UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 1556-iii

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

Administration Committee

Visitor Access and Facilities in the House of Commons

Monday 28 November 2011

Mel Barlex and Christine Sillis

Evidence heard in Public Questions 118 - 178

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Administration Committee

on Monday 28 November 2011

Members present:

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)

Graham Evans

Mr Mark Francois

Mr Kevan Jones

Simon Kirby

Nigel Mills

Tessa Munt

Mike Weatherley

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mel Barlex, Director of Parliamentary Estates, and Christine Sillis, Deputy Director Projects, Parliamentary Estates Directorate, gave evidence.

Q118 Chair : May I welcome Mel Barlex and Christine Sillis? Thank you very much indeed for coming to see us. As you will know we are engaged in an inquiry into visitor access and matters connected with that. Thank you very much for the paper that you have presented. Would you like to make a few opening remarks in relation to it, Mel, before questions are asked?

Mel Barlex: Certainly not much. I hope that it provided the Committee with the information that it had asked for on the key areas. Secondly, if you have not met her before, Christine is my deputy, and we are here to do a double act and try to give you as many answers as we possibly can at this stage. If we cannot, I will certainly come back and give the Clerk the information at a later date.

Q119 Chair : That is all you wanted to say?

Mel Barlex: That is all I was going to say, and then take questions. If you want to go through it by section, I am happy to do it that way.

Q120 Chair : We might try to concentrate on following something of the order that you have. Starting at Black Rod’s Garden, we are disappointed with the trial of what might be done at that entrance, when they put in the extra lane. There was a flicker of hope that might restore access at that end of the building for the visitors who come mainly in the morning to tour the building, but the House of Lords officials seem to produce almost every reason under the sun why this would be very difficult. Of course, there had previously been a decision not to make more than one additional channel of security available on public expenditure grounds, despite the fact there was an active promotional campaign going on to increase the number of people coming through. Are you in accordance with the fact that, just by seeing what is there, it probably would be impracticable to bring in coach-loads of visitors in the morning hours?

Mel Barlex: We have only responded to the brief that has been asked of us on each of those particular points, which is why that particular piece of work has changed several times. We just delivered what was there in the end as required. As you see in the next bit, about the World Heritage Site, my concern was about the large volumes of people running around outside the estate, and therefore trying to get in. I have a longterm aim in my mind to try to ensure that the line of route goes back-if it can-to the Lords end through, and at the same time education may be wherever a location could be found that works, but independently of that. I have had it in mind to do that, and I have been trying to work through that with the World Heritage Site element. It is not as yet on a plan of action for increasing at Black Rod’s Garden entrance, because the Lords are fearful of the volume of people coming into that area and the impact on them. It is a bit of a tight space when you come in; you do not have an easy route through thereafter to go anywhere-you just come in. It suits the visitor types we have there, but they would have to walk quite a way to get into the Palace itself and up on to the floor level. That is the big problem with that area.

Q121 Chair : It is true that there is still an extant resolution of the House to say that a visitor centre should be the ultimate target?

Mel Barlex: There is, and that is what I have tried to point out in paragraph three-we are trying to draw a close to this. There is something that I have, and that the Palace and both Houses can agree to, as a way forward. We are reviewing all of the information we have had over the past few years to draw that into a coherent document for people to say, "These are the choices we have had." What I have done is expanded that by putting a number of other proposals in with the World Heritage Site, so all of that will be brought together. In February our intention is to complete this study and provide back to both Houses: "These are the options you have; please choose."

Q122 Chair : It is possible-I cannot anticipate the outcome-that this Committee might be minded in its report to give you every encouragement to find out and present more information on the feasibility. But apart from the cost-which is perhaps the obvious point that will give pause-do you, from your professional point of view, believe that it is reasonable to expect that the southern end of the building is a place where we could, without any other objections, achieve a suitable building?

Mel Barlex: It is the best location strategically because it brings the line of route back to where it ideally should be, and there is no other space, so yes. The difficulties are it is not necessarily our land, so we have to address that. It is also an awkward route into the Palace, which we have to address as well. Just some of the small issues we have to address: there is also a boiler house underneath part of that car park, and oil tanks under there. We have some difficulties about it physically. We are also trying to address the road that runs across as well. I am trying to address those technical issues in that broader picture, as I have pointed out before.

Q123 Chair : When do you hope you might be in a position to complete your study?

Mel Barlex: End of February is the study specifically for the education and visitor centres. We will bring forward the options that exist at that time. I will release the World Heritage study prior to that-that comes out early December. It is running a little late. It is a tome of work that needs to be worked through properly. That is coming out in the next week or so.

Q124 Mr Kevan Jones: I remember the fiasco we had with the House of Lords Joint Committee over the proposal of the visitor centre with the subterranean option underneath the park at the end. Realistically, we have to accept that there is not going to be the money to do this. Therefore, we should be concentrating on getting the line of route right, and access points through. I know that you have spent a lot of time doing this, Mel, but, even if you come up with proposals, the money will not be there to spend on that for a long time yet. In terms of the access in the other end, they used to come through Sovereign’s Gate and then up through. What is the most ideal way? Is Sovereign’s Gate an option? People used to wait under the arch when it was raining-it was quite a sensible way of doing it.

Mel Barlex: I certainly was not here then, but that is what has been explained to me. The difficulty we have with it are the security measures that sit outside of it. We do not allow people to be on our estate anymore: it is gated and we have barriers in front of it. One of the main reasons I started to undertake the World Heritage study was to say, "I have to replace that security stuff at some point. What is the best way to do that, and look at all the other opportunities that exist?" We have been undertaking that. It may seem easier, but it is more difficult to allow people to congregate outside in that area there, because it would block the road across for the Peers’ cars.

Q125 Mr Kevan Jones: But that is not what they used to do: they used to come through Sovereign Gate, wait under the arch there, and then obviously the door was there when you went through.

Mel Barlex: But they were not security assessed then. My understanding is that they were just allowed in. It was a ticketed arrangement. Now everyone who comes on to the estate is searched.

Q126 Mr Kevan Jones: No, it was not; you then had to go through security. There was a security checkpoint there that people went through before they got in.

Mel Barlex: Outside?

Q127 Mr Kevan Jones: No, as you went through the gates, because there are gates on there, you could control who went into Sovereign’s Gate: if they did not have a ticket, they could not get in. You waited there; the groups used to pick them up and take them up a few stairs through a door, and then there was a checkpoint there before they went on to the tour. The tour guides picked them up from there. When I first started that is what happened, and it worked perfectly well.

Mel Barlex: I will take that away. It certainly was not my understanding before; I have been misinformed about that. I will deal with that. I will add that into the list.

Q128 Chair : I can possibly help the Committee there. As I understand it, the argument was that, if you allow people who are as yet unchecked for security, a bomb could go off under the Victoria Tower. The fact that a bomb could equally go off as you approach the Cromwell Green entrance is thought to be more tolerable than the damage to the building itself. The human consideration of all this seems to be equal in both cases. That is the reason why there is a reluctance to allow the schoolchildren, who might be thought to be less of a risk, but generally not to allow people to congregate under the tower. I think that is the answer.

Mel Barlex: Well, I will certainly include it in the options.

Q129 Mr Kevan Jones: Isn’t the way round that to have checks just before people come in, so they could not bring big bags or things like that through.

Chair : That was part of the purpose of Black Rod’s Garden entrance.

Q130 Mr Kevan Jones: It is like Fort Knox getting in through there, because you have to swipe your card so many times.

Chair : It has not been concluded necessarily to the satisfaction of this Committee, but the powers that be at the other end of the building have concluded that it would not be practicable to get the numbers through.

Mel Barlex: I think it is not set up for the volumes at this moment. It would need much more work to make that happen.

Q131 Graham Evans: Further to that question, regarding the education visitor centre, have we got estimates of how much it would cost?

Mel Barlex: No.

Q132 Graham Evans: I agree with you. The immediate thought is we do not have any money full stop, but it would be interesting to know what sort of costs and quality of building it would be: would it be temporary structure, would it be a portacabintype structure, or would it be in keeping with the Palace, therefore is there significant cost or not? That would be of interest. At least we would know what sort of figures we are talking about for when we get to better times. Has there been no feasibility study at all?

Mel Barlex: I believe there was a very early one, and it was many millions of pounds.

Mr Kevan Jones: This was several million, because it was about digging an underground under the actual path.

Chair : Sorry, I started this by answering the question that you asked, and I should not have done. The witness should answer the question that Graham is putting.

Mel Barlex: The feasibility study that I mentioned will have costs to it, but they would be very early-stage costs. But yes: every option should have a cost to it.

Q133 Graham Evans: Thinking ahead in terms of raising more revenue, by opening for Sunday tours for example, have you looked at ways in which we can increase the revenue? If we are going to have increased footfall, have you looked at how we can maximise income from increased visitor numbers? We have the wear and tear that happens when you have more. It is a balancing act: yes we have more people; however, we have this amount of income. Coming from a business background, the moment you get people around, the footfall in this place and surrounding areas is huge. To me there is a real opportunity to maximise incomes that will therefore be able to be used to improve the fabric of the building, but also-say if we opened on Sundays to a greater extent-that money could be used for making the visitor and educational centre.

Mel Barlex: That piece of work is usually undertaken, and is undertaken, by the events colleagues. I believe they have already given information about the numbers of visitors coming through on Saturdays and generally throughout the year. It is within their remit to decide or discuss opening up the access. We are there to tell them what the consequences are: if it is an impact on work or wear and tear, as you say-those two issues. We will facilitate where we are asked to, but we have not been asked to look at that yet.

Q134 Graham Evans: But specifically on a Sunday, have you looked into the-

Mel Barlex: No, we have not at all. The progress so far is only to look at Saturday opening, which has been trialled for the last six months or so. They have not considered Sunday opening yet.

Q135 Graham Evans: As a followup, all I would say to you is in recess, or even at weekends, this place is a magnet. Therefore if you open on a Saturday, I would say that the visitor numbers, certainly at holiday times, would be considerable. You may have an opportunity on Saturday. If it works on Saturdays, I would suggest that it may possibly work on a Sunday. There is a revenue source that could be substantial or not-I do not know.

Mel Barlex: I will certainly make sure my colleagues are aware of that. The balance to that is, since Saturday opening occurred, we have pushed all our work to a Sunday. We are doing more work on a Sunday as a result of not being able to have access on a Saturday. That balance has to be there. But that is what we will do.

Q136 Chair : Whilst we are still at that end of the building, there is the World Heritage Site issue. I seem to recall seeing a report recently that we might be in danger of losing that World Heritage status. Can you guide us on that, please?

Mel Barlex: I can give you my knowledge so far: there is a forum-the Westminster World Heritage Site forum-that is chaired by Westminster City Council, I think. That is the simplest thing. I think the report you were referring to was probably an article in the papers recently. I read it too. They are walking around with the UNESCO representatives because a report was completed-I think maybe eight to 10 years ago-that identified UNESCO status for the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey. There were expectations on both parties to look at how you could accentuate and protect the views of the sites. That is what has been ongoing for some time.

They have not achieved a resolution to that yet, and it is about protecting vistas generally, and more. In fact that was one of the reasons why I promulgated the report I wanted to do about the wider issues for us in Parliament. Hopefully that will feed into it, because all the same parties are involved in it. I am, like you, waiting to hear of the walk around by UNESCO and their view of some work that was undertaken by their consultants on looking at the vistas. There is a particular way they do that, which we are waiting to see.

Q137 Chair : Wear and tear: what exactly gets worn and torn by the volume of people coming through, beyond carpets, tiles and stonework? Are there other things that wear as a result of the flow of visitors through?

Mel Barlex: Yes, everything. We have an effect on the environment around us: the humidity we give off has an effect on all the furnishings around here. The more people you put through, the higher the output is that way. Certainly putting more people through is a big issue for the stone in Westminster Hall. We are starting to see the stones crumbling already, and that is because the soot that was in the atmosphere originally is affected by moisture, which creates a catalyst for the chemical reaction that causes erosion.

It is less so in here, but you will get-if you consider the damage we do to it when we have leaks and the like-certain issues in these rooms: the wear and tear and the dust that comes from people. It is all part of what happens. The National Trust came and presented to us and colleagues last year a whole thesis on the dust created by people who walk in and around places and the damage it does to buildings. They are the key issues. Then you have people walking past doorways, scuffing them, hitting them with their bags, doors getting slammed, and issues happening about general wear and tear that way.

Q138 Chair : Is there any information we could glean from those such as the National Trust that would give us some ballpark calculation to work out what the cost might be to us? I know there are special things, but we did after all pay for part of the floor of St Stephen’s Hall to be retiled. That was not the most worn part, as I recall. Again, we should have some evidence as to likely costs of having to replace sections of the building.

Mel Barlex: We have costs for replacing the worn tiles at this moment. There is a business case approved.

Christine Sillis: It is £8.5 million to £9 million.

Mel Barlex: It is £8.5 million to £9 million to replace the existing encaustic tiles.

Q139 Chair : In St Stephen’s Hall?

Mel Barlex: No, all the way through to the Lords, Central Lobby-Central Lobby up to the Lord’s Chamber.

Q140 Chair : But these other more esoteric things, about the effect of humidity and dust and so on: is there any sort of rough figure that one could apply based on the experience of other famous establishments that equally cater for large numbers of people?

Mel Barlex: I can try to find out; I expect the answer is no. It is such an unusual thing to try to develop a detail on. It is usually all conjecture about how much damage it does and by what time. You can give an idea, as we have just done: we know how much it cost us to do the work in St Stephen’s Hall. That was done as a pilot to try to trial the type of tile, more than the one we did five or 10 years before that, because that one is wearing worse than it should do. We have done things like that, and we know how much it costs to do that. That has been expanded out now to cover all the other areas that we know now need undertaking. That is the kind of harder evidence we have been able to do.

When you are talking about the scuffing of doors, it can happen or it cannot happen. I can tell you how much it would cost to repair it, but not how many times I would have to do it. With increased number of people walking through, we would have to clean the place a lot more. You could put a tangible figure there, but you could not say it was an accurate figure that can be held up to be, "Every year I have to spend that." That is the trouble with it. It is just an idea. I will try to find out from the National Trust if there is a measure they have used in looking at their buildings.

Q141 Chair : There might just be sufficient evidence around to make us feel we should not be allowing anybody in at all.

Mel Barlex: I am not sure about that; I think we should do that. The difficulty we have is I still have a plan of action to try to maintain the place over a 25-year period, and I do not yet know-I will know more next year, because of the work we are doing with the long-term mechanical electrical work-how we are going to approach that, and therefore how achievable that 25-year plan is. But yes, I am afraid I do not know the answers to that yet.

Q142 Chair : In which case, can we come back to the Cromwell Green entrance now, the other end of the building-the northern end of the building? You say that some remedial works are planned. Could you give us an indication of that? The Committee has visited the Cromwell Green entrance, and there are some members of the Committee who feel it is not operating at the capacity it ought to be capable of. Would you have any comments on that, and are there remedial works intended to improve throughput?

Christine Sillis: There are remedial works planned to do some quick wins and get the building much more waterproof and weather tight before the Olympics, and also to do some further investigative works into the glass roof. We will then carry out the longterm repairs after the Olympics, as we do not want to disrupt throughput during the Olympic period. There are no plans to increase the number of lanes we can get through there because of the bomb blast shields each side of the search lane.

Chair : I notice again a news report that theatres are refusing to take bookings in the period of the Olympics because they do not think the visitors are going to be there. I do not know why we should necessarily suppose that we are going to be having extra throughput because of the Olympics. The evidence from Theatreland points in another direction.

Q143 Mr Kevan Jones: How old is that visitor centre?

Christine Sillis: Four or five years old; I was not here when it was constructed. It is not very old.

Q144 Mr Kevan Jones: I remember the farce about it at the time. Why do we have to make major repairs to it after five years?

Christine Sillis: It is quite a long story, but it was designed with a glass roof, which is not fit for purpose: you cannot get on it to maintain it. We also had a number of intrusions where Greenpeace got on to it and used it to get up on to Westminster Hall. There are a number of issues with the building, which would appear to be its initial design, not necessarily its construction.

Q145 Mr Kevan Jones: Are we suing the designers?

Mel Barlex: We are taking advice on whether we can; it is an interesting chequered history. Christine certainly was not here when it opened, and I had just arrived. We were kept at arm’s length from it. Decisions, whilst they were appropriate at the time, we are going back and revisiting whether we can do things with consultants now. The contractor has disappeared completely-went into liquidation. That is another key factor when you start to try to go back and sue people: you have to understand where the lineage goes back to. Did the contractor actually carry out the work that the designer asked him to? That is the key issue.

Q146 Simon Kirby: Can I come back to throughput? You were asked if it was possible to increase throughput, to which your answer was that there are no plans to increase the number of lanes people can use. That is only one answer. So can I ask you again: is it possible to increase the throughput without increasing the number of lanes?

Christine Sillis: I would have to speak to security colleagues, because we do not deal with the security issues and the searching of people. We are asked to deliver a number of lanes, for example. As it stands at the moment, with the space that is required around each search lane and the bomb blast shields, there is not sufficient room to put another lane in the building. There may be other ways of searching people, but I would have to refer to security colleagues for advice on that.

Mel Barlex: I think they are looking into that particular part.

Simon Kirby: Thank you, that is very helpful.

Mr Kevan Jones: We were of the opinion there was no need for another lane when we went down there; it is just using the machines that are there. When we went down there, there was quite a long queue.

Chair : This is not really for this particular witness.

Mr Kevan Jones: I know, but I am saying that is the answer to it.

Q147 Chair : As a followup to Simon’s question, when we look at Portcullis House you have told us that, in the absence of being able to put in another lane, there is an intention to increase the throughput there by a handheld device, and that being done is improving the flow through. The question follows from that: if it can be done at Portcullis House, why can it not be done at Cromwell Green?

Mel Barlex: Again, I think your question is for security.

Q148 Chair : Is there nothing from your point of view that would-?

Mel Barlex: No, we have made suggestions, and we are undertaking some work. We are just defining that now. The idea is we will complete whatever work they require us to physically do by June next year anyway. We are just working that through with them. They are perfectly able to make the operational changes themselves if they deem they are able to make them happen.

Q149 Chair : We never heard about the handheld device before until your papers referred to it as a possibility as a means of increasing capacity.

Mel Barlex: I hope our wording is accurate.

Q150 Chair : One of the things we have asked previous witnesses about is the restoration of the black cabin that used to sit outside St Stephen’s entrance, as to whether or not this would allow a proper filtering out of the people who come in for specific purposes, like being witnesses to a Select Committee, direct guests of Members, and so on. The question I would like to ask you is whether or not you can supply the Committee with what would be the cost of restoring that cabin. I do not ask you to consider the cost of manning it, but would that be a practical consideration, and at what cost?

Mel Barlex: I recall it was Black Rod Sir Mike Willcocks who brought Cromwell Green into operational being, and that portacabin was there prior to Cromwell Green working. It was there for a short period afterwards, and then it was removed. There is certainly no problem with us getting a cost for you to identify what it would cost.

Q151 Chair : If we move on to Portcullis House then, what is it you are hoping to achieve by 1 June next year?

Christine Sillis: We are undertaking a feasibility study to see what can be done in terms of any short-term measures that we can bring in before the Olympics, and also any long-term measures we could then bring in after the Olympics. I cannot say at the moment what we are hoping to bring in, because that is what the feasibility study will tell us.

Q152 Chair : Is it correct that it is physically impossible to achieve a second lane?

Christine Sillis: It is with the way the layout is set at the moment. That is determined by our security team and what they feel is suitable.

Q153 Chair : But it is not completely outwith consideration over the longer term?

Mel Barlex: No.

Christine Sillis: No.

Q154 Graham Evans: Talking about roofs, the Portcullis House glass roof leaks when we have prolonged rain.

Mel Barlex: Yes.

Q155 Graham Evans: Is that sorted now?

Mel Barlex: It has not leaked for a while, thankfully. It is the cleaning of the gutters around the edge, which is manually undertaken by our cleaning staff, and sometimes it is not as well used. The glazing does not leak. What there are as well but difficult to see are vents at each of the four sides, and sometimes that vent does not shut. It has occasionally happened, and I have been there and watched it. The vent does not shut, it rains, and it will come in through what is effectively a drip tray into the area. The roof does not leak in that way, but the rainwater bit on the outside did. That was about a year ago.

Q156 Graham Evans: In terms of the access, we have spoken about the main Portcullis entrance, but you have 1 Parliament Street. I notice when you exit 1 Parliament Street, at certain times of the day-I think it is from 4 o’clock to 5 o’clock-members of staff stand at the top of the stairs. I asked why they stood at the top of the stairs and they said, "We have to stand here between four and five," but they could not tell me why other than they had been told to stand there.

Mel Barlex: Is this the security staff?

Q157 Graham Evans: The security staff. If that is for a specific reason, I question why that would be at that particular time, and could they not be used to alleviate queues elsewhere, either in Portcullis House, Cromwell Green or wherever?

Mel Barlex: I do not know the answer to that: it is the security staff. I can raise the question with them, if that is what you would like me to do.

Chair : We have to pursue that another way, Graham.

Q158 Nigel Mills: On Portcullis House, the other thing I always find a nightmare is the fact that the pass holder’s entrance is also the only exit. When you are trying to go in at the out rush hour or out at the in rush hour, it is an absolute nightmare: the doors are always getting clogged, people do not know whether they have to push it or not now. Do you still need to swipe your pass? I think you do, even though it is just a push from the inside. Is there any way we can have a separate exit or separate pass holder’s entrance that is not going to keep having these problems? I have been in the door with bags, and it suddenly goes into reverse and nearly knocks people over. It really is a difficult one.

Mel Barlex: The answer is yes, we can look into it: we put it into the brief for the feasibility study. We are just limited at the moment by the fact there are only two or three entrances through that glazing façade. That is the reason we have the problems.

Q159 Chair : What is it you are planning then in regard to the underground station entrance?

Mel Barlex: Both Black Rod and the Serjeant-predominantly the Serjeant-raised the query about the security risk of the particular security person sitting there being overlooked or being able to be compromised, shall we say. That was one aspect. The main aspect for us was I was trying to find a way-I cannot put another escalator down. A common problem since I have been here is the pinch point of the two escalators. We have trialled both escalators going in the same direction at one time, predominantly when a division rings: many people rush to that, and it is just a continuous stream. We have been trying to think of different ways round it.

Linking what I mentioned earlier about the security issue, if we change the entrance off the current area under the underground and move it round-if you can imagine the underground, there is the beginning of an octagonal area there-that is an area behind the lift shaft. What we were thinking of doing was trying to create a space, a staircase that then runs down from the ground floor and around, either going outside or straight through into the back area where the current security persons are, the current security entrance. Then you basically go round the lift and get to the same place where the escalators end. That is what we are looking at. It is quite complex to explain it, and there are some firewalls and some security structural elements.

Q160 Chair : And how complex would it be to do in terms of the length of time you would require the present entrance to be closed?

Mel Barlex: I do not know yet. That is the idea of the study: to look through it. We are looking at it next year, and intending to deliver it in 2013-14, subject to funding. That is our plan of action.

Q161 Mr Kevan Jones: What is the problem though?

Mel Barlex: The numbers of people and division bells going through and the pinch points it creates. If you have school parties there or others, it becomes slightly congested. It is just a way of improving it.

Q162 Simon Kirby: Chair, may I just be clear on that? Obviously I am a new Member, perhaps I am ignorant: where exactly is the pinch point? Let us say there is a division bell at 11 o’clock in the morning, and, most unlikely, let us say, 2 o’clock in the afternoon: where is the problem?

Mel Barlex: At the escalators.

Q163 Simon Kirby: At the top?

Mel Barlex: Yes, predominantly at the top in Portcullis House.

Q164 Simon Kirby: I have to say for the record I do not see that as a problem, as someone who comes through Parliament Street, through Portcullis House, uses the escalator. I would have thought if we were looking at issues we might be better off looking elsewhere. But that is my personal opinion.

Q165 Mr Kevan Jones: The other thing-I sound like an old fart here-part of the problem is on divisions what used to happen, many years ago, is the security staff used to open doors, used to marshal the areas and make sure members got through. That does not happen anymore; that is part of the problem. Sir Alan might even remember when the police used to stop the traffic for you to get across the road: that does not happen anymore. If we are going to spend a load of money on expensive works like that, an easier solution is to go back to the system whereby the lines of route back to the Chamber were properly-it is about a security issue. For example, the bugbear in my life is the door down near the gift shop, which, as soon as the division was called, security used to open and pin back. The number of times you have to tell people to do it, or I do it myself-I just take the fire extinguisher off the wall and put it behind the door to hold the door open.

Mel Barlex: I did not hear that.

Q166 Mr Kevan Jones: Otherwise you have Members of Parliament putting in passes to go through it. I do not think we need to spend a lot of money on these things. I know it is perhaps not a very fashionable thing that, when there is a division, Members get priority to get to places, but that is what needs to happen. It used to happen and it used to work perfectly well. I would be loath to spend public money on some fancy solution if there is obviously a simple solution to it.

Chair : I suspect we will be told, would we not, that there would be public money involved in having more security people.

Q167 Mr Kevan Jones: It is not, no Chair, I do not think it is. It is getting the security staff we have at the moment to do what used to come naturally to them.

Chair : Then this is a matter we need to pursue with that part of the management of the House.

Mr Kevan Jones: If you go to the top of the escalator there is always a person standing there. When there is a division, if he or she could just say, "Right, can you just hang back people while Members get through," problem solved.

Chair : Maybe. We can pursue that, but I think not with the Director of Parliamentary Estates.

Mr Kevan Jones: But it links to him because he is about to spend a lot of money, time and effort drawing up things that are not-

Chair : It is true he led us in that direction.

Nigel Mills: I obviously also do come through Portcullis House to vote. There are times when it is a real problem on that escalator, and there are people on there dawdling down, having a chat. If you are short of time it can be a little bit anxious as you try to squeeze past them. Some way of trying to address that would help, because how many members are based over that half of the building? It must be well over half of us or something, all trying to get through there in a bit of a rush if you are running a bit late. Some improvement there would stop someone tumbling down the escalator at some stage. I am surprised it has not happened.

Q168 Chair : We can mull over the different views expressed on that particular point before we come to any recommendations. Can we look at the impact on your department of the extensions that have been made so far to visitor access to the building? I am thinking now of tour visitors more than anything else. There are Saturday tours, the possibility of Sunday tours: could you give us some idea of how far this could be accommodated so far as you are concerned with the works you have to do?

Mel Barlex: The caveat I gave earlier is we are still trying to assess the longterm plans. Therefore, how much of the work that we need to do is not yet clear to us; the way we are actually going to deliver it is not yet clear to us. We will be in that position in roughly a year’s time, or certainly the middle of next year. At the moment we are quite flexible: we adapt our work. That is generally what we do: we have adapted our programme such that we have a high degree of flexibility in what we do. The difficulty is we are getting less and less time to do what we need to do. With Saturday opening we came up with an indication, and that indication is it just costs my staff more in overtime because I now have to put them on to a premium rate to work on a Sunday. It is not a huge amount, but it is an amount that we have to cover. We have dealt with that.

If we did it to a Sunday as well, then I am probably going to have to start moving to 24 hour working to try to cope with all the amount of work, or, as we have with the Saturday opening, we have the caveat that, if there are health and safety works, we will stop the line of route: we will stop that ability in there. If something happens, we have to just do the work: the work is dominant in that area. That was the original reasoning behind the Saturday opening: if there are health and safety issues, that takes precedent.

Q169 Chair : Whilst we are on that topic, this Committee, as you may recall, on its catering inquiry recommended consideration should be given to opening the dining rooms, for example, to members of the public when the House was not sitting. Would that equally have severe implications for you and the work you have to do?

Mel Barlex: General wear and tear yes: we do not know quite what that would be, but I suspect it would be the scuffed doors, the worn carpet, the trips and hazards that will occur naturally. The bigger area will be policing it, because at the moment the line of route is a managed route; where members of the public go in any other area, they have to be accompanied. It is the question of how you would get them to the dining rooms and accompany them safely.

Q170 Chair : It was refurbishment and maintenance I was thinking of-if you have to pull up the floorboards in order to look at the pipe work underneath, and wiring and so on. There would be a serious impact?

Mel Barlex: It would be, and that is our general problem. If you saw what the corridor looked like when the leak occurred, it would be evident to you that they are not floorboards out there: they are slate panels, eight by six, that have to be lifted by a machine to get access to the floor underneath. To then try to get through to do that, we have to ensure there is no asbestos in there first. We have to do a sample test; then that is 10 days before we are even allowed to take any work on to do that, because the health and safety have to be informed. We are not talking about ordinary easy work to do here: any work we have to do in those areas is difficult and has to be managed very well. It will have a major impact on how long places are not allowed to be accessed.

Q171 Mr Kevan Jones: If we were to have what we used to have before we had September sittings-the long summers to do most of this work-you would not have to fit it in around the visitors, would you?

Mel Barlex: We have changed the way we work-and Christine particularly can explain that-but we have tried to recognise the least impact possible by being more flexible. Do you want to explain what we have done?

Q172 Mr Kevan Jones: No, but when we did not have September sittings, the night Parliament rose, you had the entire summer to do major works and that got the bulk of your big jobs out of the way, didn’t it?

Christine Sillis: An 11- or 12-week recess is still not long enough to do major works. The way we programme our works now is to batch work up so that we do not do lots of small projects all over the place: we accumulate types of work. We have programmes of work. For example, the encaustic tiles is not just a project to do with St Stephen’s or Central Lobby; it is a programme of work that is ongoing throughout the year. A slightly longer recess still does not give us sufficient time to do the scale of work we need to do to maintain this House.

There are also far more economies of scale and value for money by batching work into larger programmes of work. We really do need to work throughout the year, and that links back into some of the opening: we still need flexibility to do noisy or disruptive work out of hours. If you were Sunday opening as well, it would restrict the ability for us to do that. There is a risk that it may affect the House, and it is not conceivable to us that we would affect the House sitting. We do need some time out of hours to be able to do noisy work.

A longer recess is a little bit of a help, because we can do some of the projects fully in that period, and by not doing those we end up putting them on to future years. But there is a limit to how much work we can still do in a summer recess, whatever length it is, because we have such a volume of work that we need to be working throughout the year.

Mel Barlex: The point I would try to make is that when I first arrived I had what was called legacy work: there was a way of doing things and an amount of work that was not clear to me. Now we have a much clearer action plan: we plan three years in advance of what we are doing. We shape our work to fit what we need to do. Therefore it is much more difficult to say, "What if we were having 11 or 12 weeks?" If we did that, we would have to look at every job and say, "If we did it in a different way, which of these ways?" It is just a cost, and it is a waste of money to do that.

We have changed our work; we are much clearer about it. That flexibility is there, and I think, in some of the history that I have heard in my four years here, going back 10 years there were short recesses then as well. The September sitting is not a new thing: it has happened and it is in the cycle. I came in when it was 11 and 12 weeks and enjoyed it, but we are doing not far off that amount of work in the four- and five-week period we get now anyway because of better planning on our part.

Q173 Mr Kevan Jones: In terms of the major works, I remember several years ago there was a proposal to close the building down altogether. I think I went down with you under the building, which, frankly, is a horror story if you look at it down there. Where is that at now? I know one of the first jobs we are doing is assessing the state of the problem: are we into that scenario where we might have to close the entire building down to do all that work, or have you found a way around it?

Mel Barlex: I am on the case for that now. You are referring to the long-term mechanical and electrical works. We agreed to spend roughly £50 million over a five- to seven-year period to do the urgent works. That is what we are in year three of. We have now extended that programme to another three years, and that is just helping us. We have fixed some of the horrors you saw. A significant amount has been done this year that has helped us and has had significant benefits.

But at the same time, we have started to take an eye to how we deliver the long term, which is your particular point. Yes, there is a horror story of shut the building, decamp in part or in full, and there are also other ways of saying, "Should we just do it over a very long period of time?" We have now embarked upon our long-term vision, looking at what the House will look like-what the physical infrastructure will look like-and we will bring that together into a report for next summer. That is the intention; that is what I have been referring to as the evidence I will have. Then I can start talking to you about "this is what it means", but we intend to deliver that some time next year. I am not going to be held to a date just yet-I still cannot get it for my own team-but that is the intention.

Q174 Graham Evans: Thinking about the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum, where you have quite iconic buildings and it is a place of work but it is also a place for people to come and visit-a museum piece-is there a similar building or set of circumstances you are familiar with where your counterparts have similar challenges? Do you compare notes with those sorts of people in similar buildings? There are a few knocking around London and elsewhere.

Mel Barlex: Ironically, there are not many in London.

Q175 Graham Evans: No, I appreciate that.

Mel Barlex: You mentioned the National History Museum: they have certain similarities, but it is not as similar. We have looked, for benchmarking purposes, to see if there is anywhere, and we cannot find anything. Certainly I have talked to colleagues at the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but we are ahead of the game for anyone else. We are now looking further afield. We know that the Canadian Parliament has begun effectively what we are doing and taken this on board. They are part way through a major refurbishment programme of replacing all of their mechanical and electrical, including decanting a Chamber and moving people around, and then doing it 50/50. We understand the Austrian Parliament is similarly looking at that. That is as far as we have got; the intention is to do a wider consultation in the coming six months to see if there is anything we can learn from them and likewise they can learn from us.

Q176 Graham Evans: What I am looking for is best practice: what is best in terms of quality and costeffectiveness, and that balance you must have. There is no manual you can update or have come across?

Mel Barlex: The nearest is the Canadian Parliament; it is live and doing the work. That is the nearest. It is a much smaller enterprise than we have here. I do not think it has the same quantities of usage of the different types we have. That is what sets us apart: this is a highly used building, for huge diversity.

Q177 Chair : Are there any other questions for our witnesses? If not, thank you very much indeed for being with us.

Mel Barlex: Thank you. I hope we have answered the questions.

Q178 Chair : If you could send us some of the outstanding points that we left with you, it would be very helpful, in so far as they are calculable.

Mel Barlex: I will do. I will ask the Clerk to give me some guidance to make sure I have not got them all wrong.

Chair : Thank you very much indeed.