---

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, there is no time. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] I must carry on.

21 Feb 2000 : Column 1336

It comes down to the fact that a Government who so pride themselves on the ability to get the message across and concentrate all their efforts on communication have failed to get the positive message out on the millennium dome. They have thus failed not only the dome but the nation itself. That failure has understandably created apathy in Britain and made nonsense of the Prime Minister's prediction in 1998 that the British people would seize the moment.

The dome is a project that the people of Britain rightly wanted to support. They wanted to be inspired by a new wonder of Britain to visit in the new century. Even the Deputy Prime Minister must have recognised that the Government were pushing against an open door when he was reported to have told the Prime Minister:

"If we can't make this work, we're not much of a Government."

He also said--the words will come back to haunt him--that the dome would be the Labour Government's

"first big test of competence".

Muddle, dither and delay were features of the Government's approach to the dome even before they took office. Even then, their failure to get behind the project was inexcusable; but, as soon as they assumed power, their inability to make up their mind meant that, quite understandably, the private sector was reluctant to commit money. I warned the House two years ago that there would be serious repercussions. Now we know just how serious they are. Even now, nearly two months after the dome opened, three high-profile sponsors are yet to sign their contracts.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are seeking cut-price deals to get themselves out of this hole? Ministers must learn that, in the real world of business, companies do not like throwing good money after bad. Mr. Michael Grade, a director of NMEC, asked the Select Committee to consider the dome in comparison to two key sporting events. He told us that the organisers had known for more than 100 years that the Olympic games would come in 2000, and that the world cup, as a very predictable event, is planned six or eight years ahead. On behalf of NMEC, he explained that "we are playing catch-up." Playing catch-up two years before opening night? Surely NMEC realised when the millennium would come, or was it playing catch-up because of Labour's dither and delay?

Even now, at the end of February 2000, the Government's dome is surrounded by controversy. We all hope that it will regain its momentum, but it cannot do so while the bad press continues about high-level resignations and allegations of Ministers' involvement. I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said in the Select Committee of the resignation of Jennie Page:

"I think we will have to look and ask the questions, both of the ministers and of the company, as to how it happened and why it happened."

One of the Government's special talents is the ability to take the credit when it suits and to deflect the blame when they know that they are responsible. The failures are none the less well documented. Setting aside new year's eve, we all know the history of the Jubilee line extension, which has been an utter disgrace. We know that the opening was delayed and delayed again; that, when the first section finally opened, it had to be closed again; and that, in the final reckoning, the budget went out of control.

21 Feb 2000 : Column 1337

The Government failed to speed up the construction to tackle the problems caused by the unions representing the electricians. They failed to understand that the implications of the working time directive made it more difficult for contractors to finish on time.

To add insult to injury for the 3,000 people who were delayed on new year's eve and who could have been ambassadors for the dome, their problems were greeted by inappropriate comments from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who told Radio 4:

"I have nothing to do with the dome. It was a bit of a laugh, really, some of those toffee-nosed people having to queue."

Why does he have nothing to do with the dome? Why is he not here to defend it, not least in the recognition that it is in a derelict part of London, which he hopes one day--God forbid--to have something to do with? What kind of ambassador for London would he be, if ever he were to be elected?

On 1 January, the media wreaked their revenge. Is it any surprise that, as a result of Government mismanagement, the dome has seen poor attendance levels, long queues and failed equipment? Why should people bother to make the trip, despite last weekend's hype, which was mentioned earlier?

I questioned the Government in January 1998 about what would happen if the number of visitors was less than the 12 million needed to break even. At that time, a senior Disney executive--yes, it was involved even then--a man with vast experience of visitor attractions, had been blunt when he told the Select Committee:

"I do not believe those numbers."

The then Minister could not answer me, because--he said--he had not thought about it. Had the Government listened, they would not have had to go cap in hand to that same organisation to sort out the problems that should have been recognised two years ago. They were arrogant then, and they are arrogant now, about the problems.

Will the Minister answer some questions today? What criteria will be used to judge the performance of Mr. Gerbeau, the self-styled saviour of Disneyland Paris? What contingency plan does the Government have in case he, too, should resign? What was the new opportunities fund set up to achieve? Was its original purpose to bail out the dome if it got into difficulties? Does she agree that we must now address the issue of pricing of tickets and transport to the dome to encourage visitors to the attraction? The past three days may have been encouraging, but if people do not come during school holidays and when the tourist season starts, then the dome is doomed from the word go. Will the Minister encourage NMEC to address the problem of queuing now, while the visitor numbers are low, so that the increase in visitors, which we all want to see, does not lead to unmanageable and unpopular queues?

The Prime Minister is reported to have said that the dome and its content will be the first paragraph of his next election manifesto. That will make interesting reading. He and his Government need to do some serious thinking about their priorities. They have failed abysmally on the delivery of key pledges. They have failed to reduce NHS waiting lists, to increase police numbers, and to maintain spending on education at the levels that they inherited, but they find time to meddle and interfere in the organisation of the dome--to the great detriment of the project.

21 Feb 2000 : Column 1338

The success of the dome remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the one thing that the dome does not need is more Government interference. I wish the dome well despite the Government's interference. It must succeed and it must be allowed to succeed--for the nation's sake.

9.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) who has been newly appointed to the Front Bench and who stood in for the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who sadly could not be with us this evening, has put a lot of questions to us and I am only sorry that he has not left us much time to answer them. I will do my best.

Given that this is an issue that the Opposition clearly take seriously, I was surprised to see so few Opposition Members present for the majority of the debate. In fact, the number we have now is a record. However, it is good to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I was amused by the Opposition's motion, which talks of Government interference. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) claimed that he had never done anything to denigrate the dome, but the motion calls it

"a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money."

If that is not denigrating the dome, I do not know what is.

Politicians do not have to interfere with the dome and, in fact, we have no locus to interfere, because--as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well--the dome is run by an independent company. The dome can speak for itself. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday of this weekend, the dome was sold out. This morning, as has already been reported, the dome was sold out by 11.30 am. There was an announcement on the Jubilee line telling people not to proceed to the dome because they would not get in. I happen to know that the Deputy Prime Minister was down there today with 600 schoolchildren from his constituency. He found a father and two children distraught outside the dome because they could not get in because the dome was full. So my right hon. Friend brought them here for a tour of Parliament, and to listen to the debate, in which they will have heard some of the pathetic contributions from Conservative Members.

In the past four days alone, the dome has attracted 100,000 visitors. The total had reached 366,000 by the end of January, and the figure is continuing to rise. The hon. Member for East Surrey referred to an obscure website and said that the dome did not represent value for money. However, he is the Opposition spokesman on tourism, and he should know that the Good Guide to Britain said that the dome was the best value for money of any visitor attraction. It is the most popular visitor attraction in the country.

---