APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OBJECTIVES OF
THE PVIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
On 28 February 2006, the House of Commons Administration
Sub-committee agreed to work with the House of Lords Information
Committee for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into a PVIC.
Officers of both Houses initiated a PVIC Development Project to
examine all possible options. Among its objectives[43]
were:
— To investigate on behalf of both
Houses all the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
in establishing a Parliamentary Visitor and Information Centre
as agreed in the terms of reference of the two Committees.
— To ensure that plans for any such
building meet the needs of Parliament, those who use it, work
there and visit. It must also consider the neighbours in Westminster,
relevant bodies such as Westminster City Council and English Heritage
and external initiatives such as the World Squares for All Project
and Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan.
— To develop the idea of a PVIC as
fully as possible (including visitor research, costed options,
analysis of potential sites, impact assessments, traffic plans
and land searches) so that an informed decision can be made by
Members.
OBJECTIVES OF
A PVIC
The main objective of the PVIC should be to
promote public understanding of the work and role of Parliament
by providing an engaging learning experience for people which
will enthuse as well as inform them. [44]
The secondary objectives should be:
— to enrich a visit to the Houses of
Parliament;
— to replace a visit to Parliament;
— to engage and connect with the public;
— to provide facilities for visitors;
— to provide an opportunity to meet
Members at pre-planned events or receptions; and
— to demonstrate that Parliament is
welcoming and accessible to all.
THE NEED
FOR A
PVIC—THE CONTEXT
The need for a PVIC has been identified in several
reports and agreed upon by different Committees and groups over
recent years.
In July 2002 the Group on Information for the
Public commissioned, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission,
a firm of consultants, Haley Sharpe, and a firm of conservation
architects, Purcell Miller Tritton to conduct an initial feasibility
study for a visitor centre for Parliament.
The report recommended a scheme which would
combine a security and reception area at Cromwell Green, a visitor
centre off Westminster Hall and the option of additional buildings
in Victoria Tower Gardens. Reaction was mixed. The first part
of the scheme was popular but the idea of creating a visitor centre
off the Hall was opposed because it would displace current occupants
(CPA and IPU) and services.
The consultants were therefore asked to look
at a second study focusing on options for a visitor centre outside
of the Estate and also siting it adjacent to Westminster Hall
but displacing fewer services. In May 2003 they produced their
second study. They concluded that they could not site a visitor
centre on a single floor in the Hall or extend into Cromwell Green.
They could however have space for a reception area with improved
security screening.
The option of building a visitor centre on Victoria
Tower Gardens would be attractive but it is a sensitive site and
it was felt that permission from English Heritage, Royal Parks
and Westminster City Council would not be forthcoming. This meant
all the plans had to be reassessed. The work done by these consultants
would be used to assist the Commons Administration Committee and
Accommodation and Works Committee to decide on the best course
of action. In February 2004 they considered there was a compelling
case to go ahead with a new entrance route including a Visitor
Reception Building and a reception area in Westminster Hall but
leave a large scale external visitor centre for a later date.
In February 2004 the Commons Accommodation and
Works and Administration Committees published a joint report of
their inquiry called "Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament".
It stated: "In this Report, we recommend that there should
be a new reception/security building at the north end of Cromwell
Green and the west side of the Jubilee Café. . . . In considering
these proposals, we recognise the demands for a large-scale interpretative
visitor centre. We support this concept but believe that this
is not feasible within the Palace of Westminster, and therefore
recommend that suitable accommodation outside the building be
sought. In this report we recommend to the House new entry arrangements
for visitors. Yet, within the limitations of the historic building,
and without undue disruption of current users, we cannot identify
a space that would offer other facilities that we judge desirable:
— an exhibition space explaining the
work and role of Parliament;
— accommodation for school parties
and their reception;
— a bookshop/retail facility;
— a ticket office for tours of Parliament;
and
— a display area for pictures and artefacts
from Parliament's collection.
These facilities await a fuller study, and a
further report."
This report was approved by both Houses.
The Report "Connecting Parliament with
the Public" from the House of Commons Modernisation Committee,
printed 26 May 2004, stated under the heading of a Visitor Centre
"We welcome the work of the Administration and Accommodation
and Works Committees and the House's endorsement of the proposals
for the construction of the reception and security building. We
recognise the several unique difficulties involved in establishing
new visitor facilities near the Palace of Westminster, but urge
that all possible options are explored.
Our starting point is that any Visitor Centre
project should have four main objectives:
(a) it must provide a welcome to visitors;
(b) it must provide an interesting and friendly
environment;
(c) it should make Parliament more accessible,
allowing visitors to see at least something of what Parliament
is and does without necessarily having to visit the galleries,
committees or take a tour; and
(d) it must improve public understanding
and knowledge of the work and role of Parliament.
. . . in our view the need for a dedicated Visitor
Centre remains. Once the overdue improvement to Parliament's welcome
and access has been addressed, attention can focus on meeting
the other three main objectives of the Visitor Centre Project
through planning for a dedicated Visitor Centre (Paragraph 82).
The response from the House of Commons Commission
to the Modernisation Committee's report supported the concept
of an interpretative visitor centre. It stated "The recommendations
will be addressed in the development of plans for a Visitor Centre,
in conjunction with the appropriate domestic committees. A number
of options are being explored, and the four specific objectives
identified by the Committee will be borne in mind by all those
responsible. Given the pressures on space in the Estate, the best
opportunity to provide dedicated educational facilities for the
use of the Education Unit, as recommended by the Committee, would
seem to lie in the proposed Visitor Centre. The proposed Visitor
Centre will, as the Committee recommended, have as one of its
primary objectives `allowing visitors to see at least something
of what Parliament is and does without necessarily having to visit
the galleries, committees or take a tour'."
In June 2004 The House of Lords First Report
of Session 2003-04 from the House Committee stated "The
provision of better facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster
has been under discussion in the Committees of both Houses for
well over a year. The principle has long received general support,
and the improvement of physical access and facilities for visitors
is part of the House Administration's Strategic Plan. As is noted
in the Joint Report, we recognise that there are other facilities
for visitors which might be desirable in the longer term, but
which cannot immediately be implemented within the limitations
of the historic Palace of Westminster and without undue disruption
of current users. We consider, however, that we should make progress
with these current proposals (ie a reception area) as the first
step towards improving facilities for visitors and enhancing security."
This was noted in the House of Lords Annual
Report 2004-05.
The corporate goals listed in the Twenty-seventh
Annual Report of the House of Commons Commission 2004-05 states
under Objective 6 "Improving public understanding and access"
that the goals are "To develop a clear and coherent message
to the public about the role and work of the House of Commons:and
to explore new ways in which citizens of all ages can be involved
in the polictical process and be better informed of the work of
Parliament."
In addition, a report from the Puttnam Commission
Members Only? Parliament in the Public Eye was launched
on 24 May 2005. Members Only? is the report of the Hansard
Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy.
It stated that "Parliament should be accessible to the public
. . . This means, for example, . . . visits to parliament should
offer significantly more than a heritage tour."
Hansard Society's report An Interpretative
Visitor Centre at Parliament was presented to the Group on
the Information of the Public in May 2005 as part of their Enhancing
Engagement project. They concluded " While Parliament can
do little to change public perceptions of politicians, it can
create a different lens through which people view the institution,
by pro-actively and directly informing members of the public about
its work . . . A visitor centre at Parliament could be an important
part of this lens. Visitor centres can be an effective way of
building public awareness and understansing of issues, persons
and the work of political institutions. They can also be a good
way of injecting a welcoming atmosphere into institutions which,
by their nature, require high levels of security."
"The demand for a visitor centre was also
confirmed by a consultation we conducted with young people in
February 2005. The participants believed that having a visitor
centre would make visiting Parliament a more informative and welcoming
experience."
"A visitor centre should complement and
not replace exisiting opportunities to visit Parliament".
"The aim of a visitor centre should be
to promote knowledge, understanding and engagement with Parliament
as an institution."
On 28 February 2006 the House of Commons Administration
Sub-Committee agreed to work with the House of Lords Information
Committee for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into a proposed
visitor centre. They have held several concurrent meetings to
date (16 May, 13 June and 4 July).
On 16 May they agreed:
(a) that the working title of the centre
should be the Parliamentary Visitor and Information Centre;
(b) that the main objective of the centre
should be to promote public understanding of the work and role
of Parliament by providing an engaging experience for people which
will enthuse as well as inform them;
(c) the secondary objectives should be:
(i) to enrich a visit to the Houses of Parliament
by giving people who will visit/have visited the Chambers/committees/the
building an outline of:
— the history of Parliament including famous
figures;
— the layout and setting of the Palace;
— how Parliament works; and
— some current political issues;
(ii) to replace a visit to Parliament by
providing an opportunity for people to:
— learn something of Parliament as in (i);
— see Parliament in action by videos of
major events/typical work;
— see artefacts/pictures from Parliament's
collection;
— enjoy the historic Westminster setting;
and
— purchase books/cards/souvenirs;
(iii) to engage and connect with the public:
— within the centre;
— across the UK using the centre as a hub
for learning, education and outreach; and
— replicating the experience of the centre
as much as possible on-line;
(iv) to provide an opportunity to meet Members
at pre-planned events or receptions;
(v) to demonstrate that Parliament is welcoming
and accessible to all;
(vi) to provide interview/studio spaces available
to the media;
(d) that the centre should not be a heritage
centre or a general information centre for the whole Westminster
area;
(e) that the target audience should be current
and future UK electors, particularly hard to reach groups:
— young people in school groups;
— young people individually or with their
families;
— people who wouldn't otherwise engage
with Parliament;
— people interested in the democratic process;
— virtual visitors; and
— tourists, from UK and abroad with either
serious cultural and historical interests and/or wanting a quick
overview;
(f) that in addition to educational facilities
a café should be considered as a desirable feature (albeit
not at the front of the centre).
On 13 June 2006 they agreed that:
(a) the centre should not be considered a
tourist attraction;
(b) Parliament must provide a better service
and be able to process the numbers of visitors that existed already
before creating a centre that would attract new visitors; and
(c) all information found in the centre could
also be found on the new Parliamentary website.
At the meeting on 4 July 2006 the committees
agreed to focus on four options in the feasibility study:
(a) A full 5,500 square metres PVIC with
education facilities, displays etc.
(b) A reduced sized PVIC at 4,800 metres
squared, less accommodation.
(c) No PVIC, build a Parliamentary Education
Centre.
(d) Do nothing and use existing services
to provide education, tours and visitors with information about
parliament.
The House of Commons Administration Committee
report House of Commons Accommodation printed 26 June 2006
states "There are around 7,500 items in the art collections
of both Houses of Parliament. The Advisory Committee on Works
of Art has specifically asked us to consider whether space could
be allocated for:
— a permanent exhibition space for
items from the House of Commons collection, perhaps in the new
Visitors Reception building or proposed Visitor Centre; and
— a more modern, on-site storage facility
for the House of Commons collection.
Our sub-committee intends to consider the first
of these requests as part of its inquiry into a Parliamentary
Visitor Centre."
The introduction by The Speaker in the Twenty-eighth
Annual Report of the House of Commons Commission 2005-06 states
under "Promoting public knowledge and understanding of the
work and role of Parliament"—"A longer term project,
being examined in 2006-07 by the Administration Committee working
with the House of Lords Information Committee, is for a Parliamentary
Visitor and Information centre. This would bring together provision
for education visits, for which there is currently no purpose-built
accommodation, with information and exhibition facilities to explain
the role of Parliament and engage visitors with its current work
and past history."
CURRENT PROVISION
FOR VISITORS
AND NUMBERS
There are several ways in which visitors are
currently provided for. For those who want to look around the
building:
— Summer tours—105,000 per summer.
— Sponsored tours—152,360 per
year.
— Viewing from the Public Galleries—120-170,000
per year.
— Open House weekend—about 3,000
per year.
For those wanting information online or onsite:
— Education—www.exploreparliament.uk.
— Parliamentary Record Office—about
5,000 researchers per year.
For educational visits:
— Education unit visits—11,000
per year.
For those wanting to spend money:
— Shops for escorted visitors.
For those coming to exhibitions:
— Temporary exhibitions in Westminster
Hall or Portcullis House such as the Gun Powder Plot. 70,000 visits.
There are currently 14 Visitor Assistants and
two Supervisors employed to ensure visitors have an informative
and welcoming experience.
NEW PROVISION
FOR VISITORS
AND VISITOR
NUMBER PROJECTIONS
According to the Mori survey of potential visitors
to the proposed Parliamentary Visitor Centre in August 2005 "London
attracts c10.5 million overseas leisure visitors per annum. If
we assume half visit the Westminster area, this gives a potential
of 5.25 million visitors. 13% say they are "certain to"
visit the Centre, which gives us c680,000 overseas visitors."
"If we only include those who say they
are "certain to" visit the Centre (6% of all who are
likely to visit London), this implies that 1.2 million adults
would visit the Centre in two years, or c600,000 UK visitors per
annum."
This provides a total of 1.3 million potential
visitors to the PVIC.
The target for the education facilities is to
provide for 100,000 learners per year. [45]
It is estimated that 750,000 visitors could
visit the exhibition areas.
LINKS WITH
OTHER PROJECTS
This feasibility study and options appraisal
has been delivered in tandem and consultation with other initiatives
established by both Houses to enhance the visitor experience and
better connect Parliament with the public. These include projects
identified by the Group on Information for the Public in their
Business Plan in March 2006. For example:
— Better and more accessible information
via a redesigned website. The PVIC will ensure that online versions
of its content are available. It also intends to follow the content
structure of the redesigned site for its own exhibition themes,
thus providing a uniform experience whether a visitor is onsite
or online.
— Offering visitors a pro-active welcome
via new Visitor Assistants and a Visitor Reception Building (VRB).
The VRB's focus is on security and providing the necessary information
to orientate a visitor. It does not include the interpretation
of the building, its history and processes. The PVIC is therefore
an addition to the VRB, meeting a need which the VRB does not
provide. The Visitor Assistants' skills, experience and operations
will be essential for the PVIC.
— Investigating the outreach options
for education delivery. The PVIC will offer outreach officers
a space to hold community group sessions. It will also enable
them to organise and hold conferences and workshops with organisations
with similar aims.
CONSULTATIONS
During the course of the feasibility study officers
have sought advice from a number of individuals and organisations
to ensure that this report is as thorough as possible.
Professional advice:
— Mori (visitor research—August
2005); Continental Research (education visitor research—August
2005); Buttress Fuller Allsop Williams (architects developing
the floor plans for different options—April-October 2006);
Lambert Smith Hampton (property solutions/land audit of Westminster—August
2006); Atkins (traffic plans and impact assessments—August
2006); Office of Government Commerce (project health check—September
2006); Land Design Studio (development of sample content for exhibition
area—September 2006).
Other research and consultation:
— Visitor Experience seminars (many
stakeholders invited to formulate ideas on the PVIC and explore
new methods of providing for visitors—February 2005-November
2006); Survey of Members and Peers conducted by the Administration
Committee and Information Committee (July-September 2006); National
Trust (informal meeting about visitor centres—September
2006); English Heritage and Westminster City Council (meeting
about planning issues—September 2006—ongoing); Westminster
Abbey (as part of the World Squares for All project and the Westminster
World Heritage Site Management Plan group—ongoing); Supreme
Court (meeting regarding proposed exhibition space—August
2006); World Squares for All project (Greater London Council,
Transport for London, Westminster Abbey and English Heritage are
all represented—ongoing); Westminster World Heritage Site
Management Plan Steering Group (ongoing); submissions of evidence
to the Committees from—Parliaments in Austria, Scotland,
Wales, Canada, Australia and America; submissions of thoughts
from organizations such as the Association of Citizenship Teaching
and the Hansard Society.
43 The objectives of the PVIC Development Project are
set out in its Project Initiation Document, v1.5 4 September 2006. Back
44
These objectives were agreed by the House of Lords Information
Committee and the House of Commons Administration Sub-Committee
on 16 May 2006. Back
45
This was based on the fact that with the provision of five classrooms
each holding 50 people the Education Unit would have the maximum
capacity to deal with 500 (250 in the morning and 250 in the afternoon)
per 200 school days in the year = 100,000. However, in reality
it is more likely that this target will be spread over the whole
year and include all learners, not just schools. Back
| 
