| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not often heard to advocate the use of taxpayers' money for such purposes and I am usually the first to adopt a market approach. I think that there is a market element in what I am saying. I am trying to strike a balance between maximum access and recouping as much of the cost as possible. It is possible that the scheme could end up generating revenue even beyond the costs that have been identified by the Committee.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): Like many hon. Members, I agree with much of the report. It is primarily about trying to extend access to this place to people from this country and abroad and, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we all welcome that move. When people visit this building--whether they are constituents, friends or tourists--one can see the way in which they are inspired and the great joy that they derive from it. Why are people so inspired by this building? I suggest that it is because this place represents democracy. This is the mother of Parliaments and it represents all sorts of ideals.
I take issue with the report's suggestion that we should charge people to come to this place and feel that sense of awe--whether during the summer recess or at any other time. That is deeply wrong. In essence, it is a matter of principle.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne):
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is preparing to ensure that entry to all our museums is free. Yet we are planning to introduce an entrance fee to this great, modern, working museum. We should not charge people to enter this place over the summer. The amounts of money are trivial. The Secretary of State is about to spend millions of pounds removing museum entry fees, while we are about to introduce just such a fee in this place. That is a nonsense.
Mr. Coaker:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Paragraph 19 of the report states:
The proposed charges will stop some people visiting the building. Furthermore, I believe that our constituents will react badly to the concept of charging UK citizens or tourists to enter their Parliament. They will be absolutely amazed and bewildered.
Dr. Palmer:
Will my hon. Friend not concede that nearly all of his arguments apply equally to Westminster abbey, which is the national centre of our established church where people might wish to worship? People are charged to enter that building.
Mr. Coaker:
I might believe that entry to Westminster abbey should be free, but unfortunately I cannot vote on that issue. I have an opportunity to speak in this Chamber about whether we should charge people to visit this place, and an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I intend to seize that opportunity. I believe that the charging proposal is deeply flawed, and I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge):
I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on the Committee. All Committees should strive to produce such a succinct report after taking evidence for a year.
I represent a constituency that is situated very close to London--in fact, it is regarded as part of London these days--but that does not mean that my constituents have easy access to this place. Like all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I welcome the fact that people will have greater access to Parliament during the summer recess. However, I am fundamentally opposed to charging for that access.
I came to the debate with the idea that only United Kingdom citizens should be allowed free entry to Parliament. However, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have argued powerfully that free entry should be extended not only to Commonwealth citizens but to tourists, who already pay tax in this country and contribute to the wealth of our economy. Therefore, I have decided not to be xenophobic about this matter.
Mr. David Davis:
On this occasion.
Mr. Randall:
On this occasion.
I speak today particularly on behalf of families. The school holidays are the only time when many people have an opportunity to travel to London and visit this place. It has been said, slightly glibly, that the entrance charge for a family is not excessive. However, if we add together all the charges at London tourist attractions, the resulting cost is very high. I believe that children should visit this place as part of their education. Charging will dissuade parents from bringing their children to Parliament because they will think that £14 per family is just too expensive.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
I have been a Member of Parliament for about 20 years. I used to sit three rows behind the Opposition Front Bench and, in my first years in this place, behind me there sat a very wise Member of Parliament named Willie Hamilton--I am sure hon. Members remember him with great affection. I was a young, thrusting Member of Parliament who was trying to do his bit to bring down the Government, and Willie used to offer me some sound advice.
On one occasion, I had some new-fangled idea about modernising Parliament: I thought that sittings should commence at 10 am and adjourn at 6 pm because that was the way in which a civilised Parliament should be run. I remember Willie leaning over, tapping me on the shoulder and saying, "You'll learn, laddie. You cannot change things in this place that have been traditions for decades. If you make changes without full consideration, things will go wrong." This proposal is nonsense, and everyone who has been in the House for a long time knows it.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) who was on the Committee. I have been here for 20 years and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who intervened on me and who has said that the proposal is nonsense, has been here for 40 years. When I considered the Committee's membership, it seemed to me that several new Members, who have in the past couple of years been elected to the Committee by majority--obviously supported by others, I concede--have taken a view on these matters without recognising the implications of the proposals that they are supporting. They are simply wrong.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire(Sir P. Cormack) is one of the friendly Members whom we all adore, and I am astonished that he should support
this proposition. He did not seem to argue from a position of neutrality; he seemed to believe in the proposal. I find it astonishing that he should take that position.
Dr. Palmer:
I am having difficulty in followingmy hon. Friend's argument. He seems to be saying simultaneously that those new hon. Members who support the proposal are unwise and have not had the benefit of experience, but that support for the proposal from those hon. Members who have been here for a while is merely astonishing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
It is. That is precisely the point. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is a wise, older Member, and I am astonished that he should take the position that he has.
I want to take action in the Chamber tonight because I know that, despite what the public think, there are Members sitting in their offices all over Westminster watching our debate. The public seem to think that when the Chamber is empty, no one knows what is happening in the House of Commons, but of course many, perhaps hundreds, of MPs are watching this debate tonight. I say to them, "Please come out of your offices because unless you come and vote against this nonsense, the House will make a ridiculous decision that will make us all look rather silly."
"it is now Government policy that institutions such as the Tate Gallery, the National Gallery and the British Museum should not charge an entrance fee".
The report points out the contradiction in Government policy, but then goes on to suggest that we should introduce an entrance fee to one of the best museums in the country.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |