Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in this matter. He will know that Sony and Panasonic are members of the Welsh Electronic Forum Task Force--rather a lot of trendy words in one title!--and that they agree with him and with the Government that the more advanced television technology, particularly plasma and projection technology, are enormously important and are best carried out by the highly skilled workforce which we have in Wales. I believe that it is doubtful that the changeover to digital technology could be made to contribute more to that because such a changeover might move the electronics industry to more low-cost manufacturing.

Millennium Dome: National Audit Office Report

3 p.m.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I welcome the publication of the National Audit Office report which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome. The NAO's report will

13 Nov 2000 : Column 9

be the subject of a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday, 15th November, where oral evidence will be taken from the accounting officers.

It is a convention, known as the Osmotherley Rules, that the Government should not pre-empt or prejudice their final and considered reply to the committee's recommendations, albeit the convention recognises the right of Ministers to respond robustly to media attacks.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said previously, I should welcome the opportunity for a full debate, which should include the background and inception of the Millennium Dome, in this House as soon as parliamentary time can be found for it.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his remark on the television last Thursday that the fact the Dome was a failure was in no way an indictment of the way it had been run will surely earn him immortality in the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations?

But does the NAO report not show, first, that accounting officers did not want to put more money in; that as early as February Chris Smith was asking for a shake-up of corporate governance; as early as February the Dome was trading insolvently; and yet after February a further £179 million was put into the project? If that is not an indictment of the way it was run, what is?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not for me to draw conclusions from the NAO's report. However, I will say that the NAO report makes it clear that as the year went on, the options were either continuing to trade or closure. Continuing to trade was the cheaper of the two options so it was the sensible, albeit difficult, course to take.

The NAO report also identified specifically the number of visitors to the Dome, which is more than to any other pay-to-visit attraction in the country, the degrees of visitor satisfaction and the importance of regeneration.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a past chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. While the National Audit Office report is very good and well worth considering, does my noble and learned friend agree that it would be better for any debate to take place--and I see my noble friend the Chief Whip nodding--after we have the report from the Public Accounts Committee? We should then be better informed by a non party-political report rather than merely having the present personally offensive and party-political attacks on my noble and learned friend.

Many Ministers from past and present governments have been involved in the project. Indeed, many leading businessmen, with leisure industry interests,

13 Nov 2000 : Column 10

have been involved as well as senior civil servants. So the Public Accounts Committee will have the opportunity of questioning officials. I hope and believe that the report will be unanimous and non-party-political, as it always has been in the past. It would be a good time to debate the matter after the publication of that report.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend accurately sets out the principle which has informed the approach of this Government and previous governments to NAO reports. It is a matter to be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. It should be debated properly in this House after the Public Accounts Committee has expressed its view. That is the approach that this Government have taken to the NAO report, albeit that from time to time I have felt obliged to respond to attacks on me.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the fact that after the question which I raised last week, a breathless messenger arrived in the House a few moments ago with a belated reply to my letter of 14th September. I am grateful for that.

In view of the fact that the Government have been deeply involved in all the decisions on the Dome since its major review two-and-a-half years before the Dome opened and the fact that the shareholder has attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and had a representative at the others, is there not an overwhelming case for Parliament and this House discussing the deplorable state of affairs revealed in the NAO report before Prorogation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated in my original Answer, I support the idea of a debate dealing with the issues. The usual channels will seek to fix a date as soon as possible. But the reason for the convention is that one should debate the NAO report only when the views of the PAC are available.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to what happened on Thursday afternoon. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us were very puzzled that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, decided to raise an issue on the Floor of the House without giving any advance warning that he proposed to do so? Is he further aware that when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was Leader of this House, he would have objected very strongly to anybody doing exactly the same?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the position in relation to what would have been the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I know that the Companion suggests that if such an issue is to be raised, notice should be given to the Leader of the House. I understand that no such notice was given. The Leader of the House was attending a longstanding engagement arranged previously with a

13 Nov 2000 : Column 11

well-respected Member of the Opposition Front Bench. That was why she was not present. Had notice been given, then, of course, she would have been there.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree with the following assessments from the NAO report that:

    "Once the Dome had been constructed, and much of the project cost already incurred, the room for manoeuvre in the face of low visitor numbers was very restricted",

and secondly that,

    "closing the Dome and liquidating the Company ... would not have made financial sense during the year of operation"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, those are accurate quotes from the NAO report. As I indicated, it is not for me at this stage to draw any conclusions from what the report said.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 113) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

    1. Hereditary Peers: by-elections

    Standing Order 10 which was agreed to in July 1999 provides that after the end of an "initial period" by-elections will be held to fill any vacancies occurring by death among the 90 elected hereditary Peers excepted from the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999. Standing Order 10(5) requires the Clerk of the Parliaments to maintain and publish a register of hereditary Peers (other than Peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election. The Committee recommends that a procedure should be devised to ensure that the register is accurate and that those who are included in it have the right to be registered. The Committee does not believe that hereditary Peers who were Members of the House before the enactment of the 1999 Act need take any steps to establish their right to be included in the register. But the successors of such hereditary Peers should be required to do so.

    Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the House adopt the following new Standing Order:

    Register of hereditary Peers

    Any hereditary Peer, not previously in receipt of a writ of summons, who wishes to be included in the register maintained by the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to Standing Order 10(5) shall petition the House and any such petition shall be referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such Peer has established his right to be included in the register.

    2. Tax simplification Bills

    Tax simplification Bills are a new form of legislation proposed by the Tax Law Rewrite Project. They are intended to make the language of tax law simpler, but they preserve the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable. Such Bills will normally be introduced into the House of Commons, and it is expected that the Speaker will certify them as money Bills. It is proposed that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should consider the Bills after Second Reading in the Commons and that the Joint Committee's report should be laid before both Houses.

13 Nov 2000 : Column 12

    Given the subject matter of tax simplification Bills, the Committee recommends that when the House deals with such Bills:

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page