| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Millennium Dome
3. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium dome. [123670]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission's plans for the dome are, first, to help to ensure that the experience draws in increasing numbers of visitors throughout the rest of this year; they will experience the same great enjoyment as previous visitors. Secondly, it will assist with the regeneration of a previously derelict area of south-east London, which is in real need. Thirdly, it will provide a lasting legacy for the future.
Mr. Paterson: In the same spirit, the Prime Minister made an amazing speech in February to outline why the dome was good for Britain. He said that the project was on target and on budget, that it would not take taxpayers' money, and that it would take only £400 million of lottery funds. Every one of us has projects in our constituencies that cry out for lottery funds, yet this hideous failure has gobbled up £538 million. Will the Secretary of State now stand up and say that enough is enough, and that not one penny more of lottery funds--or any other public funds--will be spent on that national humiliation?
Mr. Smith: May I make three points to the hon. Gentleman? First, it was the previous Government who
began the project. Secondly, 85 per cent. of visitors to the dome say that it is a hugely enjoyable experience, which they would recommend to their friends and neighbours. Thirdly, the Millennium Commission has made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must cut its coat according to its cloth and operate within the budget that has been allocated to it.
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dome's detractors have failed to recognise the benefits that it has brought to its part of London? Before the millennium project, there were no transport links, other than heavy rail, for people travelling to central London. The site was one of the biggest derelict areas, and heavily contaminated. Without a project of the dome's size, it probably would not have been decontaminated and used. More importantly, the project brought economic development and jobs to an area of London where, only a few miles from here, there are some of the most deprived communities in this country.
Mr. Paterson: What about Shropshire?
Mr. Efford: Opposition Members clearly do not understand the need for economic development and intervention to create jobs where there is no hope of jobs. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to ensure that that issue remains at the top of his agenda when he considers future uses for the dome?
Mr. Smith: I certainly give that undertaking, although I am not personally involved in the decision about the dome's future legacy. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved.
My hon. Friend's point about the dome's regeneration impact on the whole of south-east London is well made. That was one of the major reasons for the birth of the project, which was conceived by the Conservative party. Conservative Members' attempts to do down the project does them no credit and the country no good.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): The Secretary of State's attempts, on the one hand to shed responsibility for what has gone wrong with the dome and place it with the previous Conservative Administration, and on the other to pretend that the project is a resounding success, are as convincing as the Prime Minister's performance at the Women's Institute conference last week. Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse the dome more money? How bad do things have to get? How deep must the hole be dug? In its contempt for history, its cheap gimmickry and its botched execution, the dome has become the perfect symbol of new Labour. Value for money, financial responsibility, lottery cash, and even public opinion, count for nothing, because what matters most to the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Millennium Commission is saving the Government's face.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's assessment flies in the face of the assessment of the two and a half million people who have already visited the dome and enjoyed the experience enormously. Of course, the numbers have been lower than those originally projected, as everyone knows, and I accept that that has created financial
problems. However, we have made it extremely clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau, the chief executive of NMEC, confirmed last week that he would not return to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.
Mr. Ainsworth: All I can say is, come off it. The Government are not having much luck. Even the new millennium bridge is beginning to look a little like new Labour. From a distance it is a rather attractive proposition, but once tested, it is given to bouts of violent wobbling.
I know that the Government do not like answering questions about the dome's finances. All too often, we are batted away with bogus claims about commercial confidentiality. However, it is unusual not to get any response at all, not even a holding reply. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled on 25 May, and say which accountancy firms have been paid by the dome and for what purposes?
Mr. Smith: That question will be answered in due course in the normal way.
The hon. Gentleman takes the apparent initial difficulties with the millennium bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside rather lightly. I do not. The safety of pedestrians on bridge is surely paramount, which is why I have already asked Millennium Commission officials for urgent advice on what measures need to be taken to ensure the public's safety. I would have thought that that was rather more important than making a few cheap jokes, as the hon. Gentleman did.
Museums and Galleries
4. Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): If he will make a statement on access to museums. [123671]
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled national museums that are funded by my Department and offer free admission to continue to offer it. We have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s to museums that currently charge for admission. Funds have been set aside to enable trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 from September 2001, and to grant free admission to all those, including people with disabilities, who are in receipt of the major social security benefits.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister scrap his fatuous, insulting and politically correct proposal that museums are to have funds withheld if they fail to attract enough ethnic minority visitors? If he will not scrap that ludicrous scheme, how are museums expected to distinguish between ethnic minorities and, for example, natives who are excessively suntanned? Will that ludicrous policy also apply to this place--which, thanks to the Prime Minister's indifference, is rapidly turning into the museum of democracy?
Mr. Alan Howarth: That scheme is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, fed by a peculiarly silly article in The Daily Telegraph. I assure him that there are no quotas and that there is no link between museum funding and ethnic minority visitor numbers. Of course we want people from all backgrounds to have access to the best of our culture. I regularly discuss that matter with the chairmen of trustees and the directors of our national museums and galleries, all of whom share the Government's enthusiasm for ensuring that our museums are accessible to the many, not the few. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not share that vision.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on presiding over a great increase in the number, and the enthusiasm, of people in this country who visit museums and art galleries. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with the Treasury on VAT, which, of course, limits the opportunities that we had hoped for as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiatives?
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. We have scrapped admission charges for children and pensioners at 23 museums and galleries, and, in the first year, child visitor figures are up 18 per cent. In the two months since we abolished admission charges for pensioners, recorded numbers of visitors over 60 have increased almost two and a half times, which is encouraging.
My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the tension between our ambition to ensure that our museums and galleries are accessible to the largest number of people, and the impact of the VAT regime, which penalises museums and galleries that charge for entry. With that in mind, I convened a meeting last year with the directors of national museums and galleries and the National Art Collections Fund, as a result of which the NACF produced an extremely helpful paper, which is assisting us in our discussions with the Treasury.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Is it still the Government's intention that there should be free access for all to national museums and galleries, and is not the issue essentially one of working out ways of bringing that about and calculating the cost? Will the views of people such as generous benefactors--for example, Sir Denis Mahon--be borne in mind when it comes to the crunch?
Further to the point about VAT, in the two months since the Budget, have the Minister and his colleagues made progress in the discussion about the possibility of adding national museums and galleries to the bodies covered by section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994? That seems to be the most sensible way of avoiding the nonsense whereby the Government give cash grants to national institutions and then reclaim them through VAT.
Mr. Howarth: I readily echo the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to Sir Denis Mahon, who has been a most remarkable benefactor of our national museums and galleries. As we said in our pre-election document, "Create the future", access will be a cornerstone of our
cultural policy, and we remain committed to making the best progress that we can towards extending free entry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that section 33 of the VAT Act seems to be the most promising avenue to enable us to overcome that important snag, and we shall continue to explore it.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): What legal advice did Ministers receive before deciding to introduce free admission for the over-60s rather than linking it to pension age? Has that advice been made available to other Departments?
Mr. Howarth: If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on that point. We had to make a judgment, and it did not seem sensible to persist with gender differentiation in free access for people of retirement age. I hope that she will feel that in opting for 60 rather than 65 we erred on the right side.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): Is the Minister aware of the progress that has been made on charges by the national museum and galleries of Wales, with free entry available not only to children and pensioners but to students and unemployed people? Is not that a good model for the other parts of these islands, and will he congratulate the national museum of Wales and the National Assembly for Wales on that scheme?
Mr. Howarth: I do, with pleasure.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): The fact is that Labour stumbled into making a pledge about universal free access without having even thought about the Treasury implications. Is the Minister not aware of the growing frustration of museum directors and trustees about the way in which their service agreements are becoming increasingly intrusive, patronising and political? Does he not understand that they resent being bullied on access, when they have always tried to increase access anyway?
Now that the Government have completed the U-turn on their pledge for universal free admission, what practical assistance will the Minister provide to all the other museums throughout the country, many of which are local, which face an uncertain future under this Government?
Mr. Howarth: I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We did not make the pledge that he described. Far from what he says being correct, the chairmen of trustees and the directors of national museums and galleries appreciate the opportunity that the negotiation of funding agreements gives them to explore our shared objectives in depth.
As for the important issue of how we are to ensure better support for regional museums and galleries, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the £15 million designation challenge fund, which is already in place, to the funds to support museums and galleries in education spending and investment in information technology, and to the extension of the heritage lottery fund's access fund by £3 million a year into the future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |