| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have already had five years of revenues referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who said that more than £2 million was available for one project. Why cannot we have that money?
Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend will be aware from many similar debates on spending issues that each of us can always identify one project, not under discussion, that might be scrapped to pay for the project under discussion. We are unable to assess the scheme to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred. If it is possible to save more than £2 million by not carrying out an unnecessary scheme, we should do so.
However, that is an entirely separate issue. We are debating whether we should budget an additional £500,000 to entertain tourists from around the world who will pay sums vastly in excess of the proposed sums to come here in the first place.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden):
We are accountable to our constituents. The arguments that we have heard so far have posed two options--no access, or access with a charge. Our constituents will look at that and pose other options. If we are spending millions over the road--for ourselves, in effect--why cannot we find the money to give them access to this House?
Dr. Palmer:
I fully agree that public scepticism about the sums spent on Portcullis House is great and will become yet greater when they become better known. However, while we are not debating Old Palace Yard, we are also not debating Portcullis House. We are debating whether we should spend £500,000 to benefit the tourist industry.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that we should not be charging our constituents twice--once through taxes, to elect us and to pay our salaries, and once to visit this place. If we were to spend £500,000 on making the scheme free, that is precisely what we should
be doing. We shall be charging our constituents to save money for the 80 per cent. of non-constituents who use this facility in the summer.
I would share the concerns of the House if it were suggested that this charge might be made compulsory for our constituents. However, the Committee was careful to stress that there should be no change to the present facility that any hon. Member can take his or her constituents around at no cost and at a time convenient to him or her, whether in the summer recess or at any other time.
We are speaking here exclusively of an additional facility to benefit people such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, who are not able to visit in an organised group and who wish to visit the mother of Parliaments. If we focus on what the proposal says, there is little that should be controversial. If we focus, as did the hon. Member for North Cornwall, on supposed follow-ons and extensions that might happen in the future, it is possible to conjure up all sorts of alarming potentials. The Committee focused on a proposal for the summer months and said that, if it is a success--only the House as a whole will be able to assess that--we can review whether we should extend the scheme to other non-sitting periods.
I invite the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to confirm that it is also her view that, before proceeding to any such extension, the House should have the opportunity to discuss it again.
Mrs. Roe:
I am certain that the Administration Committee, no matter who is a member of it at the time, would want to have the endorsement of the House for any changes to the programme.
Dr. Palmer:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification.
Mr. Tyler:
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the report that we are being asked to approve includes specific reference to extending opening to
Dr. Palmer:
I have heard the hon. Gentleman very clearly, but we must be precise. Paragraph 9 says:
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I completely agree with the amendment so ably and eloquently moved by the hon. Member for North
We have witnessed a rather astonishing outbreak of xenophobia: suddenly, foreigners are undesirables and we either do not want them here or want to charge them. I want to dissociate myself from that view. It is pretty disgraceful stuff. I would like all people--both our voters and taxpayers and, even more, people from abroad--to be welcome in the Palace, in the right circumstances, so that they may see and enjoy that of which we are so proud. That should surely be our main motivation.
Dr. Palmer:
When the right hon. Gentleman says "even more", is he saying that we should subsidise foreign visitors at the expense of our constituents?
Mr. Forth:
I would not use the word "subsidise" but I would welcome anyone here, be they from this country or from abroad. I go to the United States as often as I can and visit state capital buildings--so far I have visited about 30 and I look forward to visiting many more--and I am not charged there or on Capitol hill in the District of Columbia, because the Americans are proud of their democratic process and proud to welcome visitors, including even me. I am made to feel welcome. They want me to share in the pride that they have in their democratic history and institutions, state by state and at federal level in DC.
Mr. Pike:
Should we not remember that foreign tourists spend money here? They support the economy and pay VAT and other taxes while they are here.
Mr. Forth:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We often say in the House how much we want to encourage the tourist trade. If we can offer this place as an additional attraction to tourists, that in itself will do much to encourage that trade, which already generates so much revenue and so many jobs. I have absolutely no problem with welcoming visitors here, be they native taxpayers and voters or visitors from abroad. They should all be treated equally.
Hon. Members have rightly taken an interest in how we defray the costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested to me earlier today that a much more imaginative and systematic merchandising effort would go a long way towards that. Given the amount of revenue generated in the relatively small retail space currently available in the kiosks, I believe that he is right. We could also offer optional facilities or guided tours at a charge. The Committee has not explored all those avenues as it should.
The point has been made over and over again that taxpayers and voters can always come here courtesy of their Member of Parliament, but the irony is that, if we open up this place during the summer recess, that is the very time when most Members of Parliament are at their least accessible. I put it no more strongly than that and I will not go into any gruesome details, but hon. Members will know exactly what I mean.
We can say, "Don't worry, natives, you'll be able to get in via your MP while all these rotten foreigners are paying," but the occasional voter and taxpayer might have
a little difficulty laying hands on a Member of Parliament, especially during the summer recess when hon. Members are busy on fact-finding trips and with similar work.
All in all, I welcome the original intention of the exercise, which was to open up this great building and our traditions to as many people as possible. From that point on, the exercise has gone very badly wrong.
Mr. David Davis:
I am a little perplexed by my right hon. Friend's willingness to subsidise an activity. That may be a first. The important point is that there are two decisions, not one. The first is whether we make this place available to the public in the summer. The second, separate decision, is whether we charge. I think that we should make it available, and the costs are all in that decision. After that, any further costs--for letting in foreigners, for example--are near to zero. As he says, better merchandising could meet all the costs of allowing foreign visitors in free. Does he agree that we are making a two-stage decision, the first part of which is to open up our democracy to our own people?
"Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends",
and that, once a considerable sum has been spent on the proposal, the pressure to extend it will be remorseless?
"The Committee considers that the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening"
to other periods. I have rarely seen more subjunctives in one sentence. I credit the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members with the backbone to resist any suggestion that, because we have approved a summer experiment, we have approved all the extensions that he fears.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |