| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baker: There are occasions when certain matters have to be kept confidential, but that excuse has been used to refuse an answer to many legitimate questions asked by hon. Members--including Labour Members who do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather rosy view.
When the Government committed themselves to the dome project in June 1997, they set five conditions: it would result in no extra burden on the public purse; its content would entertain and inspire; it would be a truly national event; it would provide a lasting legacy; and the management structure of the operating company would be strengthened. There was, incidentally, no mention of jobs or the benefit to Greenwich. I accept that Greenwich has benefited and that jobs have been created, but that was not one of the five conditions that the Government imposed when they decided to go ahead.
The key to this multi-million pound project has been private sector sponsorship. There has been confusion about exactly what has been promised to the sponsors and exactly how much they have paid. Those are more unanswered questions that ought to be cleared up by the Minister in her response. For example, in answer to a parliamentary question on 24 February 1998--two years ago this Thursday--the then Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), told the House that the NMEC had that day announced the first four sponsors, and the list included Sky. In a parliamentary answer of 3 December 1998, he confirmed a number of sponsors, including Boots the Chemist and Sky.
On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary, who has inherited this portfolio, revealed that three sponsors have not yet signed on the dotted line, including Boots the
Chemist and Sky. The same three companies were named in a parliamentary question that I asked on 11 February, and again it was confirmed that they had not signed. That was confirmed again on 14 February.Why have those companies, which were confirmed as sponsors two years ago, not yet signed on the dotted line? What reservations do they have? What are they trying to extract before they sign? Is there any doubt about whether they will hand over the money? If there is no doubt, why have they not signed and why have they not paid the money? The Minister must answer those questions. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to duck them and to set a loyalty test in respect of the dome.
On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary said on sponsorship:
- "we are confident that contractual arrangements will be finalised in the very near future."--[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 476W.]
Mars, which is another sponsor that has not signed, and Boots use the dome and millennium experience logo on their products. Perhaps Sky does too. Why should they be able to use that marque when they have not handed over the money? In the meantime, who is stumping up the cash to make up the shortfall or cash-flow problems that the sponsors are causing by not handing over the money?
We are told that the dome is a massive success, that people think it wonderful and that everybody is flocking to it. The average number of visitors in January was 11,820 a day. If that rate continues, the dome will attract only 4,000,300 people over the year. That would fall short not only of the long established visitor target of 12 million this year, but of the new target--I wonder where it has emerged from--of 10 million. The 10 million target will still require an average of more than 27,000 visitors a day, which answers the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who was saying what a great success the dome is. It will not reach the new target, even with this weekend's performance.
Mr. Efford: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a quiet time of year for tourism? Most of the country's major attractions are not open, but the millennium dome is achieving high attendances. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that and explain to the House what he would consider success for the dome?
Mr. Baker: I am happy to deal with that point. Given the hype, the attraction and all the newspaper coverage, positive and negative, nobody could be unaware of the millennium dome. I should have thought that those who wanted to visit it would be queueing up in January, when it was allegedly quiet; January should have been a good month for the dome, not a poor one.
Will the Minister clear up the question of the target number of visitors? The target was 12 million. In a letter dated 6 December to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary wrote:
- "I am confident that NMEC will achieve its 12 million visitor target and that the resulting income targets will be met enabling the project, over its lifetime, to be delivered within the £758 million cash budget set for it in February 1997."
-
As recently as 6 December, the Minister was committed to a 12 million target. Why has that target now been dropped to 10 million? Who dropped it? Is that based on revised expectations of the number of visitors who will attend, or is there some other explanation?
I shall not dwell on the troubles of the opening night, which have been well rehearsed both in the debate and in the newspapers, but I am concerned about the questions surrounding the management of the dome. Why, despite the fact that visitors are not turning up in the expected numbers, are there long queues, at least for certain zones? Those are apparently now being sorted out by the repair man from France, Mr. Gerbeau. On the issue of repairs, he might like to deal with the broken exhibits listed a week ago by The Times, whose impromptu survey found 10 exhibits broken in the living island zone; three in the work zone; 2,000 robots--the majority--not working in the mind zone; 18 exhibits broken in the learning zone; nine broken in the money zone; and the heart beat irregular in the body zone. All that suggests that the repair man from Disneyland is needed.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the exhibits that has broken down is a laughing toilet bowl? I am pleased to report that it is being repaired and, in the meantime, a life-sized sculpture of a rhinoceros has been erected. Does he agree that the rhinoceros is an admirable symbol for the dome, given that it is known for its lack of vision and its tendency to charge a lot?
Mr. Baker: With my animal welfare hat on, I am tempted to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should perhaps leave that matter to one side.
It was said that the dome would be a truly national event, yet only 34 per cent. of visitors have come from outside London, with only 5 per cent. coming from northern England, 2 per cent. from Scotland and fewer than 1.5 per cent. from Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
There was a fiasco about the dismissal--let us be frank, it was a dismissal--of Jennie Page. We have been told tonight that she was wonderful, fantastic, the best thing since sliced bread; but if she was so good and we owe her so much, why was she dumped out on her ear and left to cry in her office? Was it treachery, or was she not as good as has been suggested? If she was that good, she should not have been treated in that manner. Is it not the truth that the sponsors are in control and they demanded her head on a plate?
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two questions. First, is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members do not attack people who cannot reply for themselves? Secondly, is it not the case that we do not read speeches unless they have been circulated in advance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): First, there is no question of a person outside the House being attacked. Secondly, no Standing Order states that speeches may not be read, but "Erskine May" has something helpful to say on the subject and I should be pleased if more hon. Members read it.
Mr. Baker: For the record, I am not reading a speech; I am reading notes and improvising as I go along. Other Front Benchers have the benefit of the Dispatch Box on which to rest their notes, but that facility is not currently available to the Liberal Democrats. Let us hope that it will be when the House is reconstituted after the next election--but that is another debate.
The dome is architecturally a great achievement. The Jubilee line extension and the tube station there are great achievements, as is Westminster station. The staff at the dome are extremely friendly and helpful. However, the dome lacks cohesion, because the entire process has been driven by a small clique which started under the Conservative Government and continues under the present Government. Decisions are taken behind closed doors. It is not a people's dome; it is the dome of a small clique.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |