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
|
