| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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 cashflow 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |