Examination of Witnesses (Questions 41-59)
MR ANDY
MARTIN, MS
JACQUI BANERJEE,
MS STEPHANIE
CARNACHAN AND
DR ELIZABETH
HALLAM SMITH
13 JUNE 2006
Q41 Chairman: Would you like to introduce
yourselves, and as we might touch upon content this time I think
Elizabeth Hallam Smith, who is in charge of content, might come
and sit at the table as well. Thank very much for coming. Would
you like to just tell the Committee about yourselves. Jacqui Banerjee
first.
Ms Banerjee: I am Jacqui Banerjee,
I am an Associate Director at Continental Research, and I am responsible
for project managing research around the visitor centre on schools
on the quantitative side of research.
Ms Carnachan: I am Stephanie Carnachan
and I am a Senior Research Executive at Continental Research.
I manage the qualitative stage of the research amongst teachers
to obtain their views on the new visitor centre.
Q42 Chairman: So you two did the
stuff on schools and teachers?
Ms Carnachan: Yes.
Q43 Chairman: Andy Martin?
Mr Martin: I am Research Director
at MORI and I am also head of leisure research and have been there
10 years this weekend. I managed the visitor research which involved
interviewing people who are currently coming to the building,
UK visitors who might come to the building, and also overseas
visitors who might come to the building or to the visitor centre.
Q44 Chairman: I think it might be
best to start with you, Mr Martin, because your research delineates
some of the very important features. Would you like to remind
the Committee first of two or three major points which you found
in the research?
Mr Martin: Gosh, where do I start?
We did both qualitative and quantitative research. It is important
to point out there are some quite significant differences, particularly
when we started talking to people in the focus groups about the
idea of a visitor centre at the Houses of Parliament, there was
an awful lot of cynicism. "Why do I want to go and do that?"
"What are you going to do to make me go?" was one of
the comments we had. "Is this something just to get Labour
back in power?" We heard an awful lot about the negative
side of the politics, but as we went on and described what might
be involved, the idea of engaging with the political process,
they became far more enthused and more enthusiastic about the
idea of visiting. To a certain extent, this was followed through
in quantitative research and the calculations we made on the back
of those research findings of potential UK visitors and potential
overseas visitors gave a figure of roughly 1.3 million visitors
per annum to within certain degrees of accuracy, so a significant
growth in the number of visitors coming to the building. The one
thing I guess it is worth pointing out is the sorts of people
who said they were most likely to come are the sorts of people
who tend to go out to other attractions. They are aged 45 through
to 59, they are AB social class, they are active generally. So
in terms of increasing engagement, the sorts of people who might
come might not necessarily extend that engagement process. I could
go on but maybe that is a good place to stop at this point.
Q45 Chairman: One of the things that
struck me about your findings, it did not surprise me very much,
was the relatively high age of the age group that were most interested,
the 45s to 59s and even retirees and old aged pensioners. They
constitute quite a high proportion of our visitors. That was one
of your findings?
Mr Martin: Certainly that was
what came out of the quantitative research. When we asked people
about why they would not visit, it was quite a significant difference
according to age, so younger people said, "It is boring,
there is nothing there that would interest me," whereas older
people were more likely to say, "I don't like to come to
London, it is too far," something along those lines. A lot
needs to be done to proactively engage people with the idea that
they might find something interesting here, particularly young
people, and it needs a step change.
Q46 Chairman: Your findings did not
surprise me because I have been instrumental in the last six months
in setting up a small museum, the Cartoon Museum in London, about
150 yards away from the British Museum, and although we have lots
of students, the thing that strikes me whenever I go there is
the number of old age pensioners and older visitors who are going
around. There is a lot of leisure activity going on. They seem
to go on tours of these different facilities all over London.
Mr Martin: We have an aging population.
We have a heck of a lot of people retiring early. They have more
money, more time, more access to facilities than ever before.
This is a huge group.
Q47 Chairman: Could you lead us into
what they are likely to be interested in because you also made
some interesting findings there?
Mr Martin: Slight differences
between the UK residents and the overseas visitors. For the UK
residents in particular, they were interested in actually what
goes on here, how laws are made, what actually goes on inside
this building, because there is a huge lack of knowledge about
what actually happens here. No-one has ever bothered to tell people
so they are interested to find out quite a lot about it. For the
overseas visitors, they are more interested in the architecture,
the building itself, the history, the big events that have happened
here over time. It would be expected there would be less interest
in the whole political process in the UK.
Q48 Chairman: Do you think it would
be sensible for us to have a separate track for foreigners? If
they are interested in the architecture they may want to go through
the building, but do we really want to attract them into our visitor
centre at all? If they are really interested in the magic of the
place, could we not have another route for all of them, the present
route in effect? They are not going to be very interested in the
Bill of Rights, are they, or the Gunpowder Plot or what Simon
de Montfort did? They want to see this building.
Mr Martin: They want a bit of
history. They want the Guy Fawkes/Oliver Cromwell, the top 10
attractions type of thing. The thing the visitors told us is at
the moment there is not enough information; the guides are brilliant,
they like coming through the building, but they would like more
information. That goes for UK and overseas visitors.
Baroness Prosser: Lord Chairman, if we
think of our own experiences when visiting different parts of
the world, and I remember visiting places like China, I think
you are completely fascinated by finding out exactly who did what
when. I think most people are keen on the history.
Q49 Helen Jones: Looking at some
of the ideas that people came up with in your research for a visitor
centre, there seemed to be a number of things about some chance
to ask questions, opportunities to meet MPs, a typical day in
the life of an MP. Can you enlighten us a bit more on how much
of what people were coming up with depended on the involvement
of Members in one way or another, and what are the difficulties
in that, bearing in mind that this is a working building and MPs
are here to do a job, despite the fact that many people think
we are dossing about all day waiting for someone to drop in and
visit us? Is that a problem?
Mr Martin: It is a bit of a moot
point. On balance, most people, with all due respect, did not
want to meet the MPs that much, on the basis that they thought
they would get a politically spun response to any questions they
asked. They would rather meet someone who can give them a straight
answer and they do not at this point in time think that would
be an MP.
Helen Jones: What a surprise!
Q50 Chairman: Oh dear!
Mr Martin: On balance, I do not
think that is something that will necessarily be a central feature
of what they expect. What they would like to do is put their views
across and feel that their views are being listened to by somebody,
whether that is by video booth or registering questions somehow
interactively, just to get a feeling that their impressions are
being heard.
Q51 Helen Jones: If they did that
would they not require answers? It is all very well having an
opinion booth, but if people feel that goes in the ether and nothing
happens, is that not going to feed the cynicism?
Mr Martin: It is possible. I suspect
if people knew that it was at least being listened to then they
would feel more comfortable about it.
Helen Jones: What I am trying to tease
out is there are some things which seem to require more work from
Members. If we go down that route, it poses a lot of difficulties
for us in perhaps raising expectations that we cannot fulfil.
Chairman: That is a good point. Let us
stay with content.
Q52 Mr Gerrard: One of the things
that you said in here is that you would expect that most people
would want to go to the visitor centre as well as the main building.
You are also suggesting numbers that are very significantly in
excess of the numbers now. Have you given any thought, or if not
perhaps it is something we need to think about, to the actual
management of people through this building, because given how
crowded it can become now sometimes with the numbers going through
and how difficult it can sometimes be for people to see properly
what is going on, how do we increase the numbers going through
the building without making the whole experience less comfortable?
Mr Martin: There is one thing
we should point out. The statistic about the people who would
go to a visitor centre as well as coming to the House was from
a survey of current visitors to the House, people who have come
to meet an MP or to go to the Gallery, they said they would go
to the visitor centre as well. What we did not ask was the proportion
of people who would go to the visitor centre and then come into
the House.
Q53 Mr Gerrard: The other way round.
Mr Martin: There would be a significant
increase, I would imagine. Once people get on site and so close
and suddenly realise they could go in, then they will want to
go in, and clearly that will have serious implications in terms
of crowding, and how feasible it is for people to book on a tour,
for example.
Q54 John Thurso: Can I just follow
up on the question of visitor numbers because I think it is important
we understand the context of the numbers that are being bandied
about. The 1.3 million is the number in your own report, which
you are quite clear is a range figure from 950,000 to 1.6 million.
Forgive my slight scepticism, but having spent a lot of my life
in the tourism industry, I know how flaky some of those figures
can be. Can you give me some feel for the robustness of those
numbers? Part of the reason for asking is because I think one
of the biggest problems is if we talk a set numbers that then
turned out to be lower, even when the lower number was a success,
bearing in the mind the Dome was the most successful visitor attraction
in British history but it was judged a failure because the expectation
was pitched too high.
Mr Martin: Absolutely. The thing
that is absolutely crucial to remind ourselves of is this point:
we took a snapshot in the summer of last year and gave people
as much information as we could about what might be included in
this visitor centre. In the report we say exactly what we told
them but there was quite a lot in there. Based on that information
at that particular point in time, X% of people said they were
certain to visit this attraction. As you get closer to building
this attraction and knowing what is going to go inside, you need
to revise those estimates. The problem with the Dome was that
until three months before it opened people still did not know
what was going to be inside to be able to give an accurate estimate
of whether they thought they would go or not. It is crucial to
carry that on and do it with more accurate information as time
goes by rather than constantly harking back to the 1.3 million.
The other thing to say is it is not an exact science putting forward
visitor calculations. We have done this on a number of occasions
and the most reliable approach that we have come up with so far
is effectively taking anyone who says they are certain to do something
and ignoring everybody else. If they say they are "very likely"
to go, that is just being polite, so we have tried to be as conservative
as possible in the estimates.
Q55 John Thurso: It would be quite
wise for us to have one number in mind for planning the building
which might be nearer the upper end of the range but not publicly
to necessarily talk about that and thereby not create an expectation
of visitor numbers because we would just be putting up an Aunt
Sally to be knocked down as a "visitor number failure".
Mr Martin: Absolutely, that would
make sense.
Q56 Chairman: Just sticking on numbers
for a moment, one of the recommendations is that one of the main
interests should be the history of Parliament. Let us just suppose
the visitor centre had the most marvellous history of Parliament,
with all the liberties and freedoms, and it was very dramatic
and very exciting, and it became necessary almost for every secondary
school child to go through it, did you envisage anything like
that at all or not?
Mr Martin: You should talk to
the guys who did the education research rather than myself. There
are some wonderful attractions around the UK and the idea of every
school child going is some way off, so I would be very surprised.
Chairman: With exams on citizenship they
might have some answers if they came here. Frank?
Q57 Mr Doran: A question for Mr Martin.
Looking through your report I think there are a couple of areas
where I would be interested in your response. Helen Jones made
the point about politics and politicians and the public likes
to keep them separate, which is a strange concept to me, but you
also make the point that people would like more information before
they begin the tour. I am just wondering how we pool all that
together and how can we deal with it. The other point is about
the comment you make about people feeling as though they were
getting in the way or that security in some ways was intrusive,
but part of the problem in this area is the need for high security.
I would be interested to know if you have any thoughts on that
as well.
Mr Martin: They are both very
complicated issues. In terms of the security issue first, the
visitors recognise that this is a working building and that they
have to fit in around what is going on, but it is probably a case
of little things like the sort of welcome they get, the sort of
reception they get which will make the difference between a satisfying
visit or not. At the end of the day, most people leave here very
satisfied with the visit so it is not a huge issue there. The
amount of information that people get—certainly one of the
comments that the current visitors were giving us—was that
it was all very well going on the tour but they did not know very
much about what to expect beforehand or, for example, they had
not had the chance to buy a guide book which they could be leafing
through while they are waiting to go and tour round the building.
The focus groups were throwing up all sorts of exciting ideas
about videos and chambers that they can go into to get a feel
for what they are about to experience. You could get that welcome
at a visitor centre, setting them up so people then know what
to expect when they go round and are unleashed on the building
itself. In terms of the political process it needs to be apolitical.
So long as it is not perceived to be telling some kind of party
line, then I think people would not mind what they hear.
Q58 Mr Doran: If I could come to
our other two witnesses who have been quiet for quite a long time
so here is your opportunity, the results of the survey that you
have done are interesting but I get the impression that you get
different responses in the south of the country to the north of
the country. My constituents are in Scotland and I would be interested
to know what sort of response in particular you get from the north
of the country where it is much more difficult to access Parliament?
Ms Banerjee: In terms of regional
differences, the south and London were slightly more likely to
have organised trips to the House of Commons in the past. It was
22% in London and the south that had organised trips in the past,
16% in the north, which is the north of England and Scotland,
and 14% in the Midlands. They are also more likely to organise
trips in the future in the south. In London 38% were definitely
likely to organise a trip in future and that compares to 12% overall.
In the north that was 9%. So there is quite a big difference.
I think it is possibly to do with the travelling time involved.
Q59 Mr Doran: You did not delve any
deeper? Obviously it was to do with travelling time but did anyone
come up with any ideas or incentives that would encourage them
to come here more regularly?
Ms Carnachan: From the qualitative
point of view, the teachers said if they are going to take time
out of the classroom they really have to be able to justify that
from an educational perspective, although they did say that they
would travel to London. We did some interviews with schools that
were in the north of England and so long as they feel that they
can justify it from an educational perspective and they can fit
it into a one-day visit (because obviously staying overnight you
get into a whole other experience) then they did not see any reason
why they would not do it.
| 
