Millennium Dome — 21 Feb 2000

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the fact that Government interference in the Millennium Dome has rendered it a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"believes that the Millennium Experience--and the many other Millennium activities--represent both an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations; further welcomes the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission; and, in particular, notes the record attendances at the Dome in the week commencing 7th February and the recent high satisfaction ratings amongst visitors."

The Sunday Times found that 85 per cent. of visitors said that they had enjoyed their visit to the dome and 74 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.

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?

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 275.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 123 (+2 tell)077.6%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab274 (+2 tell) 0066.2%
LDem0 16034.8%
PC1 0025.0%
SNP0 1016.7%
Total:275 141066.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive