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

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

Administration Committee

Visitor Access and Facilities in the House of Commons

Monday 16 January 2012

JONATHAN DRORI

Evidence heard in Public Questions 179-233

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Administration Committee

on Monday 16 January 2012

Members present:

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)

Rosie Cooper

Thomas Docherty

Graham Evans

Mr Mark Francois

Mr Kevan Jones

Simon Kirby

Dr Phillip Lee

Nigel Mills

Tessa Munt

Sarah Newton

Mr John Spellar

Mr Dave Watts

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Jonathan Drori, Chair of the Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, gave evidence.

Q179Chair: Colleagues, we are now in public session and we welcome Professor Drori, who is the Chair of the Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement. You took over from Mr Street, I think?

Jonathan Drori: That is right. I have not chaired my first meeting there yet, but I have obviously been to quite a few of the previous meetings.

Q180Chair: Indeed. Would you like to make any initial comments in support of your paper?

Jonathan Drori: Yes, if I may? First of all, thank you very much for having me here. It is an honour to be here. Surely, democracy is one of the things that matters most for our society to function and to be healthy and fulfilling for those people who live here. If you really believe, as I do, that democracy matters, then certain things follow from that. One thing that follows from it is that people need to understand why democracy is important, not just for themselves individually, but for the good of us all. People need to value democracy. Maybe too many people take our democracy for granted.

The second area is that citizens need to be engaged. There are several components to engagement, which are bound up with valuing democracy. I would just like to describe some of those. First of all, the public should feel that they understand how the mechanics of democracy work. That means understanding the processes of voting, both by the public and also by the Members who represent them; the way that laws are created; the work of Committees and the role of the Houses; the role of local democratic processes versus national ones, and so on.

This Committee, I imagine, is concerned with what goes on in and around Parliament, but the public may not see such a stark division between what happens locally and what happens at Westminster. Parliament should do what it can to help the public understand its work. For example, the school trips here are run brilliantly. It is a wonderful thing to see so many children here respectful, I think, and excited by their visits. But the education visits here are hugely oversubscribed and the proposed new education centre is very urgently needed.

All this activity from Parliament, in my view and in the view of the members of the Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, needs to be supported by the education system of the country itself. We believe that no child should leave school without a clear knowledge of how our democracy works, why it matters, and how they can influence it. One might also suggest that debate and reasoned argument might be part of the deal as well. You could call it political literacy. Another component of engagement with democracy is that people should know what is going on. Parliament should use all channels practicable to communicate with the public about its work.

People should understand how they can participate in democracy and be encouraged to do so. Parliament should encourage those who can engage the public in the largest numbers. They are more likely to do this if they feel their voice will be heard. Public engagement is two-way, I am afraid. It is not just about Parliament getting its message across but about processes that enable the public to take part, to participate. Maybe there are new ways for people to contribute their views or to see things that are relevant to them that are going on. It is better to experiment with new techniques, openly acknowledging that that is what you are doing, rather than not try at all. The Speakers’ Advisory Group felt that perhaps Parliament is a little too risk-averse at the moment.

People should feel that the democracy and its institutions are theirs and accessible to them, both physically and in every other way. This principle might affect everything, from understanding what is going on and how to influence it, to Parliament Square architecture, to the location of Committee meetings, the language and dress, security-even a sign over Portcullis House saying "Welcome to your Parliament", for goodness sake. The same principle already informs excellent initiatives such as Parliament Week. "This is our space" should be the message to the public.

Remember, it is not just about Westminster, but the way that democracy works and how people engage with it, all across the country. So it is not just about people coming here. If we want our democracy to be open, transparent and inclusive, the Parliament needs to reflect that in everything it does and through every channel. This does not mean a lack of respect for heritage and status, but it does mean perhaps looking at the activities of Parliament through a different lens. Public engagement is vital to a thriving democracy. People need to see that Parliament is theirs, that it is of them and for them. If it is important, then there should perhaps be a tracking study to gauge public opinion and monitor changes in attitudes to Parliament and our democracy in general.

Q181Chair: Thank you very much indeed. You will appreciate that, while all these matters are of interest to us, the inquiry in which we are presently engaged is about access, which is clearly highly relevant to the matters that your Group is considering. I think we would be pleased to hear your views on matters that relate in particular to how we engage physically, as it were, with people. Has the Advisory Council reached any conclusions yet on what we do well, what we do less well and where we might improve, or are you still halfway through?

Jonathan Drori: I think we are still halfway through. When you say you are concerned with access-the rest of your sentence implied that you were concerned with physical access. Have I read you right, because I would see access more broadly? As I tried to make clear, this is about physical, virtual and every other kind of accessibility.

Q182Chair: We are thinking of physical access, but we are also thinking that there is another side to that, obviously, because it is not just bringing people here. It is also how we connect outside with the country. It is a matter of how Parliament as a building and institution can relate to the general public better.

Jonathan Drori: I will try to distinguish between views that are personal to myself and those where I am representing the Group. I think the Group would feel strongly that the attitude of Parliament is not always consistently welcoming. When you walk into Portcullis House, once you have got through the necessary security, there is an openness and a feeling that this is a space that a member of the public can understand. Then there is the feeling that I had waiting outside, which felt like coming to see the head teacher at school, which was a positively not welcoming one, or perhaps I should say a negatively not welcoming one. I am someone who is in and around Parliament quite a bit and, if I feel that way, I can only imagine how members of the public might feel if they have no connection with Parliament. I think this would be a very intimidating place. One can wander round the building with ideas for almost every part of it for how you could make it more accessible. You could have a notice outside that says, "Welcome". You could have a notice saying, "If you have not been here before, here is how it works". You could have interpretation out in the public areas, out on the street, about the buildings and so on. There are many things one could do, but I think one sometimes gets the impression that not everyone really feels that this is necessarily a space which is of the people, but rather it is more owned by the people who work here and the public are lucky if they are allowed in once or twice.

Q183Chair: Indeed. I think we are constrained to some extent by the work of Barry and Pugin, or their advisers, who did not anticipate in the middle of the 19th century just how Parliament would develop and its needs to develop. I am sorry there is not a green room outside where our special guests are able to be accommodated while waiting to come in to give evidence. You are, nevertheless, a most welcome witness.

Jonathan Drori: Thank you very much indeed.

Q184Sarah Newton: Welcome to our Committee. We are very friendly, actually, despite the grand building that we are in. I think you made some really good points. I am interested, because I represent Cornwall. Some of my constituents, certainly schools, come up, and I would echo what you say. They really love the school visits, which are really well done. Have you had a chance to or are you anticipating looking at the outreach work that is done? I have said in this Committee before that I have quite a few concerns about the people who, for example, come down to Cornwall and have meetings where they seek to explain Parliament. I think that could be done very much better. Are you looking at that? Very few people in Cornwall are going to be coming up and having the chance to visit Westminster and they do need democracy explained to them and they do need this place demystified. How can they engage? I think we do need to do a lot of work in that area, so I am interested to know what work you are doing in it.

Jonathan Drori: Going to monitor the quality of provision around the country would be beyond the scope of what we do, although in some of the changes I would like to make to our remit-with the approval of the Speaker and officials-I would like to have a slightly more strategic and trustee role. The service here might report to us on their market research and we could suggest changes if the market research indicates one way or another. From what I understand, going out around the country and giving those experiences is something that the Education Service here wants to do, but it is resource constrained. One of the things that you need to decide is how much you are willing to pay per person that you reach. If it is someone doing a school visit, if it is a virtual experience or anything else, how much is it worth paying for each of those experiences? You need to put a price on it and then you deliver what you can for the money. Is it worth a pound per child in Cornwall with whom you go and do a session? Is it worth £10? That decision needs to be made here. That provision is an expensive business. In a service that is country-wide, there are bound to be areas that are better served than others, but you need to decide where your priorities are. Does that answer your question?

Sarah Newton: Yes, thank you.

Q185Dr Lee: Welcome. I would strongly encourage anything you can do to educate the populace on the division between national and local politics, as someone who is told that my primary role as the elected Member of Parliament is to hold the local council to account. I would very much like you to engage as much as possible with the populace. You say access has a wider definition and I would agree with you. Throughout the series of inquiries we have had here, there has been a sense that we lose sight of what this building is for, which is essentially a place for Members of Parliament to review and pass legislation. It is not necessarily a place for people to come and visit. It is not a place for the staff to have a comfortable existence. It is not any of those things. It is actually for Members of Parliament to do what they have been elected to do. I think we encounter problems in terms of the school visits. Certainly, at times in Portcullis House I do wonder whether I am in a legislature or whether I am in a school playground. It is rather busy, to say the least. I wonder in your inquiries how you balance our ability to be able to fulfil our duties, be it in a Committee or in the Chamber, with this desire to make it open and accessible to the wider public. They can tune in on television or online, they can listen on radio. There are a number of ways in which people can participate and view the process without them having to physically be there. These buildings are already overpopulated.

Jonathan Drori: Yes, I suppose you could say of theatre or of all sorts of experiences in life that you could watch them on video. It is not quite the same, I think. Also, they pay your salary and I think that is important to remember. The third point I would make is that it is a matter of attitude.

Q186Dr Lee: Are you suggesting that they have full access to the Foreign Office to go and see what they are doing because they pay their salaries as well?

Jonathan Drori: No. I would say that the default position is that you should be open and transparent unless there is a particular reason not to be, rather than the other way round.

Q187Dr Lee: There are cameras everywhere. We are open and transparent. I cannot move without someone tweeting it.

Jonathan Drori: I do not know. A personal view is that physical access is a fundamentally different thing to camera and virtual access.

Dr Lee: Yes, but-

Q188Chair: Order, order. Let the witness answer your last question.

Jonathan Drori: Personally, I feel there is a qualitative difference between the two and I feel that I would rather err on the side of physical access, and then if you try an experiment and it is just all too much and everyone complains, you can rein back a bit. It is not like you have to make a decision for evermore about a particular kind of access. If you and all your colleagues feel that it is like a school playground and you just cannot do your work, then obviously you have to rein back a bit.

Q189Dr Lee: I am asking about balance, because the reality is, as far as I am concerned, at certain times of the day you cannot get into this building. The access, particularly through Portcullis House, can take 45 minutes to get through. We have gone beyond the point of balance as far as I am concerned. I do not think if you go down the path that you seem to be going down that we can ever satisfy the desire for this place to be accessible to all because the buildings do not allow that and the security concerns and requirements do not allow that. So at what point do you say, "Enough is enough"?

Jonathan Drori: I would say that if access is a problem you need to do something to cure the problem of access rather than saying, "Do not come in." I would say build the education centre. Where is that, for goodness sake? Do things that encourage more people to come in a way that does not disrupt your work, but do not keep them out.

Q190Dr Lee: Give me a location for the education centre and at the same time allow my colleagues to have offices that are actually practical for the jobs that they do as well, because we do not have that. The reality is that space is a problem in this part of the world and so therefore to encourage more and more people to come in is just not practical.

Jonathan Drori: I think that there is an attitudinal divide here. I do not think that it is all about not having the space. I think that there is an underlying issue, which is that some people just do not really like members of the public being around the place very much. That is my hunch.

Dr Lee: I think you will find the problems-

Q191Chair: Order, order. Let Professor Drori reply. He was in the middle of a reply.

Jonathan Drori: I think that if one came at it with the attitude of, "We really want to make this place as accessible as we possibly can and yet still do our work," there might be solutions that you come to. There are all sorts of things that one could think about doing. I am no architect or town planner, but I do not quite understand why arguably the most important building in the country has the Parliament Square traffic issue going on around it. If we can solve Trafalgar Square, why can we not do that one? There are lots of things you can do to bring people closer, to make people feel they are part of it, without them necessarily traipsing through your office.

Q192Mr Francois: The Parliamentary Estate has evolved incrementally over a long period of time. It was not set down as one bespoke design and we have had to make do with what has evolved over that period of time. As colleagues around this table can look you in the eye and tell you, space is at something of a premium around here. There are some physical constraints. That said, the paper here refers to the education centre. We have been kicking this around for a number of years. One of the things I like to see is school parties going around this place. Whoever these people grow up to vote for is entirely their own business, but it is important that they understand the history of this place, what it means in the 21st century and that democracy is something that is important. I suspect we would agree on that.

Jonathan Drori: Yes.

Q193Mr Francois: That being the case, given that we have gone around in circles on this for a number of years here, how, if at all, do you see an education centre actually coming to fruition? Where would it be, over what time scale, and how, essentially, would it operate?

Jonathan Drori: I would love to be able to answer your question. I am not an architect and I do not have enough experience of the site here to know where it should be. I would say that, for me, it would be a fairly high priority because of the reasons I started out with. In order to have a thriving democracy it is very important that children and everyone else have a feel for how the whole thing works. Therefore, I would throw the question back and say, why on earth would you not have an education centre in a really important Parliament?

Q194Mr Francois: On one level it is almost a motherhood and apple pie statement that you should have one. Yet given that there are genuine constraints on space here-which there are-and given that building this thing is potentially quite expensive, although it is arguably a price that we should pay, if you are hard over on where exactly would it be, over what time scale-

Jonathan Drori: I am not qualified to answer the question. I do not know enough about the estate. I am not an architect. I do not know how long these things take to build.

Q195Mr Francois: Just to push back on you a little bit, you are obviously very keen to have it and, personally, I support the concept too, but I would have been a bit more impressed if you had said, "I really think you need to have one of these and I think you should have it there and I think it should open in year X and you should do it in way Y."

Jonathan Drori: As a member of the public with no particular qualification in this, I would be able to suggest all sorts of places to put it, but I do not know whether they are practical or not.

Q196Mr Francois: With respect, sir, you are not just a member of the public. You chair this rather important committee.

Jonathan Drori: I think that our committee would say, "We think this is a priority. Where you decide put it is up to you, but we think that it is a priority to have something like this." We do not have all the plans of Parliament. We do not know where to put these things. You might say we should employ some architects to do a survey and tell you where to put it. Now, I thought your people were already doing that. If they are not, they should be, and if they are not, then maybe that is something we should take on. Do you think that is something we should do?

Mr Francois: I have always been personally pro this project, but if you will forgive me, sir, if you are so pro it I think it is very easy for you to say, "It is a really good idea," and then throw it back at us. I would have been more impressed if you had come along here and said, "It is a good idea," and given us your view of how we should do it.

Q197Chair: We have been all around the houses over a period of years and been frightened by the cost of putting up a building that would not only serve as the education centre, but as a general visitor entrance, where they could be screened, given preliminary information about Parliament and then taken on a tour of the building. The question is, if we decided-and were helped by a recommendation from your Council-that this is a very important priority that Parliament should be observing, whether the public at the present time, or indeed at any time, will be happy at the amount of money that it would undoubtedly cost to do it properly. You have only to consider the visitor arrangements made in the House of Representatives in the United States to realise what this sort of thing could be. Bearing in mind we are elected politicians, would the press take a friendly view that this is something which is being done for the public, for the people’s benefit, rather than for any gratification of Members of Parliament? I fear that it might be represented as wanton expenditure by Members of Parliament on themselves, which would be a gross travesty against the background of what you and your Council are trying to inform us on.

Jonathan Drori: I think that is a risk. There are some parts of the press that will just be negative about whatever you do. It is probably something that is too important not to do for that reason-to use that as an excuse not to do it. I would ask a couple of things. Is this a project that can be phased in some way? That might reduce immediate costs while the country is going through a particularly difficult economic period. I might ask whether you can involve the public, via the press, in ideas for the centre. That can often take away some of the sting from the press, if it starts to feel that it owns it, and certainly if the public owns it. You can imagine either a broadcast media or a newspaper mass participation project in getting people to suggest ideas for what the centre should be like and so on. That just might encourage the press not to see it completely negatively, because then the public would have participated in it in some way. Again, part of the reason for doing that is not just to get people’s ideas and get the press on side, but to make people feel that it is for them and owned by them, rather than building a centre, which is designed here, and saying "You might as well come to it." It is about participation.

Q198Chair: Indeed, it could only be for them. That is what it will be termed.

Jonathan Drori: Yes, but they need to be involved. There is a difference between something that you are designing here and saying, "That is it. Come and visit."-there is plenty of scope for that in society, by the way; that is fine-and something where you are saying, "This is actually Parliament, which is owned by the public, and so participate in some way in the design."

Q199Chair: How important do you regard the suggestion of more tours and activities for all members of the public in the Palace of Westminster to be and do you believe we are going about this the right way at the moment or could we be more creative?

Jonathan Drori: There is always scope for being more creative, doing things in different ways, and I think that the Education Service here seem to have good ideas, which are practical and bear in mind the limitations of the space you have and how many people you can put through. All I would say is err on the side of access rather than exclude access.

Q200Chair: And damn the cost?

Jonathan Drori: No. As I started out by saying to a previous question, you need to think about the cost per user of the people you are attracting here and are serving here. If you think about how much you are spending on each person, per visit, that has to feel reasonable to you. That is not a decision that I can make, but if I was running it I would put a price on everyone’s head and I would say, "For every school child of a certain age that comes through here we are willing to spend X pounds." Then you decide whether that is reasonable or not.

Q201Chair: You must be aware that the House is engaged in a cost-saving exercise, which certainly embraces the whole security aspect: the police contract and so on. If we are to welcome more members of the public and more people being allowed into parts of the Palace, possibly, where they have not been allowed before, there is a security angle, which would drive the cost up. The reason why there are not more entrances available is in some cases due to manning, which again affects the contract. Now, it seems to me that the Palace of Westminster is in danger of going in the contrary direction. At the same time as seeking advice from your Group as to how we can extend access, there are pressures that are running quite contrary to that.

Jonathan Drori: Absolutely. There are two things I would say to that. You have to decide how much of a priority access is. The nation needs to think about that. Is it more important than all the other things we can spend public money on? Personally, I would put access quite high up the list, because I think it is crucial to democracy, and not just physical access, but all the different kinds of access you can have. I think that democracy is just a little more fragile than maybe people in this room feel and I would err on the side of making sure that no child comes away from school without understanding how our democracy works and valuing it. That does not mean that they all have to come and visit all the time, but that is one of the things I would say. The second thing is there may be ways of doing things differently. I think it is very valuable for children to come here, but you might decide that, given the constraints of money, there is more that can be done out in other parts of the country physically by maybe even having occasional Committee meetings in other parts of the country or virtually, as a previous questioner asked. You might be able to do things with cameras in schools and so on. I would say there is a balance there and the more that you can have access, the better.

Q202Thomas Docherty: You may be aware, Professor, of the inquiry that the Procedure Committee is currently doing on sitting hours. One of the options that they are considering is a proposal to shift the sitting hours of the House on a Tuesday and Wednesday to be much more aligned to 9 to 5, perhaps 10 to 6. What impact do you think those changes would have on the accessibility of the House for the wider public?

Jonathan Drori: That is a difficult question off the top of my head. I would be happy to think about that and submit evidence separately. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration. What is the nature of accessibility on top of that? In other words, would it allow a greater number of visits, fewer visits or would it be the same number of people coming into the building and out of the building? Would it be available by media in a different way or the same way as now? Are all other things equal?

Q203Thomas Docherty: Well, you would effectively move the sitting hours of the House of Commons. There is a debate about subsequent knock-on effects for Bill Committees and so on starting at 8 or 8.30 in the morning but, fundamentally, if you move the sitting hours of the Chamber of the House of Commons to, say, 10 to 6 on Tuesday rather than 2 to 10, obviously you do not get tours during the day.

Jonathan Drori: You would probably get a slightly different group of people, which might be good. That might not be a bad thing.

Q204Nigel Mills: You would not get many school kids at 7 pm.

Jonathan Drori: If people wanted to watch some of the proceedings live via video or what have you, that would be easier for some people and more difficult for others. The more you have a variety of hours, the better, because at least people will be able to participate or come on tours on some of the days. The key thing would be variety rather than having the same hours every day. If you have some days where it is different, that would probably be helpful, but I would think that there are people within the Education Service in Parliament who have thought about this and would be better qualified than I would be, just off the top of my head, to answer your question.

Q205Chair: The straightforward implication behind Mr Docherty’s question is that if Parliament is in business at 10 o’clock in the morning that wipes out the possibility of a tour for school children. Now, surely it is implicit in what you are saying and in what the Council has been saying that we should be welcoming children here. If by the sitting hours we deny them that privilege of wandering through the whole building and having the thing brought alive to them in that way, that would be running counter to the philosophy you have been expounding.

Jonathan Drori: Thank you, yes. That is true. But on the other hand there may be another group of people, maybe not children, who may be able to engage with what is going on in Parliament better as a result of the movement in hours. That needs to be weighed up.

Q206Chair: It certainly does, yes.

Jonathan Drori: It is not just about children. That is an important audience, but it is also very important for the rest of the public to engage with what is going on in the Chamber.

Q207Chair: Yes.

Jonathan Drori: There is a weighing up to do.

Q208Mr Spellar: Sorry, how do they engage better as a result of the change in hours?

Jonathan Drori: It may be that what is available on video feeds, whether it is Parliament TV or whatever else you decide to put in, is more exciting and more of interest if it is live and depending on what people wrap around that feed.

Q209Mr Spellar: That is when most people are at work.

Jonathan Drori: Except if you vary it. There will be some people who actually find it easier. There will always be some people who can get access at different times of the day.

Q210Mr Spellar: Yes, so it is not really relevant to the argument. If the argument is that it is a live feed, it is more relevant, depending on which area of the country you are in, somewhere between 5 and 6, and on into the evening. More people would be likely to watch that at home. I doubt their employers are encouraging them to watch it on their screens at work. I am not saying whether it is a good or bad thing in that context. I am merely saying it is an utterly irrelevant consideration in that context.

Q211Simon Kirby: The theatre analogy is that it is a big, historic theatre. Is the visit to look at the architecture and history more important than enjoying the play?

Jonathan Drori: I think it is dangerous for people to see the place as preserved in aspic. The more that visitors and the public in general can see Parliament as a place where work is done, rather than just as a beautiful building with nice paintings in it, the better.

Q212Simon Kirby: I often wonder quite why people do come and visit. Of course, people visit for lots of different reasons, but I am exploring your motivation. Is it the access to the building or the access to the people’s representatives that is important?

Jonathan Drori: I think they are both important. There are other ways of accessing one’s Member of Parliament and that is all extremely important as well-the access to surgeries, the ability to write to them and get a response and so on. That is all extremely important. But I think that the buildings here are seen by the public as representative in a way, not only of democracy with a capital D, but also of the collection of their representatives in it. That is an important thing for people, as a matter of principle, to be able to come and visit, within the bounds of what is practical. That is not just me saying that it should be important; it is important to people.

Q213Mr Watts: Professor, can I ask you what the brief is for this? Obviously there are a number of issues. One that you are involved in is about how you get visitors in and out and the restrictions that apply. Obviously, from the point of view of Members of Parliament, we are mainly concerned about people giving evidence or coming to see MPs and so on. We have present difficulties at certain times getting people in and out of the building. Are you involved in some discussion with other people? How do you weigh those different factors-MPs, guests, people giving evidence and so on against, for want of a better term, the run-of-the-mill tourists or visitors? How is that co-ordinated, and is someone looking at the totality of how we open up the place so that we do not have logjams for everyone-visitors, Members’ guests and so on?

Jonathan Drori: The practicalities of how all the bits of it are co-ordinated would be happening in Parliament itself by people who are responsible for public engagement. As a sort of ginger group up until now, our role has been to suggest ways in which Parliament might engage more with all its different audiences. While we might have a view on some of those audiences being less or more important than others, and we can give our reasons for that, I would expect the decision to be made within the building.

Q214Mr Watts: So really you are not engaged with getting people in and out of the building?

Jonathan Drori: The actual mechanics of how many security gates you have and all that kind of thing? No, we are not.

Q215Rosie Cooper: This is motherhood and apple pie. I have got to say to you that I used to be Lord Mayor of Liverpool and I operated an open-door policy. If anybody passed the door that wanted to come in, they were welcome. In principle, I do not disagree with you. In practice, what we have is motherhood and apple pie because the difference between what you said and the Honourable Gentleman who spoke before said is that you are saying that we should gain the maximum number of people into the building as is practicable. You have no idea what practicable is, but you would like it "plus-plus". That is the gulf that exists-not, as you suggest, that it is the difference between us wanting to preserve the buildings in aspic and not allow people in. I want as many people in as possible. The problem is about the people who you are relying on to make those decisions about how you get people in and the level of security-in my six years here, I have got to tell you I would not let them run a cattery. Everything becomes 30 times more difficult, 20 times more expensive and unbelievably complex. You would not run a business like it, and you are sitting there and saying, "In principle, this is what I want." I totally agree with you. Members of Parliament do not actually really get to make many of the decisions. They happen somewhere else, up there, in a cupboard, and they are fed down and we are supposed to rubber-stamp them. I open the newspaper and I find out what is going on in here. The very people you are suggesting can organise this have got consultants coming out of their ears with madcap ideas on every line and they are the people you expect to make this work. So, in principle I agree with you. In practice, start again.

Jonathan Drori: Actually, I do not think that was a question, but can I respond to it anyway? My experience of the people running the Education Service here and the Outreach Service is very good.

Q216Rosie Cooper: I agree with you.

Jonathan Drori: I would like to make that very clear. I do not have direct experience of the people to whom I think you are referring, who probably run the security or the procedures of getting people in and out. That is, unfortunately, not my business. I cannot comment on it.

Q217Rosie Cooper: Forgive me. I, too, agree with you that the Education people are superb, but the problem is they are operating in this constrained environment. All the things you cannot comment on, you cannot quantify, are the exact difficulties we keep hitting. It really is a problem.

Jonathan Drori: When you say that you personally want more access-and you said it, I think, meaning physical access-if we include physical and virtual access and all the other ways that technology might be used to include more people, do you think that all your colleagues would agree with you?

Q218Rosie Cooper: Some may and some may not, but that is not for me to say. Actually, I think the majority would. I love engaging with my constituents. I love being in my constituency. I see that as the better part of the job, but I actually also understand that being a Member of Parliament requires me to be here, to work very hard when I am here, to be here three or four days a week working maybe 8 or 9 until 10, 11 at night. And if, in that time, we can have the building-the Members of Parliament-as accessible as possible, then yes, I would be very happy by whatever degree you want to do it. There will be people in that bell curve, but most of us, I think, want to engage. That is why we are Members of Parliament: we like to engage with the public. I love it. Forgive me, but I just want you to go away with a slightly more measured view. There are people here who want this to happen but find it very difficult. I do find it really difficult to open my Sunday newspaper and find all sorts of madcap stories, which someone somewhere has decided and we are told that we have done it.

Q219Sarah Newton: I think you are absolutely right. Our democracy is precious and it is more fragile than people think it is. The most important thing is to get people to understand it, value it and participate in it. A huge amount of what this Government has done, and is doing, is devolving decision making from here to local authorities, to the very important institutions like the NHS, like schools and opening up local participation in those organisations as well as giving them more power. There is more direct representation of the communities on trust boards, in academy schools, and this is going to be a continuing theme. Given that, if you want to get people who are not now engaged in the democracy, I think you are more likely to do it on things that are directly relevant to their daily lives-what is happening in their hospital, what is happening at the council. It would be a really good starting point to look at how you can actually get more engagement of people in their communities on decisions relating to them.

Chair: Sarah, is there a question there?

Q220Sarah Newton: Will you really think about the very changing sense of Government direction in your work?

Jonathan Drori: The brief answer to your question is yes. The slightly longer answer to your question is we already have, to some extent. There are lots of things that we would like to see happening more, which I think chimes with what you are asking, whether that is debates around the country or the Committee process being more obviously seen to happen in other places. It would be great to have the right kind of relationship with more media so that there are reports framed in the right way for what is going on both here and around the country that are relevant to their audiences. Newsround, which serves children, would be a great outlet for stories that are relevant to them. We would like to see young people as ambassadors and champions. We would like to see some of those young people around the country take an interest in the iconography of Parliament. The symbol on the chair here is hardly a welcoming one. I know it has a great history, but it is seen by the public as a gate to keep people out. If one was coming from a standpoint of greater accessibility one would be considering all these things. I completely agree with what I think was the thrust of your question: is it all about Westminster? No, it is not. It absolutely is not all about Westminster. Neither have we been thinking all about Westminster, nor will we continue to do so. It is just the way that our conversation has gone.

Q221Rosie Cooper: I was astounded about how you described the portcullis and our history. Frankly, is your aim Disney on the Thames? I just do not understand where you think you are taking us.

Jonathan Drori: It is not for me to say whether the portcullis is the perfect symbol for Parliament or not, but the public see it as a gate.

Q222Rosie Cooper: From where do you draw that absolutely astounding conclusion? In all my thousands of years on this earth I have never heard anything like that in my life.

Jonathan Drori: I believe that was research that was shown to our Group.

Q223Rosie Cooper: From whom?

Jonathan Drori: I will come back to the group with the source.

Rosie Cooper: Chairman, this is really difficult in that we are having people give evidence who-forgive me, I am not being rude-but unless we have got some basis for some of these-

Q224Chair: Order. I think the remarks you want to make are better made in private, not in public. We have invited the witness and we should take the witness at face value, and that is on the record. Could I just ask one final question? You did refer to Parliament Square. What do you envisage might be done there?

Jonathan Drori: It does not feel to us as a Group as a particularly welcoming space at the moment, ringed by traffic. One of the things that we would recommend thinking about is how the traffic works in that space and then whether there is any structure, or perhaps interpretation, about Parliament that could be put in the centre there.

Q225Chair: Have you taken any advice as to whether it would be feasible to make great changes there? You refer to Trafalgar Square. Are you envisaging some new traffic scheme or closure of Parliament Square to traffic?

Jonathan Drori: Everything is possible if people will it strongly enough. For years people said that Trafalgar Square was something that really could not be altered but it seems to work okay. There are always good reasons for not doing something, but if you feel strongly that that space in front of Parliament is valuable and should be used better by the public, there are always solutions.

Q226Nigel Mills: One of the issues we have to balance in getting people in here is whether we have public coming in for tours and whether we have people coming in for events, maybe organised by charities or other lobby groups. Which one of those two do you think should have more priority: the chance for people to come in here and get a cause promoted and to see MPs trying to do good work, or actually letting people come in and see what happens in a freer way?

Jonathan Drori: I don’t know. There should be a balance between the two, I guess. The people who need to do work with Parliament need to have access here. They cannot be excluded if they need to see MPs on business. If I have understood you right, that is absolutely critical. Otherwise the parliamentarians cannot do their job.

Q227Nigel Mills: Yes, the flipside is we can leave here and go to five receptions tonight for different charities where there will be wine and food on show and they will want a photograph of us with their campaign board or something. By letting that happen with their 30 guests, that means that 30 members of the public cannot come in and have a more informal visit and see what happens. Now, you can portray that as a lobbying event that excludes ordinary members of the public and lets in the great and the good, or you can view that as being an important part of our work because all manner of good causes get access.

Jonathan Drori: They are both public benefits aren’t they, but they are public benefits on different axes. It is a matter of taste and opinion where you draw the line.

Q228Nigel Mills: As a Committee we have kicked around for a long time the idea of allowing a broadcaster to come in and follow some MPs around and see the whole gamut of parliamentary work. I think that causes different concerns about how you get balance and not just create media stars, and how you avoid ending up with a sensationalised programme. Are you saying that a programme like that, which showed the full aspects of an MP’s role, would be a valuable thing that perhaps does not exist now and that the public would be interested in?

Jonathan Drori: It would be absolutely valuable. Many people would learn an awful lot from that. I would certainly bear in mind the risks that you have mentioned, but again, it is about erring on the side of access. There are other kinds of access that you might consider on top of that. You might have a sort of open house and allow people to come in and report for a day, to blog, to take pictures, to report on what is going on. They will have all sorts of crazy political views of their own, but you might weed out some of the extremes at either end. Within the confines, without damaging or risking security, people would post material on the web and the deal might be that anything that they publish and put up would be Creative Commons so that anyone could go and use it and re-use it and so on. Again, it is a way of getting quite quick access. Some people would concentrate on the paintings, some people would concentrate on the people they see, but I think it would be another way of opening up Parliament.

Q229Rosie Cooper: The Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement-are your meetings open? Can anyone go?

Jonathan Drori: As far as I know.

Q230Rosie Cooper: Do you have members of the public at it?

Jonathan Drori: I would like to.

Q231Rosie Cooper: No, do you? I am suggesting that perhaps you should walk the walk. If you have not done it already, my question is, why not?

Jonathan Drori: My reason is that I have been in post for days, as far as I know, and I have not had a chance to make those decisions. I think it is an excellent idea and I will take you up on it.

Q232Rosie Cooper: Publicly advertised. Let us all go and have a view. That will be cool, won’t it?

Jonathan Drori: I think there was a question about how the public regards the iconography of Parliament and the feel of the buildings and so on. I think that the research on that is reasonably robust and that people feel quite put off by the iconography and design. On the other hand, there is a balance to be made between that and the heritage and respect that the organisation has, so I do not want to be seen to be advocating just chucking everything away, but you have to understand how many members of the public feel when they come into this building.

Q233Chair: If you went away with a mind to reinforce the case for a visitor centre and justification for the expenditure, we would be well pleased. Thank you very much indeed for your time.

Jonathan Drori: Thank you.