§ 5. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)If he will make a statement on the preservation of the millennium dome. [158140]
§ The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson)Like many of others, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Government are committed to the dome staying in Greenwich. It is an important landmark on the London skyline and has made a major contribution to the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not believe me, perhaps they would like to go and see for themselves.
The dome has also added to the quality and variety of the world-famous structures that were already so prominent in the area. Providing a successful future for the dome will build on that, ensure continued recognition worldwide and maintain the regeneration momentum that has been established.
§ Dr. LewisGiven that the dome has cost the country more than £1 million a month since it closed, will the Minister try to prevail on the Prime Minister to reinstate his idea of referring to it in the first line of his general election manifesto? Is not the dome the perfect metaphor for the new Labour Government: flashy on the outside, hollow on the inside and costing the country a fortune long after it has ceased to serve any useful purpose?
§ Janet AndersonI have no knowledge of the contents of the manifesto, but we shall be able to stand on our record better than Conservative Members could after their last term of office.
It is nonsense to claim that the dome costs £1 million a month to maintain, as press reports and Conservative Members have suggested. The cost of care and maintenance for the site and structures is approximately £600,000 and decreasing.
§ Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey)Only £600,000 a month—that's okay then. The Minister claimed, as she has done on previous occasions, that the dome somehow contributes to regeneration in Greenwich. When will the Government realise that it is part of the problem, not the solution? When will they face the fact that it is an obstacle to the important task of creating jobs, prosperity and economic vitality in Greenwich?
634 Having failed to sell it twice, the Government hope that everyone will forget it. People will not forget. The dome was supposed to be good for tourism, but when thousands of small businesses face ruin, is not it obscene that it sits there, closed but costing millions of pounds to the public purse? Is not that the price of new Labour's vanity?
§ Janet AndersonThe hon. Gentleman says that the dome was "supposed to be good" for tourism; I stress that it was. More than 6.5 million people visited the dome, which was the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the United Kingdom in 2000. He is wrong to describe it as a lost cause. It has been a major catalyst for regeneration on the peninsula, which, less than a decade ago, was one of the most derelict sites in England. The benefits include new roads and other services on a grand scale, major retail outlets, a 162-bed hotel, a state of the art cinema complex, which is now open, and Greenwich millennium village. I advise Conservative Members to visit Greenwich and see how the area is being regenerated.
§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members of the Conservative party's role, especially that of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in creating the dome?
§ Janet AndersonMy hon. Friend is right. It is appropriate to remind hon. Members that the decision to build the dome at Greenwich was made under the previous Conservative Government and that the original chairman and chief executive of the dome company were appointed by them. They also determined the corporate structure, the use of lottery money to support the project and the role of the shareholder.