Millennium Dome (Hansard, 26 February 2001)

§ 12. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
If he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome. [149396]

§ The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson)
On 15 February, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government had terminated the existing competition. Although Legacy plc made progress towards meeting the preferred bidder terms, it did not meet them and its exclusivity therefore expired. The Government have now asked English Partnerships to invite any interested parties to lodge expressions of interest for the dome and the regeneration of the peninsula.

§ Mr. Bercow
I am grateful for that answer, even though it was an essay in complacency. Given that Lord Falconer said on "Newsnight" on 15 February that the point might come at which he felt that he had to resign and that he has handled the running of the dome appallingly, botched two bids for it, faced calls from almost every national newspaper to quit his post and arrogantly refused to apologise for what everyone now sees is a national scandal, why does the noble Lord not have the decency, the dignity and the sense of responsibility to resign his office forthwith?

§ Janet Anderson
I very much resent the hon. Gentleman"s attempts to make cheap party political points. My noble Friend Lord Falconer has conducted an extremely difficult exercise with great skill and judgment. As for the latest position, I remind the hon. Gentleman of a comment made by one of his hon. Friends: The Government should end the talks with Legacy and reopen the competition and try to get real value out of the site. That comment by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was quoted in the Financial Times of 12 January.

§ Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey)
The resignation of Lord Falconer is a matter not of party politics, but of national and public probity. Having bungled two attempts 576 to sell the dome, the Government are now in the process of bungling the third; it is a story of mind-blowing incompetence. Will the Minister confirm that, however many 8 ft hamsters the Government sell, the dome will continue to consume more than £3 million a month for the foreseeable future? What is the real cost to the public of insisting that the dome remains on site? If it is not £300 million, will the Government kindly show us the proof?
If the dome is to remain in place, why on earth are the Government pulling; the contents out before they know who will buy it? I apologise for not attempting the accent but, in the words of P-Y Gerbeau: I think that, for the money that"s been spent, the British public deserve something bettor. Indeed, they do; they deserve a better Government.

§ Janet Anderson
May I deal, first, with the auction, which will take place from tomorrow? As the Government have always said, nothing will be done that would prejudice future uses of the dome, including the option of a new leisure attraction. The Government have no plans to subsidise the operation of the dome.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned running costs. The current monthly running costs of the New Millennium Experience Company are between £2.5 million and £3.5 million, excluding physical decommissioning costs. It is intended that monthly running costs will reduce as the company moves towards solvent liquidation. Following decommissioning we estimate that the running costs of the dome will be £500,000 a month.
In line with the advice of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who said that the competition with Legacy should be ended and that a new competition should be opened, we will soon announce details of that and are determined to get value for money. However, the Government are also determined that the dome should stay on site, as it is recognised as an icon around the world. It is the most successful tourist attraction in this country, and attracted 6.5 million visitors in the course of a year. We are determined to get the best deal in future.

§ Mr. Ainsworth
In the context of the dome, the words "value for money" ale, frankly, laughable. As the future of the dome is inevitably mired in past and present controversies, will the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that at no time did Mr. Alastair Campbell solicit sponsorship money from commercial companies?

§ Janet Anderson
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. While we are on the subject, may I remind him that the dome has been a major catalyst for regeneration activity on the peninsula, which less than a decade ago was one of the most derelict sites in England? The first residents have moved into the millennium village, an exciting new venture of mixed housing. A new primary school has just opened and will soon be followed by brand new health centres, a state-of-the-art cinema and major retail outlets. The Government are convinced that that would not have happened without the dome acting as a catalyst for regeneration.