| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the very thoughtful contribution that he is making. I hope that his Committee will accept that, in terms of value for money, a comparatively small investment made now could result in major improvements, comparable with those made in legislative assemblies in other parts of the world. While his constituents can come here and see us at work relatively easily, the constituents of those of us who come from further afield have much greater difficulty in doing so. It is important for young people, particularly during their school years, to have the opportunity to see Parliament at work electronically when they cannot possibly visit these buildings.
Mr. Lepper: I would certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important educational function of being able to watch the proceedings of this place on television, via the internet or by some other means that might become available in the near future. However, the fact remains that people come from far afield to visit these buildings and to see what goes on inside them. That will always be the case, and I want us to guard against the notion that technological advance might make it preferable to watch what is going on here over the internet or by some other similar means, rather than by coming here to see Parliament at work. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, however.
I support the proposals before us, but I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne will be able to give the House assurances about the involvement of members of my Committee in any future planning of proposals for a visitor centre.
9.11 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con):
This is the wrong proposal at the wrong time. It is what the Americans call a boondoggle, and it really is time that it was exposed. I follow very much the arguments of the
11 May 2004 : Column 312
hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), but I want first to pick up on why I think that the proposal is being made at the wrong time.
We find ourselves in an odd position because, on the one hand, the Leader of the House, no less, has said that there will be a
"wide-ranging security review that the Speaker has ordered, with my support and that of the House of Commons Commission".
Well, I suppose that makes it all right, then. The Leader of the House has announced a wide-ranging review of security, which I think that we all agree is timely and necessary. But before that review has reported, we are now being asked to give our approval to a proposal based on a security argument. So we are in the absurd position of being told that this proposal is about security, when we have not yet reached the completion of the wide-ranging security review announced by the Leader of the House. That strikes me as somewhat eccentric—I shall put it no more strongly than that. The timing of the proposal is therefore completely wrong. It is premature, and it will make a nonsense of the security review.
The other anomalous position is illustrated by the statement of the Deputy Leader of the House that the report
"is part of a wider strategy of improving information about, and access to, the Palace of Westminster."
"the Government regard the reception building very much as the first stage. We hope that we will be able to build consensus on proposals for a proper visitor and education centre, with space for exhibitions interpreting our work, for the reception of school parties, and perhaps for a book and souvenir shop."—[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 466, 509–512.]
What we are being asked to approve here is simply phase one of an overall project, and we are being asked to do it in a detached way. So in two respects, first in terms of security and second in terms of the overall vision of those who see this place as a theme park—I shall come back to that in a moment—we are again being asked to look at only part of the argument. We are therefore embarking on a debate based on a partial and premature approach.
Paragraph 2 includes the contention that
"across the UK there are many people who are keen to be more closely involved in Parliament's work but who are not currently engaged."
Members of Parliament are very taken with such contentions, which we like to hear because they make us all feel better about ourselves, but I do not know what evidence exists for that contention. I suspect that it is simply regarded as self-evident but I am not sure that it is true that many people are keen to be more closely involved in Parliament's work. The philosophical basis and thrust of the report is in doubt from the start, because simply stating a contention does not make it true although we are often fond of that approach. Doubt arises immediately about our motivation.
Paragraph 3 contains a phrase that I find somewhat more attractive and refers to
"recognising that the Palace of Westminster is primarily a place of work and public access should not impinge on that work."
That is a welcome statement. For some time I have worried about the danger that, as we do less and less useful work in the House of Commons because the
11 May 2004 : Column 313
Government have throttled it and give Members fewer and fewer opportunities to do their job, we will turn the place into a theme park. We are telling people, "Come and sit behind a glass Screen." Even more absurdly, we are saying, "Come and parade silently along while we do our business here in the Chamber" because visiting the building and seeing what happens here is subtly and gradually becoming more important than what we do in it. Again, that is an underlying but unstated part of what we are asked to approve this evening.
The report is all about making the place more welcoming to visitors rather than thinking more seriously about what we do in the Palace of Westminster. That bothers me because it shows a mindset that is becoming all too common among Members of Parliament and our esteemed establishment figures. They believe that much more emphasis should be placed on lavatories and ramps without displaying much concern about the fact that increasingly fewer Members attend or are able to carry out their duties.
Earlier today, we had a drastically truncated debate in which we were sadly unable to complete our scrutiny of an important Bill. That passed almost without comment. We usher more and more visitors through the building to watch us doing less and less effective work. That is an odd view of the parliamentary process but it appears to motivate an increasing amount of what we do. I find that sad and wish that we would resist it.
Mr. Gale: Would my right hon. Friend like to reflect on the number of people who pack the Public Gallery on some occasions and the relatively few people who pack—if that is the right word—any Galleries in Select Committee hearings and especially Standing Committee sittings? In the context of a debate on public access, will he further reflect on the fact that our Standing Committees are not even televised?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend typically makes an incisive point. Again, I am not aware of any reflection upon it. Hon. Members often cite important Committee work Upstairs as an alibi for not being in the Chamber. Those of us who are part of the secret society know that that is sometimes true but that it is often not exactly true. The proof of that pudding would be to ask why we are not spending much more time and attention on greater and better access for the public to what some would regard as our real work in both Standing and Select Committees instead of ushering them through ridiculous pieces of glass and funny corridors to see an ever emptier Chamber. Such questions are not asked because we are probably rather afraid of the answer to the question of why we are here on fewer and fewer occasions. So, the whole thrust—the whole philosophy—behind the report is flawed. The assumptions made and the underpinnings should be seriously questioned.
It gets worse, because when we consider the financial aspects we are entitled to become slightly ashamed of ourselves. Here we are, posturing and posing as the custodians of the taxpayers' purse, and scrutinising in the House of Commons the amount of money that the wicked Government are spending. Indeed the Government are wicked and indeed they spend far too much—let there be no doubt about that—but when do we gaze at our own financial navels? The answer is all too rarely.
11 May 2004 : Column 314
The real truth is that there are effectively no constraints on expenditure by the House of Commons on itself. In that, we are disgracefully self-indulgent. We have before us a very good example of it, because here we are, quietly and unobtrusively voting ourselves what paragraph 32 of the report coyly refers to as
"in the region of £5 million."
That is not much money if we say it fairly quickly, and I am sure that the taxpayers will not mind it being lavished on what the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), referred to in her charming way as "their Parliament". Whether that is how people see it I leave to others to judge.
So, £5 million is involved. Well, no it is not, because the report then says, semi-honestly:
"This figure does not take into account the effects of inflation or the cost of any additional related security works required once consultations with security and heritage bodies have been completed."
That is the point that was made so effectively by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). This is a pig in a poke—another blank cheque that we are being asked to sign. The figure is not £5 million at all. It might not even be
"in the region of £5 million."
It says here in the report that the
"figure does not take into account . . . consultations"
yet to come. Then it says, with almost charming transparency:
"The final figure is therefore likely to be higher."
How much higher we do not know. Could it be just £1 million higher, or twice that? Could it be, following the pattern of the Scottish parliamentary building, 10 times the current estimate? We do not know, but we are being asked this evening to give our approval.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are in fact not being asked to give our approval this evening, because in the final disgrace to the Parliament—I am ashamed to admit it—we will not be asked to vote on the measure this evening. We will be asked to come back tomorrow. No doubt several hundred colleagues will vote, in that disgrace called the deferred Division, on something of which they have little knowledge due to the fact that they have not bothered to be here to take part in the debate.
Who knows, but maybe even the Prime Minister will vote tomorrow, because the deferred Division will be staged at a time convenient to him, when he happens to pay his once-a-week visit to this place to answer questions. Rather conveniently, he will be able to nip through the Lobby immediately afterwards to cast his vote on a ballot paper for the deferred Division, not having been here for the debate. I do not particularly blame him for that, because, sadly, nearly every other Member of the House shares in it, as it happens.
So, colleagues—those guardians of the taxpayer—will waltz through the Division Lobby and put their name on a bit of paper tomorrow to sign away at least £5 million of their constituents' money, probably with very little knowledge of where it is going. That is for them, not us here at present, to answer for.
11 May 2004 : Column 315
We do not know how much this measure will cost. That is the conclusion we draw from the report.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |