1 Background
1. Both Houses of Parliament have recognised for
some time the importance of providing better facilities for visitors
to the Palace of Westminster. For example, the strategic plan
of the House of Commons Commission includes an aim "to improve
public understanding and knowledge of the House's work and to
increase accessibility, subject to the requirements of security".[1]
This objective led the House authorities to undertake an examination
of existing facilities for visitors and explore options for improving
the current arrangements.
2. We strongly support this objective. As the Modernisation
Committee noted in its 2001-02 Report, "the House of Commons
belongs to the British people who elect it and who pay for it".[2]
Furthermore, we note the concerns of many, reiterated recently
in comments by the Hansard Society, 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".[3]
During a period of concern about declining turnouts at elections,
we believe that improving facilities for visitors is an important
part of engaging members of the public with the parliamentary
process.
3. Our Committees have therefore supported proposals
which have encouraged members of the public to visit the Houses
of Parliament, while recognising that the Palace of Westminster
is primarily a place of work and public access should not impinge
on that work. For example, the Administration Committee published
two Reports during the 1997 Parliament which set out proposals
for opening the visitor tour route during the summer recess.[4]
Following two successful trial openings in the summers of 2000
and 2001, the House of Commons approved the permanent opening
of the visitor tour route on 31 January 2002. We believe
the summer openings, and the establishment of the Central Tours
Office in November 2002 to support summer opening and Members'
tours throughout the year, have improved the arrangements for
visitors and have increased the accessibility of the Palace of
Westminster.
4. Nevertheless, as we set out in section 3, the
facilities for visitors within the Palace of Westminster remain
unsatisfactory. While there have been some improvements in recent
years, there has been no unified attempt to provide better access
and welcome for visitors, and to provide information for visitors
to explain Parliament's role and how it works. This led the Modernisation
Committee and the House of Commons Commission to support the concept
of an interpretative visitor centre. A senior group of officials
examined the feasibility of this idea and commissioned two reports
by consultants.
5. However, when the consultants' detailed proposals
were put to committees, including ourselves, in early 2003, they
met heavy resistance. Although new handling arrangements for visitors
were largely welcomed, elements of the plan for an exhibition
area were criticised. Most controversial was the proposed use
of accommodation off Westminster Hall. This is currently occupied
by the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (British Group), and is seen
as crucial to their work. Even with this space incorporated into
the proposed scheme, the visitor centre would have needed further
space, such as the construction of an extension on Cromwell Green.
6. The lack of support for this full-scale interpretative
visitor centre led the Commission, in agreement with the Lords
House Committee, to decide that a reassessment of the scheme was
necessary. The work already undertaken by consultants would be
used by a group of senior officials of both Houses who would assist
committees in examining:
· what
improved arrangements should be made for access to the building,
suited to different types of visitors and consistent with the
requirements of security;
· what
range of facilities might be provided for the reception, information
and education of visitors to Parliament; and
· how
excessive pressure on visitor facilities and interference with
the working of Parliament could be avoided.
7. We have considered the revised proposals put
forward by officials and we are grateful for their work. We have
also consulted the Administration and Works Committee and the
Information Committee in the House of Lords. We have taken account
of their comments in this report, and are pleased that both of
those Committees have given their general support to these proposals.
This Report sets out our conclusions.
8. As a result
of our deliberations, we believe there is a compelling case for
pressing ahead with a new reception and security building on Cromwell
Green as a first step to improving facilities for visitors and
enhancing security. This forms the central recommendation of our
Report. We recognise that this proposal would
not provide the facilities envisaged in a full-scale visitor centre
but we believe that such a facility is not feasible within the
Palace of Westminster. We therefore recommend that progress should
be made in those areas where facilities can be enhanced without
interfering with the workings of Parliament, and on which a consensus
is achievable.
9. In section 2 of this Report we examine the numbers
and type of visitors to the Palace of Westminster. We go on to
examine the current arrangements for welcoming these visitors
and the shortcomings of these arrangements. In section 4 we set
out the proposals for a new reception and security building. Finally,
we consider the issues which should be key to the development
of proposals for a full-scale interpretative visitor centre which
we believe should remain an aim of both Houses of Parliament.
1 The House of Lords strategic plan contains a similarly
worded objective. Back
2
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons,
Modernisation of the House of Commons: a reform programme,
Second Report HC 1168-I 2001-02 5 September 2002, para 17 Back
3
Hansard Society, Connecting Communities Interim Report, December
2003, p 8 Back
4
Administration Committee, Proposal to re-open the Line of Route
during the Summer Adjournment, First Report HC 394 1998-99;
and Administration Committee, Revised framework for the re-opening
of the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment, First
Report HC 198 1999-2000 Back
| 
