---

Information Committee: Visitors to Parliament

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for introducing this debate on the report. I served on the previous Information Committee as well as on this one. The joint meetings between the Information Committee and the Commons Administration Committee entailed a lot of work. In fact, the work on the visitor centre has been going on since 2000. The Group on Information for the Public was set up to look at what we should be doing and the Visitor Facilities Support Group did a great deal of work on the detailed recommendations that went into the final feasibility report. There is general agreement about what is needed and why we want to do it. We have to provide a better welcome for the public and an interesting and friendly environment for the visitor. We need to make Parliament more accessible in what it is and what it does. But we also have the problem that it is a real workplace, and we have huge security problems. A number of feasibility studies were made, culminating in the feasibility report and options appraisal in October 2006. In considering this report, one needs to consider the target audience: what do we give them and how? Hence, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, the committee visited a number of locations: the Globe Theatre, the British Museum, the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum and the Churchill Museum. We were also given information about how other Parliaments provide facilities. We had information from Austria, Canada, Australia, the EU, Scotland, Wales and the USA. The United States is building a huge new visitor centre in Washington so that its citizens can see what is happening. The costs and provision vary enormously. A survey of Peers’ opinions brought out a lot of dissent. One Peer would rather spend the money on a Lords car park than a visitor centre. So there was a huge range of opinions about the way that we should go. The costs have been mentioned. They range from £84.5 million for a full visitor centre down to £45 million for an education unit only. However, the £84.5 million represents only about £1.3 per member of the population, which would be a fairly trivial amount if it were added to income tax. Who are our target audiences? I think that there are three or four, and obviously, one is schoolchildren. I had the pleasure of going round with such a party with the education unit. We are looking at children in the eight to 11 year-old range, who are starting to become interested in citizenship. There are then the young adults in the 15 to 18 year-old range, who are coming into the voting environment and whom we must get to come because these will be our new young MPs, councillors and so on. We have to get them involved in the political process. Then there are the disillusioned older people who are failing to vote. I think that they form one of the most important groups, but we will not attract them simply by having an education unit. Finally, there are tourists from both overseas and the UK. All those people require different facilities. As has already been said, for school parties we need lockers, picnic space and toilets. We need interesting things using modern technology that will attract their attention. There is also the question of subsidies for people who come from more remote areas. That is terribly important. We can do so much with modern technology and outreach but it is vital to subsidise children from schools in the north of England, distant corners of Wales or Cornwall in order to get them to come here. If we had gone for a full visitor centre, I thought that we might have had a reproduction of the House of Common Chamber where children could take part in debates. The education unit does that to a small extent, with limited facilities, before they take the children out. It is very effective and interesting to see how they all take part in that. Our website has improved enormously over the past few years, and the provision of modern computer facilities, perhaps with virtual tours of the workings of the House, could also be beneficial. The decision on the way forward was obviously complex because there was distinct opposition to spending such a sum of money. The House of Commons Administration Sub-Committee was well and truly divided, which was a great pity. The Lords were more or less united in thinking that we should go for a full parliamentary visitor centre. However, as I said, again, the Lords survey showed a division in opinions. The opposers favour the use of such a large sum of money for improving the facilities for Members—I have already mentioned the car park. My own opinion is that we should go for something more elaborate so that we can encourage the older voter to come and take part, but it is important that we ensure that the scheme does not simply degenerate into a tourist attraction for overseas visitors. There were enormous problems regarding planning and location. We had endless letters from the planning people, English Heritage and Westminster City Council, and it was clear that, whatever we did, there would be problems. We looked at taking over a number of existing buildings within the neighbourhood but, again, that did not come to anything at this stage. I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in what we are doing but I agree most heartily that this should be only the first stage in a much more elaborate plan.