Select Committee on Administration Minutes of Evidence


Submission by Professor Victor Middleton, OBE

  My statement is based on information provided by the Administration Committee. I have acted on a voluntary basis in assessing the implications of documents I have read and my views draw on my wide experience of visitor attractions but do not reflect original research for Parliament in the UK or other countries.

  First, the basic objectives to which both Houses of Parliament are committed—connecting better with the public by providing improved access, information and understanding of Parliament and its workings in an interesting and friendly environment—are fully understood. My comments below are intended to facilitate achievement of those objectives in what is likely to be the most cost effective way.

  Secondly, it seems appropriate to note that, while the proposed Visitor Information and Interpretation Centre (VIC) is intended to meet the requirements of connecting Parliament with the public, there is already a strong commitment to the same core objectives in the extensive communications programme set out in the Group on Information for the Public (GIP) Business Plan (6th Draft). Covering plans for the years 2006-11, the most relevant aspects of this programme include:

    —  Greatly expanded educational provision for schools with an ambitious target to reach 90% of schools by 2011 and a new Voters' Guide from 2006.

    —  Extensive Website developments to communicate with the public, including dedicated pages for education needs.

    —  New regional developments in outreach across the country targeted at the public as well as schools.

    —  The improved welcome, information and security checking provision at the Cromwell Green building, due to open in October 2006.

  Drawing on the data provided in the GIP Business Plan, planned expenditure on the developments noted above amounts to £3.7 million revenue spending for the year 2006-07, plus £3 million investment to develop the new website.

  Thirdly, It is in the context of the access and information provision noted in point 2 above that it seems wise to question whether a new PVIC outside the Palace of Westminster could be cost effective.

  Essentially, cost effectiveness for a new PVIC will reflect how many people of what kind are likely to be reached by a necessarily expensive new building—in comparison with other ways of connecting with Parliament. There are estimated to be some 700-800,000 visitors each year to Parliament at present who are not pass-holders. There are many reasons for visiting Parliament and there is no clear breakdown of these figures indicating how many are guests of members or from UK and overseas, although there are estimates of those who visit the public galleries, take a summer tour, or take part in members tours and school tours.

  Using judgment, one may estimate that out of the total visits, not more than around 400-500,000 are general interest visitors of the sort that might be attracted to visit a newly built PVIC and about half of these (200,000-250,000) are likely to be from the UK with the rest from overseas. The other visitors over the year will have specific reasons for a visit to the Palace of Westminster unrelated to the rationale of a new PVIC, such as business with Members, Committee related visits and so on.

  MORI research commissioned for Parliament (not printed) indicates that, assuming a payment of £5.00 per adult, a best estimate of 520,000 UK adult residents might be expected to visit a newly built PVIC if the building, its contents and marketing meets their expectations. Because the MORI estimate is a national projection, however, the 520,000 must include most of the 200,000—250,000 UK visitors who already visit and gain access to Parliament (see above). So the number of new UK visitors to be attracted to a new interpretation centre each year may not be more than around 300,000. According to the MORI research these additional visitors are likely to be mostly in the AB/C1 social groups and mostly aged over 45. It is, of course, for Parliament to decide if these are the users that it wishes to make new provision for.

  My conclusions, from the review of the papers sent to me and having regard to the alternative means of engaging with the public covered in point 2 above are that:

  1.  The capital and revenue cost of attracting an additional 300,000 more UK visits a year would not be cost effective and would not attract the audience profile most likely to be the target for a new centre. The MORI evidence suggests the estimated UK visits would be halved if the cost of entry were to rise to £10.00.

  2.  In order to achieve the educational targets already agreed it appears to be essential to provide space that is close (easy walking distance for children) or adjacent to Parliament and capable of handling at least 250 school children at any one time. If some additional space next to that which has to be provided for education, could also be used for ticketing tours and providing at least some information to general interest visitors unwilling or unable to book tours or queue for the galleries, the benefit of the allocated space would be greatly increased. Space in the Old Palace Yard building, for example, if it could be released from existing requirements, would appear by observation to be highly suitable for that purpose. Alternative accommodation for existing users might be provided at a fraction of the cost of a new visitor centre.

  3.  When the new reception arrangements on Cromwell Green are operational, it should be possible to introduce a monitoring system that establishes the type of visitors more accurately and their reasons for visit. The process should also identify times of the day/week/year when more visitors could be accommodated and given at least a partial exposure to the Palace of Westminster building and ambience without over crowding the working areas. At present existing visitor numbers are achieved in circumstances in which marketing is minimal and the access and welcome are acknowledged to be poor. Even so, all of those who do visit now are all exposed to the unique, world class architectural splendour and authentic ambience of the Barry building, which cannot be replicated, and the evidence indicates they are very well satisfied with the experience they get. This option, if agreed, could be marketed through the space noted above for educational visits. Of course architects can design an attractive new building and designers can provide information and interpretation within it. In common with many major visitor centres, however, the proposed PVIC may involve capital and revenue cost overshoot with which Members of both Houses of Parliament will be familiar. Alternatively, with basic improvements in marketing, welcome and information for visitors, it may be possible to attract additional UK visitor numbers that may not be so different from the MORI projections for new visitors to a costly newly built and priced attraction.

13 July 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 18 April 2007