| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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 school children 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 said this 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
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 school children 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.
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 for 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |