IV. MEETING THE COSTS OF RE-OPENING
16. When the Committee first considered the proposals
to re-open the Line of Route at its meeting on 16 June 1998, considerable
concern was expressed at the initial indication of the development
and the annual running costs. On the basis of the assumptions
in the consultant's report about the likely number of visitors
and the amounts they might spend on souvenirs, latest figures
indicate that the start-up costs will amount to nearly £400,000,
and there will be net annual operating costs of some £300,000
- 60 per cent of which would be the House of Commons' share. Even
with charging visitors for admission at the level set out in paragraph
23 below, the House would still need to make a net provision in
each of the years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003, before the break-even
point was reached. Financial provision has been made in the Estimate
for a cost of up to £146,000 in 1999-2000, but formal provision
has yet to be made for subsequent years.
17. It should be noted that, if the House decided
not to charge for admission, the Commons' share of the costs for
a summer opening programme, commencing in August 2000, would amount
to about £500,000 in Financial Year 2000-2001, and some £350,000
per year thereafter. Sums of this order have not yet been provided
for in the PES forecasts.
18. It was clear to the Committee that, without some
form of charging, the entire burden of cost would fall on the
UK taxpayer. After much deliberation, and only with great reluctance,
the Committee concluded therefore that charging would represent
the better option; in that way only the estimated 147,000 UK citizens
and overseas visitors[2]
who actually took part in the summer opening programme would have
to pay towards the upkeep of the Palace and other costs associated
with a re-opening.
19. The Committee appreciates the deeply held views
of Members of both Houses that access to the Palace should be
free of charge, a point made to us not only by members of the
Lords Sub-Committee, but expressed also by Members of this House
in Early Day Motion 145 (Charges for visitors to the Palace
of Westminster). Indeed, as 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, and following
the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport that children would be allowed free entrance to
national museums and galleries from 1 April 1999, it might be
seen as inconsistent to charge for entrance to Parliament.
20. However, the Houses of Parliament are neither
a museum nor an art gallery; they are a working legislature, and
the Committee considers it important to stress that admission
charges would apply only during the 8 or so weeks of the Summer
Adjournment and would only serve to recover the incremental costs
of the summer opening programme over a 5-year period. For over
42 weeks of the year therefore, visitors would still be able to
participate in tours of the Palace of Westminster, meet their
constituency MP or Members of the House of Lords, listen to debates
in both Chambers when either or both Houses are sitting, and attend
meetings of Standing and Select Committees free of charge. Even
during the Summer Adjournment, Members of both Houses would continue
to be able to bring in their guests. It is not, nor has it ever
been, proposed that members of the public should be charged to
see the Houses of Parliament "at work".
21. The Committee also wishes to emphasise that the
Autumn Visits Programme (AVP), run by the Parliamentary Education
Unit, would not be affected by these proposals. Slots would be
reserved in the summer opening programme ticket allocation to
allow the AVP to continue to operate on a personally guided basis,
as at present. Schools taking part in the AVP would, as now, be
charged simply to cover the cost of the guided tour which they
receive as part of the programme,[3]
(which would be "dovetailed" into the audio-guided public
visits).
22. The Committee therefore recommends that, in
order that the two Houses might recover all capital and running
costs within five years, visitors should be charged at an appropriate
rate. The admission charge would include a colour information
leaflet and the use of an audioguide.
23. The relevant authorities of both Houses and the
consultants continue to monitor the possible capital and running
costs. There is clearly scope for the figures which were presented
to us to be refined, and everything possible should be done to
reduce expenditure over the coming months. If this expenditure
were to remain at the level as set out above, the Committee estimates
that, in order for the House to recover its costs within the specified
timescale, admission charges would need to be set at the following
rates:
Adults—£6.50
Adult group (minimum of 20 persons)—£6.25
each
Senior Citizens/Students/UK unemployed—£4.00
Senior Citizen/Student/UK unemployed groups—£3.75
each
Children—£2.00
Family group (2 adults and up to 3 children)—£14.00
Autumn Visits Programme participants—no incremental
cost
24. We wish to draw to the attention of the House
that the Business Plan suggests that less than half the visitors
would, in fact, pay the full adult ticket price. The majority
of visitors would qualify for a discounted rate and the average
ticket receipt per visitor, based on the above tariff, would be
£5.17 inclusive of VAT.
2 Experience at Westminster Abbey suggests that ultimately
some 75-80 per cent of visitors would be from overseas. Back
3 The
current charge is £24 per group of 16 students. Back
| 
