Leading Article: Mr Blair should be wary of the hidden dangers in corporate generosity

CAN WE be far away from police cars sponsored by Legal and General, or Prime Minister's Question Time "brought to you by One2One"? One of the most striking ways in which the Millennium Dome symbolises what is new about New Labour is in the series of commercial deals which, in the language of sponsorship, "made it possible". The Dome organisers insist that the Millennium Experience is not a trade fair, and nor is it, but it is bedecked with more corporate logos than the average Formula One racing car. Each of the 12 zones has a sponsor, there are franchises for all manner of support services, and many of the linked charitable ventures are "made possible by" or "generously assisted by" various companies.

There is much that is admirable about the mobilisation of corporate resources behind broadly altruistic objectives. But, equally, there are dangers of potential conflicts of interest of which the Government appears careless. The one aspect which is certainly wrong is the secrecy covering the terms of the sponsorship deals. The ruling in favour of openness by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which we report today, is most welcome.

But there is a wider issue. It was improper for Peter Mandelson to retain ministerial responsibility for the Dome when, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he was asked to rule on BSkyB's bid for Manchester United. Rupert Murdoch's satellite television company is one of the Dome's sponsors. The bid was thrown out by Mr Mandelson's successor; the right result, but the point remains.

It is a point with broader application than one minister's direct responsibility for the Dome project: the Government as a whole is bound to find itself making decisions that touch on the interests of sponsors of a project that is important to its prestige. Of course, the Dome is supposed to be non-partisan, and was dreamt up by the previous government, but no one can have any illusions about the electoral uses of its inevitable success.

Another case which has attracted adverse comment is that of Tesco, which sponsored the Dome at the same time as it was lobbying the Government against the idea of a tax on supermarket parking spaces. The implication is, of course, unfair to Tesco and quite unfounded, but that ministers faced a possible conflict of interest cannot be denied. As Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the civil service union, the First Division Association, says: "Businesses sponsor government activities just as they sponsor party political events, for exactly the same reason."

Nor is it just the Dome. Patrick Neill's committee also discussed the pounds 500,000 raised by the Foreign Office from private sponsors to help pay for the G8 summit in Birmingham last year. The devolution of financial responsibility and the pragmatic approach to public-private joint ventures mean that the aggressive branding of public services is bound to increase.

Regretting this development is as much use as pining for the days when a man with a red flag had to walk in front of motor cars, but the Government should be more alive to the ethical complications than it appears to be.

Lord Neill is absolutely right to insist that all sponsorship contracts should be made public. The use of commercial confidentiality is as bogus and as unquestioned as most other reasons for withholding information from the people in whose name government is conducted. If the committee's recommendation is enacted, it would be a huge step forward.

Of course, openness is not a universal cure-all. It is quite certain that if the terms of the sponsorship of the Dome were published, nothing untoward would be found (in which case, the argument for openness is all the stronger). But that would not absolve the Government of the political responsibility to conduct itself with greater care, to ensure that all possible conflicts of interest are acknowledged. It is too late to rectify the mistakes which have made it difficult for this government to appear "purer than pure" in relation to the financial and political interests in the Dome. Let us hope that it doesn't take another 1,000 years before they get it right.