| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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."
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."
- "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."
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 and74 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 yearof 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 cashflow 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 cashflow 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 cashflow 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.
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 with 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |