of February 2000, the Government's dome is surrounded by controversy. We all hope that it will regain its momentum, but it cannot do so while the bad press continues about high-level resignations and allegations of Ministers' involvement. I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said in the Select Committee of the resignation of Jennie Page:

I think we will have to look and ask the questions, both of the ministers and of the company, as to how it happened and why it happened. One of the Government's special talents is the ability to take the credit when it suits and to deflect the blame when they know that they are responsible. The failures are none the less well documented. Setting aside new year's eve, we all know the history of the Jubilee line extension, which has been an utter disgrace. We know that the opening was delayed and delayed again; that, when the first section finally opened, it had to be closed again; and that, in the final reckoning, the budget went out of control.

The Government failed to speed up the construction to tackle the problems caused by the unions representing the electricians. They failed to understand that the implications of the working time directive made it more difficult for contractors to finish on time.

To add insult to injury for the 3,000 people who were delayed on new year's eve and who could have been ambassadors for the dome, their problems were greeted by inappropriate comments from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who told Radio 4: I have nothing to do with the dome. It was a bit of a laugh, really, some of those toffee-nosed people having to queue. Why does he have nothing to do with the dome? Why is he not here to defend it, not least in the recognition that it is in a derelict part of London, which he hopes one day—God forbid—to have something to do with? What kind of ambassador for London would he be, if ever he were to be elected?

On 1 January, the media wreaked their revenge. Is it any surprise that, as a result of Government mismanagement, the dome has seen poor attendance levels, long queues and failed equipment? Why should people bother to make the trip, despite last weekend's hype, which was mentioned earlier?

I questioned the Government in January 1998 about what would happen if the number of visitors was less than the 12 million needed to break even. At that time, a senior Disney executive—yes, it was involved even then—a man with vast experience of visitor attractions, had been blunt when he told the Select Committee: I do not believe those numbers. The then Minister could not answer me, because—he said—he had not thought about it. Had the Government listened, they would not have had to go cap in hand to that same organisation to sort out the problems that should have been recognised two years ago. They were arrogant then, and they are arrogant now, about the problems.

Will the Minister answer some questions today? What criteria will be used to judge the performance of Mr. Gerbeau, the self-styled saviour of Disneyland Paris? What contingency plan does the Government have in case he, too, should resign? What was the new opportunities fund set up to achieve? Was its original purpose to bail out the dome if it got into difficulties? Does she agree that we must now address the issue of pricing of tickets and transport to the dome to encourage visitors to the attraction? The past three days may have been encouraging, but if people do not come during school holidays and when the tourist season starts, then the dome is doomed from the word go. Will the Minister encourage NMEC to address the problem of queuing now, while the visitor numbers are low, so that the increase in visitors, which we all want to see, does not lead to unmanageable and unpopular queues?

The Prime Minister is reported to have said that the dome and its content will be the first paragraph of his next election manifesto. That will make interesting reading. He and his Government need to do some serious thinking about their priorities. They have failed abysmally on the delivery of key pledges. They have failed to reduce NHS waiting lists, to increase police numbers, and to maintain spending on education at the levels that they inherited, but they find time to meddle and interfere in the organisation of the dome—to the great detriment of the project.

The success of the dome remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the one thing that the dome does not need is more Government interference. I wish the dome well despite the Government's interference. It must succeed and it must be allowed to succeed—for the nation's sake.

9.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson)

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) who has been newly appointed to the Front Bench and who stood in for the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who sadly could not be with us this evening, has put a lot of questions to us and I am only sorry that he has not left us much time to answer them. I will do my best.

Given that this is an issue that the Opposition clearly take seriously, I was surprised to see so few Opposition Members present for the majority of the debate. In fact, the number we have now is a record. However, it is good to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I was amused by the Opposition's motion, which talks of Government interference. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) claimed that he had never done anything to denigrate the dome, but the motion calls it a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money. If that is not denigrating the dome, I do not know what is.

Politicians do not have to interfere with the dome and, in fact, we have no locus to interfere, because—as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—the dome is run by an independent company. The dome can speak for itself. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday of this weekend, the dome was sold out. This morning, as has already been reported, the dome was sold out by 11.30 am. There was an announcement on the Jubilee line telling people not to proceed to the dome because they would not get in. I happen to know that the Deputy Prime Minister was down there today with 600 schoolchildren from his constituency. He found a father and two children distraught outside the dome because they could not get in because the dome was full. So my right hon. Friend brought them here for a tour of Parliament, and to listen to the debate, in which they will have heard some of the pathetic contributions from Conservative Members.

In the past four days alone, the dome has attracted 100,000 visitors. The total had reached 366,000 by the end of January, and the figure is continuing to rise. The hon. Member for East Surrey referred to an obscure website and said that the dome did not represent value for money. However, he is the Opposition spokesman on tourism, and he should know that the Good Guide to Britain said that the dome was the best value for money of any visitor attraction. It is the most popular visitor attraction in the country.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that time is short. However, there is a difference between value for money in terms of the quality of experience for the people who spend £20 to visit the dome, and value for money in terms of an investment of £400 million of lottery players' money. We have been talking about the latter problem this evening: if the Minister did not understand that, she has missed the entire point of the debate.

Janet Anderson

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative party that decided to go ahead with the dome project in the first place. The dome was a Tory idea. Of course there have been teething troubles: no such attraction ever avoids them, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) explained. The company is seeing what can be done about better visitor management flow and signage. There is a dome-ometer to warn people of waiting times at the zones, and so on.

Some Opposition Members complained about queues, but they cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the existence of queues means that people want to visit the dome.

Reference has been made to Jennie Page. Opposition Members will know that her employment was a matter for the company, but I want to place on record my support for her, and my pleasure at the way in which she delivered the project on time and on budget.

Mr. Baker

Will the Minister give way?

Janet Anderson

No, I have very little time and the hon. Gentleman took a great deal of that in the debate.

The right hon. Member for Henley talked about the initial vision that the dome would be an all-party project. He said that there was no political discussion in the commission, and it is a great shame that Conservative Members should have tried to bring party politics into the matter.

There has been some reference to sponsorship, and I can announce tonight that Mars has now signed the sponsorship contract. In addition, the two remaining sponsors, Boots and BSkyB, are committed at board level and have already made substantial financial contributions. They are using the millennium logo, and it merely remains for them to sign the fine print. I am sure that they will do so.

Conservative Members have also tried to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) for excessive secrecy when he was in charge of the project. However, the right hon. Member for Henley told the House that that was far from the case. Conservative Members should have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of business experience. He described the dome as a project of complexity and sophistication. As he said, it was unfair that the project should have been subject to constant questioning, which no other similar project would have attracted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has always been a firm supporter of the project. He mentioned the benefits that it had brought to industries around the country, and he is right. The steel used in the dome came from Bristol, and from Watson's Steel of Bolton, which is just next door to my constituency. I am therefore well aware of the benefits that have accrued to firms around the country.

I am astonished at how Conservative Members appear unaware of the value of tourism. The British Tourist Authority estimates that extra tourist spending of £1 billion will come into this country as a result of the dome. Conservative Members should know that tourism is the fastest growing industry in the world. We look forward to the Conservative party's tourism policy, which I understand was launched in Belfast recently. However, we have not seen it yet.

Earlier, I said that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister took 600 children from his constituency to the dome today. A special train was hired to bring them down, and I should like to read the comments of a couple of the children who went. Emma Hewick, aged 11, said: I loved the trip down, our dinner here and everything we saw. It's been a brill day. Jordan Mastin, aged 10, said:

It was all very educational, but also hugely enjoyable. All of it was excellent, and I now want to persuade my Mum and Dad to bring me all over again. The show was spectacular, and I wanted to be up there as well, flying through the air. It's been a brilliant day and I loved every second of it. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) talked about an alleged failure to answer his parliamentary questions. I repeat that some of those questions could not be answered in detail; we were as open as possible, but there was a question of commercial confidentiality. No other project of this kind would have been required to make some of that information public at that stage. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I invited him to the Department to meet my officials and members from the company so that we could brief him, off the record. What did he do? After about five minutes, he said, "Actually, I would prefer to talk to you about broadcasting, because I have to draft our party's policy on broadcasting."

Mr. Baker

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of the meeting, as far as I was concerned, was broadcasting. It was the Minister who wanted to talk about the millennium dome at that point. There is a difference between off-the-record briefings and public accountability in the House.

Janet Anderson

If the hon. Gentleman had told me that he was going to talk about broadcasting, I would not have taken the trouble to invite representatives of the New Millennium Experience Company to the meeting.

During the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the target of 12 million visitors over the year. I confirm that that is still the company's aim. It is now saying that it thinks that it can break even if it achieves a figure of 10 million. That is the difference, and I hope that Conservative Members will remember that.

Mr. Fraser

I am extremely pleased that the hon. Lady has given way. I have three pages of questions that I put to her earlier. I am happy to pass them across for her to start answering some of them.

Janet Anderson

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If only Conservative Members had allowed us a little more time in which to respond, we could have answered his questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) referred, quite rightly, to the lack of interest shown by Conservative Members about the subject of what is, after all, their debate. They have talked a lot about the money spent on the dome. Yet it was their project originally, and the money spent on the dome accounts for only one fifth of Millennium Commission funding. Some 622 constituencies around the country will be celebrating the millennium in their own communities as a result of millennium funding. My hon. Friend also quoted visitor satisfaction surveys. I will not repeat them, except to say that people obviously like the dome.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) says that not only has he not been to the dome to see it for himself, but he has no intention of going. I looked up the hon. Gentleman's career thus far before coming to the House, and I see that it followed the path of Eton, Trinity and the London business school. My strong advice to him is to go down to the dome, get into the real world and enjoy the very real cultural experience that if offers. The dome is all about attracting people—entertaining them, educating them, involving them and inspiring them. It is also about appealing to the many, not the few.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) said that he had had an interesting day out, but he referred to a possible clash of themes. That is not the experience of the majority of people who have gone there and confirmed that the dome offers something for everyone. It is not intended to be Disneyland; it is not a trumped-up trade show. The evidence is that so many people want to return.

Many questions have been posed tonight, and I am sorry—[Interruption.] It is no use Conservative Members bleating, because they allowed very little time for a response. We should all put ourselves behind the millennium dome, and put aside party politics. I wish that Conservative Members would stop carping; if they have not been to the dome, they should go now. If they do—

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 275.

Division No. 85]	[10 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Burns, Simon
Allan, Richard	Butterfill, John
Amess, David	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Cash, William
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Norman	Chope, Christopher
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Clappison, James
Bercow, John	Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Collins, Tim
Blunt, Crispin	Colvin, Michael
Body, Sir Richard	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Boswell, Tim	Cotter, Brian
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Curry, Rt Hon David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Brady, Graham	Day, Stephen
Brazier, Julian	Duncan, Alan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Duncan Smith, Iain
Browning, Mrs Angela	Evans, Nigel
Burnett, John	Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Fallon, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Flight, Howard	Norman, Archie
Fraser, Christopher	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Gale, Roger	Öpik, Lembit
Garnier, Edward	Ottaway, Richard
Gibb, Nick	Page, Richard
Gill, Christopher	Paice, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Pickles, Eric
Gray, James	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian	Prior, David
Grieve, Dominic	Randall, John
Hague, Rt Hon William	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Robertson, Laurence
Hammond, Philip	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Hancock, Mike	Ruffley, David
Hawkins, Nick	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hayes, John	St Aubyn, Nick
Heald, Oliver	Sanders, Adrian
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Shepherd, Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Hunter, Andrew	Soames, Nicholas
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Jenkin, Bernard	Spicer, Sir Michael
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)	Spring, Richard
	Steen, Anthony
Key, Robert	Streeter, Gary
	Swayne, Desmond
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Kirkwood, Archy	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Townend, John
Lansley, Andrew	Tredinnick, David
Leigh, Edward	Trend Michael
Letwin, Oliver	Tyler, Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Walter, Robert
Lidington, David	Waterson, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Whittingdale, John
Loughton, Tim	Wilkinson, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Willetts, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Willis, Phil
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Yeo, Tim
Madel, Sir David	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Malins, Humfrey
Mates, Michael	Tellers for the Ayes:
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
May, Mrs Theresa	and
Moore, Michael	Mr. Peter Luff.

NOES
Allen, Graham	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Bradshaw, Ben
Ashton, Joe	Brown Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Barnes, Harry	Brown Russell (Dumfries)
Barron, Kevin
Bayley, Hugh	Browne, Desmond
Beard, Nigel	Buck, Ms Karen
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Burden, Richard
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Butler, Mrs Christine
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Benton, Joe	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Bermingham, Gerald	Cann Jamie
Berry, Roger	Caplin, Ivor
Best, Harold	Casale, Roger
Betts, Clive	Casale, Roger
Blackman, Liz	Cawsey, Ian
Blears, Ms Hazel	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Chaytor, David
Borrow, David	Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael	Hope, Phil
Clark, Dr Lynda	Hopkins, Kelvin (Edinburgh Pentlands)
	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Howells, Dr Kim
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hoyle, Lindsay
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clelland, David	Humble, Mrs Joan
Coaker, Vernon	Hurst, Alan
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hutton, John
Coleman, Iain	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cooper, Yvette	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Corbett, Robin	Jenkins, Brian
Corbyn, Jeremy	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cranston, Ross	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Crausby, David	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Kemp, Fraser
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Kidney, David
Dalyell, Tam	Kilfoyle, Peter
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Laxton, Bob
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Lepper, David
	Leslie, Christopher
Dawson, Hilton	Levitt, Tom
Dean, Mrs Janet	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Denham, John	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Dismore, Andrew	Linton, Martin
Dobbin, Jim	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Donohoe, Brian H	Love, Andrew
Dowd, Jim	McAvoy, Thomas
Drew, David	McCabe, Steve
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Efford, Clive	McDonagh, Siobhain
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Macdonald, Calum
Ennis, Jeff	McDonnell, John
Etherington, Bill	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Field, Rt Hon Frank	McIsaac, Shona
Fisher, Mark	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Fitzsimons, Lorna	McNamara, Kevin
Flynn, Paul	McNulty, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	MacShane, Denis
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Foulkes, George	McWilliam, John
Fyfe, Maria	Mallaber, Judy
Gapes, Mike	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Gerrard, Neil	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Godman, Dr Norman A	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Godsiff, Roger	Martlew, Eric
Goggins, Paul	Maxton, John
Golding, Mrs Llin	Meale, Alan
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Merron, Gillian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Miller, Andrew
Grocott, Bruce	Mitchell, Austin
Grogan, John	Moffatt, Laura
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Hanson, David	(B'ham Yardley)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Healey, John	(Aberavon)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Mountford, Kali
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Hepburn, Stephen	Mudie, George
Hesford, Stephen	Mullin, Chris
Hill, Keith	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hood, Jimmy	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Norris, Dan

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Spellar, John
O'Hara, Eddie	Steinberg, Gerry
Olner, Bill	Stevenson, George
O'Neill, Martin	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pearson, Ian	Stinchcombe, Paul
Pickthall, Colin	Stoate, Dr Howard
Pike, Peter L	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Plaskitt, James	Stringer, Graham
Pollard, Kerry	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pond, Chris	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pope, Greg
Pound, Stephen	Taylor. Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Powell, Sir Raymond	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Prosser, Gwyn	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Timms, Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie	Tipping, Paddy
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Touhig, Don
Rapson, Syd	Trickett, Jon
Raynsford, Nick	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Rogers, Allan	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Rowlands Ted	Tynan, Bill
Roy, Frank	Vis, Dr Rudi
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Ward, Ms Claire
Ryan, Ms Joan	Wareing, Robert N
Salter, Martin	Watts, David
Sarwar, Mohammad	White, Brian
Savidge, Malcolm	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Sawford, Phil	Wicks, Malcolm
Sedgemore, Brian	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Shaw, Jonathan	Wills, Michael
Short, Rt Hon Clare	Winnick, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Singh, Marsha	Wise, Audrey
Skinner, Dennis	Woodward, Shaun
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Tellers for the Noes:
Snape, Peter	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and
Southworth, Ms Helen	Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 138.

Division No. 86]	[10.12 pm
AYES
Allen, Graham	Blears, Ms Hazel
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Borrow, David
Barnes, Harry	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Barron, Kevin	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Bayley, Hugh	Bradshaw, Ben
Beard, Nigel	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Browne, Desmond
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Buck, Ms Karen
Benton, Joe	Burden, Richard
Bermingham, Gerald	Butler, Mrs Christine
Berry, Roger	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Best, Harold	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Betts, Clive	Cann, Jamie
Blackman, Liz	Caplin, Ivor

Casale, Roger	Hood, Jimmy
Cawsey, Ian	Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hope, Phil
Chaytor, David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Chisholm, Malcolm	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clapham, Michael	Howells, Dr Kim
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hurst, Alan
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hutton, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Clelland, David	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Coaker, Vernon	Jenkins, Brian
Coffey, Ms Ann	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Coleman, Iain	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Cooper, Yvette	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Corbett, Robin	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Cousins, Jim	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Cox, Tom	Kemp, Fraser
Cranston, Ross	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Crausby, David	Kidney, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dalyell, Tam	Lepper, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Leslie, Christopher
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Levitt, Tom
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Dawson, Hilton	Linton, Martin
Dean, Mrs Janet	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Denham, John	Love, Andrew
Dismore, Andrew	McAvoy, Thomas
Dobbin, Jim	McCabe, Steve
Donohoe, Brian H	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Dowd, Jim	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Drew, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Macdonald, Calum
Efford, Clive	McDonnell, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ennis, Jeff	McIsaac, Shona
Etherington, Bill	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Field, Rt Hon Frank	McNamara, Kevin
Fisher, Mark	McNulty, Tony
Fitzsimons, Lorna	MacShane, Denis
Flynn, Paul	Mactaggart, Fiona
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McWilliam, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Mallaber, Judy
Foulkes, George	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Fyfe, Maria	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Gapes, Mike	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gerrard, Neil	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Martlew, Eric
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Maxton, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	Meale, Alan
Godsiff, Roger	Merron, Gillian
Goggins, Paul	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Miller, Andrew
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Moffatt, Laura
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Grocott, Bruce
Grogan, John	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Mountford, Kali
Hanson, David	Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Mudie, George
Healey, John	Mullin, Chris
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hepburn, Stephen	Norris, Dan
Hesford, Stephen	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hill, Keith	O'Hara, Eddie

Olner, Bill	Stevenson, George
O'Neill, Martin	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pearson, Ian	Stinchcombe, Paul
Pickthall, Colin	Stoate, Dr Howard
Pike, Peter L	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Plaskitt, James	Stringer, Graham
Pollard, Kerry	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pond, Chris	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pope, Greg
Pound, Stephen	Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prosser, Gwyn	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Timms, Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie	Tipping, Paddy
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Touhig, Don
Rapson, Syd	Trickett, Jon
Raynsford, Nick	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Rowlands, Ted	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Roy, Frank	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Tynan, Bill
	Vis, Dr Rudi
Ryan, Ms Joan	Ward, Ms Claire
Salter, Martin	Wareing, Robert N
Savidge, Malcolm	Watts, David
Sawford, Phil	White, Brian
Sedgemore, Brian	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Shaw, Jonathan	Wicks, Malcolm
Short, Rt Hon Clare	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Wills, Michael
Singh, Marsha	Winnick, David
Skinner, Dennis	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wise, Audrey
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Woodward, Shaun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Snape, Peter
Southworth, Ms Helen	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spellar, John	Mr. David Jamieson and
Steinberg, Gerry	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Colvin, Michael
Allan, Richard	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Amess, David	Cotter, Brian
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Curry, Rt Hon David
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Day, Stephen
Baker, Norman	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Duncan, Alan
Bercow, John	Duncan Smith, Iain
Beresford, Sir Paul	Evans, Nigel
Blunt, Crispin	Faber, David
Boswell, Tim	Fabricant, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Fallon, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Flight, Howard
Brady, Graham	Fraser, Christopher
Brazier, Julian	Garnier, Edward
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gibb, Nick
Browning, Mrs Angela	Gill, Christopher
Burnett, John	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Burns, Simon	Gray, James
Butterflll, John	Green, Damian
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Grieve, Dominic
	Hague, Rt Hon William
Cash, William	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Hammond, Philip
	Hancock, Mike
Chope, Christopher	Hawkins, Nick
Clappison, James	Hayes, John
Collins, Tim	Heald, Oliver

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Prior, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Randall, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Robertson, Laurence
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Hunter, Andrew	Ruffley, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Jenkin, Bernard	St Aubyn, Nick
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)	Sanders, Adrian
	Sayeed, Jonathan
Key, Robert	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Shepherd, Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Kirkwood, Archy	Soames, Nicholas
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Spicer, Sir Michael
Lansley, Andrew	Spring, Richard
Leigh, Edward	Steen, Anthony
Letwin, Oliver	Streeter, Gary
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Swayne Desmond
Lidington, David	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Loughton, Tim	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Taylor, Sir Teddy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Townend, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Tredinnick, David
	Trend, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick	Tyler, Paul
Madel, Sir David	Walter, Robert
Malins, Humfrey	Waterson, Nigel
Mates, Michael	Whittingdale, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Wilkinson, John
May, Mrs Theresa	Willetts, David
Moore, Michael	Willis, Phil
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Nicholls, Patrick	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Norman, Archie	Yeo, Tim
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Ottaway, Richard
Page, Richard	Tellers for the Noes:
Paice, James	Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Pickles, Eric	and
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House believes that the Millennium Experience—and the many other Millennium activities—represent both an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations; further welcomes the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission; and, in particular, notes the record attendances at the Dome in the week commencing 7th February and the recent high satisfaction ratings amongst visitors.