FIRST REPORT
The Administration Committee has agreed to the
following Report:
THE SUMMER LINE OF ROUTE
THE 2001 OPENING AND PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE
1. BACKGROUND
1. The summer of 2001 saw the second trial re-opening
of the Houses of Parliament to the public on the Line of Route,
a tour on a predetermined route through the building. The principle
of re-opening the Palace of Westminster to the public during the
summer adjournment was first suggested by our predecessor Administration
Committee in 1999.[5]
The House approved the Committee's second Report on the subject,
Revised framework for re-opening the Line of Route during the
summer adjournment,[6]
in January 2000,[7]
and the Line of Route was opened to the general public that summer
for the first time since the 1970s.
2. The experience of the summer 2000 opening is discussed
in much greater detail in our predecessor Committee's Report on
The trial summer re-opening of the Line of Route.[8]
That Report evaluated the success of the first trial opening,
concluding that the tours were a "considerable success"
and recommending a further trial re-opening, with some modifications,
in 2001.[9]
The House agreed to this second trial on 26 February 2001,[10]
and the Line of Route opened to visitors again this summer.
3. Tours of the Line of Route are undertaken in groups
accompanied by qualified Blue Badge guides, and take in most of
the principal rooms of the Palace. Tours are available in English,
French, German, Spanish and Italian,[11]
and take approximately 75 minutes. This year's tours operated
under three criteria that had been established by the Committee,
and agreed by the House, for the previous year:
- that the Palace of Westminster is primarily a
place of work, and public access to it must not impinge upon that
work
- visiting arrangements during the recess must
not constrain either the Parliamentary works programme, or the
ability of either House to sit at any time it might be necessary
to do so
- current rights of Members of both Houses and
of the Parliamentary Education Unit to sponsor visits must be
maintained.[12]
4. The cost of admission to the Line of Route was
restricted to an administration fee and guide charge, amounting
to £3.50 per visitor, with no concessions.[13]
All remaining costs were borne by the Houses upon their budgets,
but the net annual deficit was not to exceed £232,000 (of
which not more than 60 per cent, or £138,000, would fall
to the House of Commons).[14]
5. We believe the opening of the 2001 Line of Route
was a success:
- the tours attracted 86,284 visitors, a 110 per
cent increase on the 2000 opening[15]
- per cent of visitors surveyed said that the tours
had exceeded their expectations[16]
- the operation kept within the target deficit
agreed for both Houses.[17]
In this Report we analyse the experience of running
the Line of Route in 2001 and make recommendations to the House
for future years. We have been in informal contact with our counterparts
in the House of Lords, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee,
about our recommendations.
6. We should like to place on record our thanks to
the many staff of both Houses of Parliament, both permanent and
temporary, as well as the Blue Badge guides and the security force,
without whose hard work the tours could not have been run. We
have been assisted by the report of the Visitor Manager, which
we append, as well as the advice of House staff.
2. DURATION AND VOLUME
7. The tours were offered to the public between Monday
6 August and Saturday 29 September 2001. No tours were run on
14 September, when Parliament was recalled to debate the terrorist
attacks on the US.[18]
8. We are pleased to report that the total number
of visitors to the Line of Route more than doubled in 2001, with
86,284 visitors compared to 40,577 in 2000. This amounted to over
80 per cent take-up of the theoretical tour capacity (of 3,000
visitors per full day). Westminster Hall and Portcullis House
attracted a further 12,500 visitors free of charge over the Open
House Weekend on 23 and 23 September. Despite the crisis in the
tourism industry and the effects of the tragic events of September
11, the fact that the Line of Route managed to exceed the challenging
target of 85,000 visitors made in the 2001 business plan (set
at a time when it was assumed that market conditions would remain
stable) is, we believe, a mark of exceptional success.
3. VISITOR PROFILE AND
REACTION
9. In 2000, the University of Greenwich conducted
a survey of visitor profile and satisfaction; as there was no
budget for such research this year we have had to rely on the
completion of visitor comment cards and comments in the visitors'
book.[19]
This naturally means that responders were self-selected; but the
response rate was relatively high, with more than 8 per cent of
visitors making comments. The usual rate at visitor attractions
is, we understand, between 2 and 5 per cent.[20]
10. Our predecessor Committee was disappointed by
the "very narrow" visitor profile for the Line of Route
opening in 2000, with 78 per cent of visitors being UK residents,
largely from London and the south east.[21]
It recommended that a higher profile campaign was necessary, both
in the UK and abroad, to alert and attract potential visitors.
The increased marketing campaign in 2001 was aided by the House's
early decision on the trial in February, giving an extra two months
of preparation compared with the 2000 opening. Although the decision
came too late for the Line of Route to be included in many tourist
publications, other marketing strategies were used, including
brochure distribution, direct mailshots, television coverage and
advertising.[22]
The total cost of marketing and public relations for the summer
opening was £36,106. This is a modest budget, but we do not
propose an increase: with a greater than 80 per cent take-up of
available spaces on the tours, more intense marketing could create
unfulfillable expectations.
11. Analysis of the visitor comments as well as the
observations of the staff, sales breakdowns from Ticketmaster
and the take-up of the foreign language tours, led the Visitor
Manager to conclude that at least 50 per cent of visitors came
from overseas, and that there had been a significant increase
in the number of UK visitors from outside the south east.[23]
12. Visitor reaction was again extremely favourable,
with 95 per cent of those commenting stating that the tours had
greatly exceeded their expectations. We have seen a number of
the comments cards and selections from the visitors' book and
were impressed by the enthusiasm of the visitors for the tours.
The Blue Badge guides received special praise. Where there was
criticism, it was largely of the ticketing system[24]
and other visitor facilities[25];
but the vast majority of comments were positive. The Visitor Manager
told us that these were "in all probability, unrivalled by
any other attraction in this country".[26]
13. On the grounds of visitor satisfaction we believe
the 2001 opening can be judged a success. Over the last two summers
the tours have contributed to the understanding and awareness
of the UK Houses of Parliament amongst the British public and
those abroad, as well as allowing large numbers of peoplewho
would otherwise have been unableto view the Palace and
its treasures. The summer opening contributes to the achievement
of the House of Commons Commission's aim to improve the quality,
efficiency and effectiveness of the information and access provided
by the House to those outside Parliament. As a result, we recommend
that the summer opening of the Line of Route become a permanent
feature, subject to the criteria we outline in this Report.
4. RUNNING A PERMANENT
OPENING
14. We recommend that the three criteria already
agreed by the House govern the permanent operation of the summer
Line of Route:
- that the Palace of Westminster is primarily
a place of work, and public access to it must not impinge upon
that work
- visiting arrangements during the recess must
not constrain either the Parliamentary works programme, or the
ability of either House to sit at any time it might be necessary
to do so
- current rights of Members of both Houses and
of the Parliamentary Education Unit to sponsor visits must be
maintained.
15. In addition, we recommend a fourth criterion:
that any arrangements should not impede the application of appropriately
high levels of security within the Palace of Westminster and its
precincts. The security of those who work in and visit the
Palace must not be jeopardised.
16. Currently the operation of the summer Line of
Route is overseen by a Steering Group which includes representatives
of the Commons Serjeant at Arms Department, the Lords Department
of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, the Information Office
and Parliamentary Education Unit, the Refreshment Departments
and Works Departments of both Houses, the temporary Visitor Manager
and the Chief Superintendent of Police. We recommend that the
Line of Route Steering Group undertake a feasibility and cost/benefit
study into the establishment of a permanent Visitor Management
Office to run the summer Line of Route tours.
17. Such a study could consider whether a permanent
office could, in addition, assist with the operation of Members'
Line of Route tours. We stress that we are committed to maintaining
current rights of Members in this respect, but there may be a
case for streamlining the system for booking permits and guides.
We would expect any recommendations to come back to this Committee
for consideration.
5.
COSTS[27]
18. Ticket revenue for the summer opening amounted
to £224,680; the merchandising operation[28]
generated £100,343, giving a total revenue of £325,023.[29]
The costs of sales itemsincluding merchandise, Blue Badge
guide fees and Ticketmaster feescame to £282,811,
giving a gross operating profit (before operational costs of £241,573)
of £42,212. The resulting net deficit was £199,361.
The Commons share, 60 per cent of this cost, is £119,616.
19. In last year's Report our predecessor Committee
gave a figure of £6.26 as the notional "subsidy per
visitor" by the Houses of Parliament.[30]
In 2001, this notional figure was reduced to £2.31.
20. The net deficit in 2001 was lower than the planned
deficit limit of £230,000 and that of the 2000 opening, which
was £209,611. This was due largely to the increased ticket
revenues as well as savings made on merchandising overheads and
staffing costs. Over the two trial openings of the Line of Route,
the House authorities have planned and performed successfully
on the basis of the operating deficit agreed by both Houses, which
as our predecessor Committee acknowledged was a challenging target.[31]
We now believe it is time to revisit the concept underlying the
financing of the summer Line of Route.
21. We appreciate that there are differing opinions
on the funding of the summer opening. Many Members of the House
strongly believe that access to the Houses of Parliament ought
to be free for all at all times; others, with equal passion, do
not wish to see the costs of opening in the summer fall to the
UK taxpayer. This dilemma was addressed by our predecessor Committee,
which initially (after much deliberation, and with reluctance)
recommended that the ticket price be set to recoup the costs of
opening the Line of Route over a five year period.[32]
That option was rejected by the House.[33]
The Committee returned to the House with its second Report, which
explored alternative proposals and recommended that the re-opening
"restrict the effective cost of admission to a flat rate
group booking/ administration fee and guide charge",[34]
with remaining costs limited to a net annual operating deficit
of £232,000 met through the relevant House Votes. This criterion
has governed both the 2000 and 2001 summer openings.
22. We recommend that the system of an agreed
deficit, funded by the UK taxpayer through the House of Commons
Vote, be discontinued. Ticket prices for visitors should be set
at a level to recoup the cost of running the summer opening.
23. We stress that a charge would be made only
for visitors taking a guided tour of the Line of Route during
the summer adjournment. We are committed to the principle of free
democratic access to the Houses of Parliament and remind the House
that our constituents would still be able freely to visit both
Houses at work:
- to listen to debates of both Houses
- to attend meetings of standing and select
committees
- to meet their constituency MP or Members of
the House of Lords
- to participate in Members' and Peers' sponsored
Line of Route tours
- to participate in activities arranged for
schools by the Parliamentary Education Unit
- to attend meetings sponsored by Members and
Peers
- to take part in lobbies of either House.
In addition, visitors would be able to visit the
Palace as guests of Members during the summer adjournment, as
well as free of charge during London Open House Weekend, if the
Speaker accepts our recommendation below.[35]
24. We do not believe that charging a realistic price
for summer tours of the Palace encroaches upon on the rights of
the public to visit Parliament as a democratic institution. Rather,
it means that members of the UK public will not subsidise, as
they do at present, 85,000 or more visitors, from the UK and overseas,[36]
to the Line of Route each year.
25. A business case for any 2002 opening is currently
being developed, and the House authorities will continue to monitor
it and ensure that expenditure is kept as low as possible, allowing
for reasonable investment in facilities. We have estimated the
potential costs of opening in 2002, based on this year's actual
costs, some additional operational costs already identified[37]
and allowing for an operational surplus of £25,000 for reinvestment
(which includes potential merchandising revenue). If 85 per cent
take-up of tours is again achieved for a similar opening period,
and one in three visitors is eligible for a concessionary ticket
(child, student, or unwaged), we estimate that admission charges
would have to be set at the following rates:
Adults£7
Concessions£3.50
Family ticket (2 adults + 2 children)£16
Surcharge for foreign language tours£2
Carers and children under 5free.
We expect that these charges would be held for the
2003 opening, and possibly beyond. We suggest that the House authorities
explore means of accepting payment in euros as well as sterling.
26. The 2000 and 2001 ticket price of £3.50
was, as was noted during the debate on our predecessor's last
Report, "the best deal in town"[38]because
each visitor was subsidised by the taxpayer. The Visitor Manager
has told us that in his professional judgement the ticket price
could be increased "without causing resentment amongst visitors".[39]
We have studied charging policies for other visitor attractions
both in London and further afield and note that a £7 adult
admission price would bring the Houses of Parliament just below
the price for tours of the British Museum, St Paul's Cathedral
or Westminster Abbey.[40]
6. MERCHANDISING
27. The purpose of selling gifts and souvenirs to
visitors at the end of the Line of Route is twofold: to "claw
back" some of the costs of the summer opening;[41]
and to fulfil visitor expectations and strengthen the Line of
Route's "brand image". Should the House agree our recommendations
on ticket pricing, revenues from merchandising could be ploughed
into improvements in the infrastructure and facilities of the
Line of Route.
28. Lessons learned from the merchandising operation
in 2000 were put into effect this year. The number of souvenir
lines for sale was reduced from 124 to 47 in 2001. Prices ranged
from 10 pence for a postcard to £33.50 for a pair of crystal
whisky tumblers, but the range offered was concentrated at the
lower spend market. Despite the changes, sales did not reach projected
targets, with 21 per cent of visitors using the shop and spending
on average £5.46representing an average spend per
visitor of £1.16 rather than the projected £2.25. The
total net contribution (after VAT and costs) from the merchandising
operation was £10,133, a significant improvement on 2000.
29. We note the remark of the manager of the Line
of Route shop that "in general the product mix was popular".[42]
However, he also noted "distinct gaps" in the product
line, including generic Parliamentary souvenirs (as opposed to
specifically Commons or Lords items), pictures and replicas of
symbolic features of the Palace. As our predecessor Committee
pointed out last year, visitors to the summer Line of Route are
a different market, with expectations different from those of
Members, House staff and their guests.[43]
While the range of products offered to summer visitors is largely
drawn from the range already available to Parliament, it is likely
that optimum sales will not be achieved.
30. The current approach has the benefit of minimising
the financial risk of unsold stock, because it can be sold through
existing souvenir outlets. We suggest that the Line of Route Steering
Group be charged with investigating the potential for increasing
sales without increasing the risk to the Houses of Parliament
(and hence the taxpayer).
31. This might involve employing a retail consultant
from the visitor attraction industry or contracting out the development
of a new souvenir range. We consider that the products sold will
inevitably reflect on Parliament, and are concerned to ensure
that only appropriately prestigious (though not necessarily expensive)
and quality goods are available. We would expect the Steering
Group to consult the appropriate Committees of both Houses before
introducing new stock.
7. VISITOR FACILITIES
32. The ticketing facilities were the greatest cause
of complaint amongst visitors in 2001, with 16 per cent saying
that they had difficulties with the ticketing and associated queuing
and sales systems. During the 2000 opening, tickets were initially
only available in advance by telephone or on the internet. Pre-booked
tickets then had to be picked up from the British Travel Centre
in Regent Street. In mid-August 2000 a small facility to buy tickets
on the day from the shop in Westminster Hall was introduced at
the request of the Speaker. This year, at the recommendation of
our predecessor Committee, a temporary ticket office was established
in the Palace, the facility to book through Ticketmaster being
retained.
33. In some respects this office, located in Westminster
Hall, was a success, selling 59 per cent of all tickets. However,
its interim nature meant that there were several problems associated
with it, which should not be repeated:
- visitors had to pass through security clearance
at St Stephen's entrance in order to access the ticket office;
they then had to leave the precincts and pass through another
checkpoint at Black Rod's Garden before starting the tour, causing
confusion and frustration
- there were only two ticket sales points, too
few for the demand on many days, causing lengthy queueing for
some visitors
- there was no separate facility for collecting
pre-booked tickets
- refunds at the ticket office were complicated
and difficult to administer.
34. We recommend that options for the permanent
siting of a ticket office be reviewed by the Steering Group. An
ideal location would be sited nearby, but outside, the secure
perimeter of the Houses of Parliament. We understand that
such a facility may not be available in time for a 2002 opening,
but expect any temporary solution adopted for next year to learn
from the problems encountered this year.
35. Just over 1 per cent of visitors who commented
on the tours were critical of the visitor facilities. In the case
of the temporary toilets this criticism was valid, as there were
too few female toilets and their cleanliness was not always of
the highest standard. We are confident that there will be considerable
improvement when the new Visitor Centre is opened, in time for
a 2002 summer opening.
8. ROUTE
36. Tours in 2000 and 2001 followed this route:
Norman PorchQueen's
Robing RoomRoyal GalleryPrince's ChamberChamber
of the House of LordsPeers' Lobby and CorridorCentral
LobbyCommons' Corridor and LobbyChamber of the House
of Commonsreturn to Central LobbySt Stephen's HallWestminster
Hallleaving by New Palace Yard.
37. We have considered potential additions to the
route, particularly in the light of the successful opening of
Portcullis House on September 22 and 23. Any addition of rooms
or areas would affect the length of tours and required number
of guides, and hence the costs of running the summer opening,[44]
though these problems would not be insurmountable. However we
regret that, for security reasons, we are currently unable to
recommend the opening of additional rooms or buildings during
the summer opening. We expect the Steering Group, in consultation
with the appropriate security experts, to keep this matter under
review and to inform us of additions to the tour. For the time
being, we recommend that Portcullis House be open to the public
once again during the annual London Open House weekend.
38. Given that we have recommended that the House
accept once more the criterion that the summer opening should
not constrain the Parliamentary works programme, we must inform
the House that this will inevitably mean that in some years the
whole of the Line of Route will not be accessible. We expect that
the Visitor Management team and the Parliamentary Estates and
Works Services of both Houses will work together to minimise such
disruption, but we recommend that the Steering Group be empowered
to authorise such temporary changes in the route as may from time
to time be necessary.
9. CONCLUSION
39. We submit our Report to the House for its consideration.
We appreciate that any decision to implement our recommendations
would be dependent upon consideration in the House of Lords.
5 First Report, Session 1998-99, Proposal to re-open
the Line of Route during the summer adjournment, HC394. Administration
Committee Reports referred to in this Report can be accessed on
the internet at http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmadmin.htm. Back
6 First
Report, 1999-2000, HC98 Back
7 Official
Report, 18 January 2000,
cols. 801-817. The Official Report ('Hansard') can be accessed
on the internet at http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm. Back
8 First
Report, 2000-01, The Trial Summer Re-opening of the Line of Route,
HC213 Back
9 ibid,
para 14 Back
10 Official
Report, 26 February 2001,
cols. 668-683 Back
11 Foreign
language tours were available daily at 1415. Back
12 First
Report, 2000-01, para 3 Back
13 Carers
and children under 2 were admitted free. Back
14 First
Report, 2000-01, para 15 Back
15 See
paras 7-8 Back
16 See
paras 9-13 Back
17 See
paras 18-20 Back
18 Refunds
were given to those who had pre-booked. Further refunds were
given to a small number of visitors whose tour arrangements were
disrupted by a fire evacuation on 15 September. Back
19 Six
thousand comment cards were completed (of which 4,000 were analysed)
and there were 1,000 comments in the visitors' book. Back
20 Appendix,
section 1.5 Back
21 First
Report, 2000-01, para 17 Back
22 Appendix,
section 6 Back
23 Appendix,
section 1.6 Back
24 See
paras 32-34 Back
25 See
para 35 Back
26 Appendix,
section 1.9 Back
27 All
figures quoted are net of VAT. Back
28 See
paras 27-31 Back
29 Less
VAT and ticket refunds. Back
30 That
is, dividing the total deficit (the contribution by Parliament)
by the number of visitors. Back
31 First
Report 2000-01, para 16 Back
32 First
Report, 1998-99, para 18 Back
33 Official
Report, 26 May 1999, cols
382-410 Back
34 First
Report, 1999-2000, para 13 Back
35 See
para 37 Back
36 This
year's experience is that at least 50 per cent of visitors were
from overseas; the experience of Westminster Abbey suggests that
this could ultimately rise to 75-80 per cent. Back
37 Currently
commercially confidential Back
38 Official
Report, 26 February 2001,
col 674 Back
39 Appendix,
section 1.11 Back
40 Guided
tours: British Museum £8; St Paul's Cathedral £2.50
+ £5 entrance fee; Westminster Abbey £3 + £6 entrance
fee [source: London Tourist Board]. See also Appendix section
8 Back
41
First Report, 2000-01, para 35 Back
42 Appendix
section 7.4 Back
43 First
Report, 2000-01, para 41 Back
44 An
initial analysis suggests that including Portcullis House might
increase overall operational costs by 20-25 per cent. Back
|