Line of Route

HC Deb 26 February 2001 vol 363 cc668-83 8.57 pm

Mrs. Marion Roe (Chairman of the Administration Committee)

I beg to move,

That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Trial Summer Re-opening of the Line of Route, HC 213. Session 2000–01. I am conscious of the fact that this is becoming a habit. For the third time in less than two years, I am asking the House to approve proposals put forward by the Administration Committee on the reopening of the line of route during the summer Adjournment. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)

Order. Hon. Members should either settle down or leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

Mrs. Roe

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Visitor Manager, the Serjeant at Arms, the Director of Catering Services, the Director of Finance and Administration and their staff for all their efforts before, during and after last year"s reopening. I also thank the Leader of the House for making time available for this debate when I am sure that there are many other pressing demands on the time, in the Chamber. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Committee and colleagues and officials in another place for their constructive advice and comments over the past two years.

At the outset, I want to address some of the erroneous articles that have recently appeared in the media. Anyone who has read our report would be able to confirm that nowhere do we say, or even imply, that visitors found the tours a bore or that the reopening was "financially disastrous". The articles seem to have been written mainly by taking selective extracts from one of the appendices and quoting them out of context.

The general tenor of the articles was that the trial reopening was a failure and did not achieve its targets, but it is misleading to talk of targets when, as summer 2000 was a trial, there were no precedents and it was not possible to forecast accurately what would happen. Surely that was why the House agreed to an experiment—to ascertain how popular the tours would be.

The oft-quoted figure of 55,980 visitors was but one estimate proposed in 1999, and it was based on a 41-day opening period. As the Committee says in the report, it was necessary to reduce that period to 35 days because the other place rose later than anticipated. Furthermore, the 1999 figure did not take into account the education unit"s autumn visits programme. Both those factors lowered the total number of visitors.

It is claimed that visitors "shunned"—another word we neither said nor implied—Parliament, as "only" 40,577 people took part in the tours. Far more significant is the fact that the final cost of the reopening was less than anticipated. The figures are set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the report. The crux is that the Committee advised the House to expect, a deficit of £232,000, whereas the final amount was in fact £209,611, so the cost to the House was £125,767, rather than the anticipated £138,000.

I want to comment on the reports stating that merchandising made a net loss of £15,000. That claim is, I regret to say, disingenuous as it ignores totally a later sentence saying:

This reported "loss" includes over £20,000 expenditure for staff costs which would have otherwise been borne by the House of Commons Refreshment Department and are not, therefore, an additional cost to the House. I am sure that the House is as interested as the Committee was to note that those members of the public who took part in the tours last summer judged the tours and guides a considerable success, with 95 per cent. of visitors rating the tours as very good and more than 90 per cent. rating the guides as very good. The Visitor Manager has received 3,000 letters from members of the public urging the Houses of Parliament to continue the summer tours.

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for suggesting that visitors be asked their views, as the results brought home to the Committee just how successful the experiment had been—indeed, it was so successful that I do not believe that we could justify not reopening the line of route this year.

As I know the House is keen that the parliamentary summer works programme should not be disrupted, I confirm that the major pre-planned programmes will not be impinged upon significantly by reopening the line of route this summer.

The results of the trial, together with the Committee"s comments and conclusions, are given in our report. It might therefore be more helpful if I simply set out how the House authorities intend to remedy the few deficiencies that have been identified

Perhaps the most crucial aspect is how the House authorities are to keep within last year"s budget of £232,000 while still improving the marketing of the line of route tours. As was the case last year, the cost of the reopening would be borne by the House"s reserve. The key to keeping this cost within last year"s budget is to double last year"s volume of visitors over an eight-week opening period—provisionally planned to be from Monday 6 August until Saturday 29 September.

I understand that the Visitor Manager is already at work on a business plan and that he is confident we can achieve the 85,000 visitors needed. But—and this is a big but—if we are to increase the number of visitors, we need to be in the market now. This is especially important as extra effort will be needed to attract visitors from overseas and from regions of the United Kingdom other than the south-east. As might be expected, the United States offers a great opportunity to attract overseas visitors and, as far as has been possible without having the agreement of the House yet, the Visitor Manager has been discussing the matter with the British Tourist Authority in north America, which considers that our optimism is well founded.

This year it is intended to introduce tours in languages other than English. Each day at 2.15 pm tours will be offered in French, German, Spanish and Italian, at no extra charge to visitors. The Committee will review the success, or otherwise, of these tours and may, in future years, consider the introduction of tours in other languages—for example, Japanese.

I turn now to the box office operation. This year it will not be necessary to book five days in advance. It is planned to sell about 400 tickets a day from a counter in Westminster Hall. Although we will be using Ticketmaster equipment, these direct sales to the public will not attract a booking fee. For pre-booked tickets which this year will be available from all Ticketmaster"s 50 outlets in the United Kingdom, we will pay Ticketmaster a booking fee of 95p per ticket to cover the ticketing system"s costs and postage. That fee is unchanged from last year. It will not be necessary to have a credit card to purchase tickets. If potential visitors are unable to get to a Ticketmaster outlet, they will be able to buy tickets by post from the box office here.

I make no apology for again stressing that what the Committee is recommending would in no way affect existing arrangements. A summer reopening of the line of route would be an additional facility and an extra way for visitors to see the Palace of Westminster.

At paragraph 26 of the report, the Committee, after considering the route to be taken by visitors, said that Portcullis House should not, at this time, be added to the tour. We recommended, however, that the building"s public areas should be open, free of charge, during the annual London Open House weekend. The Committee is grateful that Mr. Speaker has endorsed that recommendation. I am pleased to advise the House that, in addition to existing access arrangements, members of the public will be able to visit Portcullis House on 22 and 23 September.

As the report notes, the other place has already agreed to a reopening in 2001. The House of Lords has given the proposal a green light, and it would be ironic if the House of Commons were to show it a red light. I hope that the House will approve the report, which is based on responses from visitors. The general public clearly welcomed the initiative, and there would be great disappointment among our constituents and visitors from overseas if the line of route were not to be reopened in August and September. The Visitor Manager has finalised agreements with the tour guides and with Ticketmaster. The advertising is ready, and a public relations statement has been prepared. The Ticketmaster computers are ready to be loaded. All that we need is the House"s approval.

As the report says, the Committee is not asking for the trial reopening to be made permanent as there is room for improvement on last year"s operation. For that reason, we are asking the House to extend the experiment for another year. Next year, it will fall to me or my successor once again to present the Committee"s findings to the House for a decision. Last year we made a good start, and the responses of visitors showed that they welcomed the summer reopening. I commend the report to the House.

9.12 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)

I am grateful for the effort and thought put in by the Select Committee on Administration to a report which, if we agree to it, will allow the line of route to open again in the summer. The Committee took on board comments and ideas raised during the previous debate on the matter, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has discussed the visitor survey, an idea proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) which produced a wealth of helpful information. The Committee took on board the comments made in our previous debate and ensured that that survey took place.

The House should be grateful to everyone who worked hard to ensure that last summer"s experiment was a success. The Committee has acknowledged that there were teething problems. Having identified such problems, the Committee has proposed solutions. The Committee recognised that the House could not be expected to approve a permanent reopening of the line of route while such problems existed and has rightly asked that the experiment be extended. I strongly believe that we should give the scheme another chance this summer.

I agree with what has been said about the need for better marketing. I am impressed by the thought already given and effort made in that respect. I was also impressed by the strong support shown by members of the public who undertook the tour and found it most valuable. I note that the Committee is not asking for an increase in funding—a rarity in this age of tight budgets.

This is a House matter and, rightly, is subject to a free vote. As has been pointed out, their lordships approved another trial during the forthcoming summer adjournment. Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I hope that colleagues in this place will approve the motion so that the Palace of Westminster will again be open to the public—to our constituents—this summer.

9.15 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

I certainly support the proposal made in the first report of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) that the experiment should be continued this summer. I agree in principle that as many people as possible should have access—controlled, of course—to the House of Commons, to see how Parliament is constructed and how we work. It is important that we continue to engage the interest of members of the public in the history of this building, which is so important in our nation"s life.

Regrettably, there is far too much cynicism about politics at present—especially about the work of the House. We can overcome that by encouraging members of the public to take an interest—to see and to hear more of what we do, if they are minded to do so; although I would not make that compulsory. The opportunity to do so during the summer months is to be valued. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Committee"s careful analysis of the experiment so far and on bringing the information to the House.

I want to pick out one or two points from the report. I note that paragraph 17, headed "Profile of Visitors", states: One disappointing aspect of the tours was that they appeared to attract a very narrow visitor profile. United Kingdom residents accounted for 78 per cent of visitors—the majority of these coming from London and the South East. As a Member representing a south-west constituency, I point out to my hon. Friend that, for a family, a trip to London—even for a weekend—is extremely expensive. That was clearly demonstrated by the lack of interest from people around the country in visiting that other attraction—of much less importance than this place—the dome. People thought twice about the cost of the rail fare. That is one of the realities of life that must be taken into account when we consider what our capital offers by way of visitor attractions.

I trust that my hon. Friend will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are meant when I say that I hope that we will not take the too politically correct route of trying to manipulate visitors to visit the House of Commons. Although 78 per cent. of visitors are from the United Kingdom, it is important for the people of this country to see the Parliament to which they send their representatives. I am pleased that the proportion of home visitors is so much greater.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

My hon. Friend refers to the proportion of visitors from London and the south-east. She will not have failed to notice the significant interest demonstrated by our friends from the United States. Does she agree that as regards improvements—even my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) accepted that there can be improvements—it is important to focus on merchandise that matches the interests of the visitors? For example, given that only £1,970 was raised from the sale of mini teddy bears, House of Lords version, does my hon. Friend agree that we would probably do better on profitability of merchandise if we could offer as an attraction to our American friends figurines of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher?

Mrs. Browning

I shall deal with merchandise in a few moments. My hon. Friend"s suggestion had not occurred to me, but he will have noted that paragraph 17 refers to the fact that the visitor profile was made up of people of white/European ethnic origin and defined as ABC1 socio-economic category.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

What is wrong with that?

Mrs. Browning

I hasten to assure my right hon. Friend that there is nothing at all wrong with that, but as someone with a background in marketing, I would say that if people are to market merchandise, they first need to know the marketplace. That is easily identified by the socio-economic groupings. Given the point that my hon. Friend made a moment ago, the appropriateness of the merchandise for that particular category of visitor needs to be considered.

I was disappointed and astonished that the items—I am not sure whether they are china or porcelain—that carry the Pugin designs had not found favour. There are two possible reasons for that: either they are more highly priced, better quality items, or the importance of Pugin and examples of his work, especially the decorative work, are not pointed out properly by the visitor guides. It is astonishing that mugs bearing the portcullis emblem were the most popular souvenirs—not just any old portcullis mug, but the white ones with a gold portcullis emblem, whereas those with the green portcullis emblem did not find favour.

One has to test the, market, and last year"s line of route experiment provided a good opportunity to test the market and the way in which merchandise is sold to visitors, but I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to consider carefully why the Pugin merchandise has not found favour. It is clearly of good quality, but perhaps its historic importance is not well appreciated by visitors. If Pugin"s importance to the House is not apparent after a tour of the House, I should be extremely concerned about the content of the tour. We all agree that people appear to be satisfied with the content of the tour, but perhaps she will consider that matter.

As for the House of Lords teddy bears, it could be that visitors were of an age-group profile that already had a teddy bear, so perhaps they are not the right sort of merchandise.

I hope that the House will take this in the spirit in which I say it, but I would not wish to have at home any china bearing the portcullis emblem, nor any other emblem of the House. I am fond of the House and respect it, but I should be afraid that if visitors came to my home and saw crockery bearing House of Commons insignia, it would be like being found at home with a British Rail cup and saucer in the cupboard—they would wonder how I had acquired it. Perhaps people in socio-economic group ABC1 might pause for a moment and wonder what the vicar"s wife would think if they handed round teacups bearing House of Commons insignia. Much market research remains to be done on the merchandise, but I do not want to be negative because the experiment has clearly been a success and I am sure that the appropriateness of the merchandise and any new range that hon. Members might suggest tonight will be properly market-tested before money is invested in it.

There is a more serious matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne mentioned. I have no objection to Portcullis House, especially the rooms on the first floor, being made available to the public, but I am a little concerned that paragraph 26 states: the House should encourage greater "casual" access to the building". I have been a Member of Parliament for only nine years, but during those years there have been times when we may have been a little cavalier about the security of this building. Such concerns are no less now than when I was first elected. Although we all want to welcome visitors and allow them to see where we work, the word "casual" gives me cause for concern.

There was a time when most of the security focus was on terrorism from a particular source. There is a view—it is only a view—that that threat is somewhat diminished, but we face as much risk today of terrorism from unknown sources as we did in the past. Therefore, whether the House is in recess or not, I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne that we should take seriously the issue of security. We should not take a casual approach to access at any time; it should be properly managed and controlled.

Mr. Forth

Like me, my hon. Friend has the privilege of having accommodation in Portcullis House, so the issue is perhaps closer to our hearts than to those of other Members. Does she not agree that it is one thing to allow or even encourage the public into the existing public area on the first floor of Portcullis House, but it is a different matter to allow them into what is now called the courtyard in the large atrium? That area provides direct unlimited access to 1 Parliament street and to other parts of the parliamentary estate. Should we not be very careful indeed about allowing further access given the peculiar nature of Portcullis House and its relationship with other parts of the estate?

Mrs. Browning

My right hon. Friend is right, and that is why I am very concerned about the use of the word "casual". Access is an important issue not only when the House is sitting. We work during recesses and some of us are often here. We also have a duty to the staff and the people who work in the building during recesses; their security is as important as ours. I caution against taking too relaxed an attitude to the issue of access, because this building remains a major target for would-be terrorists.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I hope that the visits to the line of route this summer will be successful. I am sure that they will in no way detract from the excellent service provided by the staff of the House, particularly those in the education unit, who do an excellent job throughout the year in taking our constituents and school parties around the building. They explain the history of our Parliament and our country, and the work that we do. I am fully in favour of opening the building to as many people as possible so that they can have access to that information and experience.

I conclude by referring to a constituent of mine who came to the parliamentary estate from Devon. Not many people visit the House as frequently as we do, and a trip to London is often a treat for people who live a long way away. When my constituent arrived in Westminster Hall, she ran her hands along the walls and said to me, "It"s just wonderful to be able to touch the history." When we whip through Westminster Hall and other parts of a building that we regard as the office, we sometimes take for granted the marvellous history that is represented by this place. I would like us to share that with as many people as possible and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will continue to enable that to take place during the summer recess.

9.28 pm

Caroline Flint (Don Valley)

Tomorrow, I shall attend my first meeting of the Administration Committee as a newly appointed member, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on the report.

The price of £3.50 to visit the parliamentary estate and all that it has to offer must make it the best deal in town. The fact that the ticket price has been kept so low compared with what people have to pay elsewhere is to be commended. However, I am glad that the report recognises that the issues of marketing and distribution need to be addressed. My area of South Yorkshire is a fair distance from the House, and if people do not know what is on offer, they will not take the opportunity to visit it. Has the Committee considered advertising the fact that the parliamentary estate is open in the summer in the magazines of organisations such as English Heritage and the National Trust, which have many members? Other organisations with an interest in political history and heritage may also want to take that opportunity.

The report mentions the lack of toilet and refreshment facilities. A Conservative Member raised a point of order recently when all the toilets in Portcullis House broke down. My experience is that such problems are not confined to this place. When I attended a royal garden party some years ago I found that even in the gardens of Buckingham palace ladies were queuing round the block to use the toilet facilities. It is pretty much the same in every public venue. Bearing in mind the comments about security, in future, once arrangements in Portcullis House are more stable and the toilets work from one week to the next, perhaps we could think about using the refreshment facilities on the courtyard floor for visitors. At the end of their tour, they could leave the parliamentary estate through the tube station exit.

I wonder whether the Committee has thought about how we could market souvenirs better. When people come here, they may be weighed down with packages and feel that they do not want to buy anything, but they might buy something from the airport on their way home to remind them of their visit. Other specialist retail outlets might also have something to offer.

Mr. Forth

Does the hon. Lady realise that there is a danger in that approach? We must decide whether we want to turn the sale of souvenirs into a large-volume, high-profit operation, which has some attractions for me, I must admit. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say more about that. On the other hand, if we pursue that aim, we may sacrifice the exclusivity and prestige that we like to think the products have at the moment. On which side of the argument does the hon. Lady find herself?

Caroline Flint

I agree that we must be sensitive in dealing with the matter. Teddy bears and coasters are high-prestige products, but if we are to produce merchandise we must consider how we shall sell it because we do not want to end up with surplus stock. The matter can be handled with sensitivity and merchandise can be made tasteful so that we can ensure that people visiting the country have the opportunity to buy a memento of their visit to this place.

Mr. Bercow

That was a gloriously indeterminate answer, if I may say so. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment to the Administration Committee, as a result of which I am sure she will display even greater gravitas in future than she has exhibited in the recent past. On the subject of good taste, does she agree that the sale, for example, of teddy bears is testimony to all that is cuddly and bland, while the sale of figurines of my heroine would prove that we were neither?

Caroline Flint

We must recognise that people have different desires in their choice of mementos. Figurines of many politicians, past and present, may be well received. I visited the American Senate and Congress, where one can buy a diverse display of such ornaments. There is something to be said for selling objects that appeal to children. I have certainly found that the teddy bears go down very well when I present them to local hospitals and charities for raffles. We must offer something for everyone. If we are to produce these objects, we may as well get a return on our money. We must consider different ways of ensuring that people find them accessible.

I generally welcome the fact that the palace is open to the public. I have no problem with the fact that a large number of the visitors are from the United Kingdom, but I hope that we can draw people from beyond London and the south-east. We must remove some of the mystique while allowing people to enjoy the history of the many centuries of democratic progress that the House reveals to all who visit it.

9.34 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who chaired the Committee; I had hoped to give her notice of my detailed questions in advance, but, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was preoccupied over the weekend with the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which was on the doorstep of my constituency. I have had time to consider the report only today.

I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on Portcullis House. The electorate are entitled to see as much of what they have paid for as it is possible to show them. It is a magnificent and distinguished building and I hope that we are eventually able to use it for tours. It would be helpful to make it the end point of a line of route tour of the buildings, as suggested. Assuming that the toilets are in operation, that would provide the public with refreshment facilities at the end of their visit. I adopt a more positive view than that taken by Committee members and other hon. Members.

One aspect of the Committee"s approach concerns me. The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to the budget for last year"s trial opening and the planned deficit of £232,000. The report does not put the deficit in those terms. Paragraph 8 of the background to the report mentions the worst case scenario, which could lead to a possible net annual operating deficit of £232,000". If every worst-case scenario were treated as a budget, the Chancellor would be in big trouble. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that those were not the terms on which the House gave approval. She will recall that the Committee"s first proposals were turned down because many of us were concerned about the approach to the basic figures that were set out. Even the modified scheme caused some anxieties.

I do not want to go into detail about the quality of the tour; I am sure that that can be improved. The report says that some guides did not know who Mr. Pugin was, which was a problem. I hope that their information will improve. However, we are used to a high standard of tours in the House because when our constituents visit, we, our staff or the Badge Messengers take them around, and the quality of the tour is very good. We might be unfairly criticising last summer"s guides, who were simply not up to that standard. Other criticisms may also be unfair. There were concerns that to get around efficiently and be out in an hour tool precedence over the quality of the material passed on to visitors.

However, I am more worried about the basic economics of the exercise. The hon. Lady will know from my contributions to both the previous debates that I have always been anxious about that. Although the report refers to the impact on the Parliamentary Works Directorate—she mentioned that tonight—we are not told what additional costs arose as a result of its overtime on Sundays. That cost is not in the financial breakdown. Incidentally, I find it intriguing that, although the Committee refers to the PWD throughout the report, there is no apparent reference to the summer opening programme as the SOP—perhaps that is a sop to the tender delicacy of our concerns.

The passage on the cost of reopening, which is critical to the report, is interesting. The total number of ticketed visitors was 40,577 at a nominal cost of £3.50 a ticket. By my calculation, that adds up to £142,019.50. We are told in the report that the income from ticket sales was £119,991, so there is a shortfall of £22,000-odd.

Some of the figure may he commission for agencies. If so, it is not stated in the report. Otherwise, if the shortfall is owing to the concession given to carers, to which the report does refer, 6,293 carers must have brought through visitors, which is probably an excessive estimate. It would be useful to know the precise reason for the discrepancy.

The report refers to the fact that the millennium exhibition was taking place at the, same time. It is extremely important that we do not base all our forecasts on the very special circumstances of last year. It is important to understand that the millennium exhibition was clearly an extra attraction. All the merchandising sales of £188,551 stated in the report have been credited to SOP, yet a fair proportion of those sales must have been generated by the exhibition. I notice, incidentally, that although the estimate for the average spend given to the House during our previous debate was £4, it is actually £3.41, which is a considerable difference. I hope, therefore, that we shall consider that matter again.

On the question of tour operations, which are referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 on page 4, the booking of tickets was contracted out to Ticketmaster and the provision of guides to Tour Guides Ltd. There is no mention in the financial breakdown of the exact commission or of any fees paid. That means that the figures to which I have just referred are a little misleading. I hope that we can have some more information on that. I would certainly like to know what sort of contractual fees and commission were paid to those two private companies.

The SOP employed five co-ordinators to assist at the sovereign"s entrance. The financial breakdown shows that the cost of uniforms was £1,825. As far as I have been able to discover, that paid for sweaters or sweatshirts for five people, so those five sweatshirts must have cost £365 each. I guess they are gold-plated. Perhaps something else is included under the cost of uniforms. If so, it would be interesting to know exactly what.

According to paragraph 3 on page 10, two consultants were employed for a total of four days in order to brief the local media. They do not seem to have done a very good job. As the hon. Member for Don Valley said, we do not seem to have received all that much press coverage for what I would have thought was intrinsically an extremely interesting story. Therefore I am not sure how well they did their job. Given that the manager and assistant manager were paid £54,000, surely they could have undertaken the task. I should have thought that the Visitor Manager would have been just as good a person to undertake such a responsibility. Again, it would be helpful to see a breakdown of the costs.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman has just made an important point about what appears to have been a deficiency of service. Have I misunderstood him or is his interpretation that the public relations service was not subject to market testing or competitive tender?

Mr. Tyler

I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne will answer that question when she responds to the debate. The answer is not apparent from my reading of the report but, as I said, I have had an opportunity to read it only at speed as a result of other preoccupations.

I have several other questions relating to issues arising from the figures. The figure for admissions, for example, which is given under revenues, is clearly for ticket sales.

Therefore, we do not know precisely what arises from that figure, under which heading guides are paid for and how any future trial will operate other than at a loss.

There is a figure for entertainment of £1,074. Entertainment, as we all know, always causes some difficulty. Given the wonderful value of refreshments in the House, it is not immediately clear where the entertainment was provided, to whom and by whom. I assume that it was a responsibility of the Visitor Manager.

An important point that may apply to both of those previous items is that any enterprise of this sort incurs set-up costs. Are they to spread only over the first season, across the whole year, or across future years? How many of those costs are recurrent? That, too, is not spelt out in the report, which makes it more difficult for us, in our traditional scrutiny role, to be sure exactly what is going on. For example, are the merchandising overheads of £59,587 and the development costs of £18,204 recurrent costs, or once-and-for-all set-up costs? It is not immediately clear.

Looking ahead to the trial"s continuation, the most important point to note is that overall operating loss of the trial was £209,611, or a loss of almost £6,000 for every day that the line of route was open. The total of 40,577 visitors means that there was a subsidy of £5.17 for every single visitor. That is quite a considerable sum. Given that, at other times of the year, Members" tours—tours undertaken by Members of Parliament, or by our staff, or on our behalf—attract no subsidy, we see that we are dealing with a curious upside-down world. The loss quoted for the operation of tours is £176,263. I cannot see how those expenses—or costs, whichever way one wants to see them—can be so reduced in future years, or that the House will want to approve a loss of £6,000 for each week that the line of route is opened on that basis.

The overriding issue, which I have raised on previous occasions and I raise again tonight, is simply that, both last year and this, we open the line of route for a comparatively short time during the trial period. Surely that means that we should establish a short-term, limited and carefully controlled budget for that period. Instead, we appear to have set up a permanent institution, with a Visitor Manager and an assistant who are present 52 weeks a year. Instead of finding a way in which to cater for a comparatively short-term operation, with short-term costs, we appear to have engaged in long-term costs.

Having said all that, I believe that the Committee was right to experiment and I consider its request to experiment once again to be reasonable. However, I ask that the costs be scrutinised extremely carefully. Answers must be given to some of the specific points that I have raised this evening, if not now, on a future occasion or in correspondence. I am by no means convinced that the experience of the House, and of the Committee on our behalf, fully justifies a permanent experiment.

9.48 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

While following the spirit and thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I wonder whether we should ask even more fundamental questions. Neither the report nor our previous debates has made it clear whether the House expects the line of route to be a subsidised cultural experience for visitors, or a regular contributor to ease the burden on the taxpayer of the costs of parliamentary activity. The answer could be one or the other, or something in between.

Whether we should be shocked or pleased that each visitor is subsidised to the tune of £5 is an important and open question. If the idea was to draw in people from beyond the United Kingdom and, in effect, pay them to come through and marvel at the Palace of Westminster, that is one thing; if that was the aim, we have been moderately successful. However, if we expected the exercise to contribute to the real revenues of the Palace of Westminster and ease the burden on the taxpayer, it has been a miserable failure. Judging that properly will depend on where we start and what we set as our objective. That is not at all clear from the report, so it is difficult to judge whether the trial was a success.

Against that background, a much more fundamental set of questions should be asked about the accounting procedures that were used. When presenting figures on activities at both ends of the Palace of Westminster, we have never been clear about how we should account for those activities. In other words, should we charge a notional rent for space occupied? It is one thing to talk about a kiosk, sales outlet or even a line of route, but it would quite another if we factored in rental charges for the space occupied at central London rates. However, we assume that that is a free good. Few businesses have the privilege of a rent-free operation, especially in this location.

As for staffing, do we charge the full cost of staff to a particular operation, or do we absorb it into the general operation? For example, staff from the Refreshment Department would be here anyway, so we need not attribute an element of their cost to the activity that is being undertaken. Again, the presentation of such matters in the report does not make clear either the real costs or how we want to identify and attribute those costs to different operations in order to make a proper judgment about whether a certain element is profitable or extraordinarily expensive.

That is bad enough, but appendix 1 on page 28 of the report deals with the "pessimistic case" target, the adjusted target—to take account of reduced opening—and actual figures. If we are not careful, we will get into millennium dome territory: someone has made projections of what they think will happen but, lo and behold, it does not quite work out that way. In fact, when one looks at the figures, it is clear that it does not work out that way at all. There seems to be a shortfall in almost every regard.

One may seek to explain or excuse that shortfall by saying that last year was an experimental first year, that we were feeling our way and that we are not at all sure yet. At the very least, I hope that close attention will be paid to the figures and the targets. If there was a pessimistic case target, what on earth was the optimistic case target? If there was a shortfall of such a magnitude on the pessimistic case target, there is a serious question mark over the targeting process, on the one hand, and what went wrong with the actual figures, on the other.

Also on page 28 is an astonishing figure giving the average spend per visitor as £1.17, which includes VAT but excludes guidebooks. The average spend per transaction was £9.21. I should have thought that that indicated a distinct lack of success in persuading people who have visited the Palace of Westminster and paid the entrance fee, which they thought was all too reasonable—

I will comment on that in a moment—to buy a souvenir of their visit, at least to any significant extent. We shall obviously have to consider that.

To reiterate the intervention that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) kindly allowed me to make, we must reconsider carefully whether merchandise from this place is, as we would hope, of intrinsic value and rarity, can be purchased only here, and is therefore a genuine souvenir of a visit to the Palace or Westminster, or whether we should market it freely at airports, saying, "You might have gone to the Palace of Westminster. Grab a handful of souvenirs at the airport, whether or not you were at Westminster and take them home to whatever part of the world you come from." An important decision has to be made as to what we want to say about merchandise that is sold here.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend has set out for the House a key consideration. On this occasion, uncommonly for him, he has not specified his preference. Does he not agree that, even though we joust with each other as enthusiastic advocates of free market capitalism, having souvenirs of the House sold in the airports of the United Kingdom would be unspeakably vulgar?

Mr. Forth

As my hon. Friend challenges me to state my view, I should say that my preference would be for a degree of exclusivity and rarity to be attached to our merchandise. I haunt Capitol hill and Congress when I am in Washington, DC, as the hon. Member for Don Valley obviously does. I have bought the odd souvenir, but I would be rather shocked if on my exit from Dulles international airport or JFK I found a large stall with congressional souvenirs being pushed at me, no doubt at concessionary rates. That would somewhat alter my view of the undoubted magnificence of Congress and its history.

It is gratifying to be told that the results of surveys show that the overwhelming bulk of people thought that they had had a good deal when paying the charge to take a tour through the Palace of Westminster. That raises the obvious question whether a sufficient price is being charged. I was slightly disappointed by a recommendation that the price should be kept fixed. Following the entreaties of my hon Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), a market approach would suggest that if a large proportion of people thought they had enjoyed a bargain with a charge of £3.50, we could perhaps be more adventurous and ascertain whether we could charge more and reduce the deficit.

We are asking taxpayers generally throughout the country to subsidise those people who are fortunate enough to visit the Palace of Westminster, and perhaps that is getting things the wrong way round. It might be more satisfactory to expect those who visit the Palace—they do so voluntarily, enjoy the occasion and pay the charge—to help out the benighted taxpayer, who otherwise will be paying an ever-increasing amount to subsidise what goes on in this place, either directly in a political sense in the Chamber or Committee Rooms, or in terms of tourism That is my main criticism of the approach that has been taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and her Committee might want to give the matter serious thought, alongside the extension of the experiment. I am glad that there will be a further year of experiment and that we are not yet ready to rush into a permanent arrangement. I hope that the Committee will give serious thought to whether there should be a subsidised cultural experience provided by the taxpayer to the visitor, or vice versa.

9.58 pm

Mrs. Roe

This has been an interesting debate. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their views and comments, and I shall respond briefly. I thank the Minister for his supportive remarks, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Members of the Committee are most grateful for their comments and support.

Much work went on behind the scenes by both Members and staff to try to ensure that the reopening was a success. The comments of the Minister and my hon. Friend will be welcomed by all those involved. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my thanks to the Leader of the House, who has been most helpful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton talked about how we could overcome cynicism about the House. I understand her points, and I hope that the reopening of the line of route will play a part in removing some of the misunderstanding about what is done by this place and the other place and the work that is undertaken by Members and others.

Mention has been made of the narrow visitor profile, given that trips to London are expensive. I understand that. However, I hope that marketing will draw to the attention of those who come to London—and many do—that there is an opportunity to see the Houses of Parliament. I have in mind especially those who come with young children. There is an opportunity to see what our democracy is about and to understand our traditions and the importance of this historic building.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned merchandising. I remind him that the merchandising remit is not part of my—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day"s sitting, the Motion relating to the Line of Route may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mrs. Roe

Merchandising is the responsibility of the Catering Committee, and I am certain that the Director of Catering Services will take into account the points made by my hon. Friend and others about the type of products that should be available and what sells to which particular market, as well as promoting Pugin and the role that he played in the design of this magnificent building. That should be mentioned by guides in their talks to the groups that they take around.

On casual access to Portcullis House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton thought that that was too cavalier. I can assure her that the security will not be cavalier. The matter was dealt with meticulously during the reopening of the line of route. We take proper advice and all those involved have done an excellent job.

It is suggested not that there should be unrestricted access, but that access should be widened as far as is practical. I remind my hon. Friend that the general public are allowed into parts of Portcullis House to watch the activities of Standing Committees and Select Committees. I am sure that the House would want to encourage that, but we must be mindful of the security element.

Mrs. Browning

My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that access to the atrium in Portcullis House gives direct access to other parliamentary buildings, other than through the normal security procedures. Although the first floor of Portcullis House is quite a secure unit, the atrium is not a secure area suitable for unlimited access. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account.

Mrs. Roe

I have noted what my hon. Friend says. I believe that there is at present no direct access to the courtyard for members of the public, for the reasons stated by her. I assure her and the House that the matter is taken extremely seriously, with an eye to terrorism both in the past and in the future. Experience suggests that the matter was dealt with in a constructive and positive way during the reopening last summer.

I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) as a new member of the Administration Committee tomorrow. I am sure that she will enjoy the work that we do, and that she will be an active member of the Committee. No doubt the Visitor Manager will take on board the hon. Lady"s constructive comments about advertising with heritage organisations. I agree that it is important that as many members of the general public as possible are made aware of the opportunities to visit this special place. The report noted that there had been problems with the toilet facilities, and we hope to remedy the problems of access, which were the subject of complaints.

Souvenirs are not a matter for my Committee, but I will draw the comments that have been made to the attention of the Committee which has that responsibility. I have noted the other points made by the hon. Member for Don Valley about Portcullis House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham about the teddy bears and other items that were on sale.

I now come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), especially on the budget and paragraph 8 of the report. I accept his concerns; the worst-case scenario is not presented as a budget. The House authorities will realise that the issue is important and we will have to keep below the specified amount. The hon. Gentleman asked about the extra costs involved in the need for the Parliamentary Works Directorate to work at weekends. I understand that an additional cost of £10,000 was incurred because work had to be done on Sundays rather than on days when the tours were occurring. Although one must never discount any figure within a budget, that cost was not astronomical.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not expect full answers today to his very detailed questions on financing. I shall of course ensure that he receives a reply as quickly as possible. I can tell him that the merchandising costs to which he referred are for the equipment and the shop in Westminster Hall. I understand that those are one-off costs. The entertainment that he mentioned related to two receptions—one to welcome the guides and one for the media. The Refreshment Department provided the refreshments, so I am pleased to say that the cost was recycled within the House.

I think that I have covered all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in my responses to other colleagues. However, if there is any other detail that he would like me to provide with regard to financing, I should be happy to do so. It is extremely important for this debate to be open, for all the figures to be available and for everybody to know exactly what is being done.

I have welcomed this opportunity to put before the House the success of the reopening of the line of route. I hope that it will endorse the Committee"s recommendation without a Division. If hon. Members are unsure about whether we should have another trial, they should ask a fundamental question: do we listen to the sections of the media that have chosen to represent last year"s reopening as a failure, or to our constituents, who have written in their thousands to say how much they have enjoyed the tours and to urge us to continue them? I am sure that this House will know to which group my Committee has been listening, so I hope that our recommendations will be endorsed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Trial Summer Re-opening of the Line of Route, HC 213, Session 2000–01.