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

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

administration Committee

VISITOR ACCESS AND FACILITIES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Monday 23 January 2012

BERNARD DONOGHUE

Evidence heard in Public Questions 234 - 260

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Administration Committee

on Monday 23 January 2012

Members present:

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)

Rosie Cooper

Thomas Docherty

Graham Evans

Mr Mark Francois

Mr Kevan Jones

Simon Kirby

Nigel Mills

Tessa Munt

Sarah Newton

Mr John Spellar

Mr Dave Watts

Mike Weatherley

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Bernard Donoghue, Director, Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, gave evidence.

Q234 Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Donoghue. We are very grateful to you for coming to give evidence to this inquiry. You are the director of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. I am not quite sure whether the Palace of Westminster should be categorised in that way, although we are certainly looking at ways of ensuring that more visitors can come, because we feel that is part of the democratic process. Access to the Palace is very important, but we are not unmindful of the income generation aspects of it, and we know that the House of Commons Commission is looking at it. Is there any opening statement you would like to make to the Committee?

Bernard Donoghue: First, thank you very much for the invitation to assist your inquiry, which is important because it goes to the heart of what a visitor attraction could and should be.

Initially, I would like to make three brief points. The first is to explain what ALVA is: it is the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. We have 42 members and each attracts about 1 million visits per year. They range from the Palace of Westminster to all of the national museums, galleries, cathedrals, castles, stately homes and also the National Trust, National Trust Scotland and English Heritage. Collectively, they attract about 100 million visits to visitor attractions in the UK. The 42 members of ALVA are the principal reason cited by overseas visitors for coming to the United Kingdom. They want to see our museums, heritage, tradition and galleries. In that context, the Palace of Westminster is a very welcome and important member, though I suggest it is unique in that it has other considerations. The first is that, as a working institution, visitors need to be managed and attracted so that the work of Parliament is unhindered, and that is something to which we pay a great deal of attention.

Second, like most museums, galleries and stately homes, being a commercial attraction is not its principal purpose for existing. Its principal purpose for existing is largely one of education, information or curatorial work. Similarly, here at the Palace the education work in explaining the role of Parliament and the importance of democracy is the principal one.

Third, it provides money, and particularly at this point of economic constraint, the ability to derive more income in a sensible and sensitively and sustainably managed way is very attractive, not least because the income derived by Parliament from visitors could be ploughed back into the upkeep of the fabric of the institution but also education about what Parliament does both here in the United Kingdom and around the world. I am delighted to contribute to your inquiry in any way I can.

Q235 Chair: From your knowledge of this place, have you formed a view as to how we do, bearing in mind we are here to welcome people who come specifically to contribute to or observe the proceedings of this legislature; others who come here for what might be loosely termed recreational purposes; those who come here for educational purposes; and those who are ordinary visitors who want to admire the Palace? How do you think we cope? What impression do we give?

Bernard Donoghue: I have my own experience. I worked in the House for a number of years as a researcher, and latterly in tourism at VisitBritain, the National Tourist Board, and, for the last two years, in the Royal Household, which, akin to this, is also an institution that has a dignity to maintain but welcomes visitors because it also has a commercial imperative. In order to get exactly the kind of experience referred to in your question, I paid for and took a tour on Saturday-almost as a mystery guest experience-to find out what it was like to pay my £15 and be a visitor to the Palace. My observations are these. The content of the tours is incredibly good and rich. £15 for a guided tour of an hour and a half represents incredible value for money. If I am being brutally honest, you may well be undercharging for the experience, not least because when I left the Palace on Saturday I walked straight past Banqueting House, an English Heritage property. That is essentially is a one-room building, albeit a very impressive one, with no audio guides, and that charges £5. Therefore, you are only three times more expensive, but the quality of the experience is decidedly impressive.

The experience is let down, however, by the logistics. My first observation is that one buys a ticket on the website through Ticketmaster. That is a good and easy process akin and comparable to most other commercial operators. You pick up your ticket at the Jewel House across the road where, if it is raining, you stand in the open. There are no covered premises; you are at the mercy of the elements.

Second, there is a lack of formal welcome to the Palace. Going through security at Cromwell Green is relatively straightforward. This is a Saturday experience, quite different from the normal working day experience during the week. It is relatively quick and straightforward. It is not explained to you what you are going through, but enough people have travelled through airports to get the general impression. There is no word of welcome as one enters the Palace of Westminster. I deliberately looked out for it. The first sign you see on leaving security is about regulations relating to serious organised crime. Therefore, the first information you get is that these are all the things you are not allowed to do rather than a welcome.

Third, for me Westminster Hall is not only the architectural but the political pinnacle of the Palace of Westminster. Yet it is treated as a mediaeval airport departure lounge with very good information, but the overall impression, if this is the mother of parliaments, is that it is slightly cluttered and messy.

The fourth observation is that, when the guide meets you-the guide on Saturday, who did not know I was coming, was excellent and absolutely brilliant-there is no word of welcome but a list of a number of things you cannot do. Therefore, your first impression of Westminster is restrictive and prohibitive rather than welcoming and enabling.

The fifth point is a serious logistical oddity at the Palace. One is then taken through all the rooms at a hurried pace to begin the tour at the other end of the building. One is then brought back through the rooms through which you have already walked. I knew where I was going, but the people in my group worried that they would never see those rooms again because it was not explained to them that essentially they were doubling-back on themselves. Were it possible to start the tour from the Royal end, through to the Commons and then out through Westminster Hall, not only would that be an entirely logical and linear approach, but in terms of the narrative of what Parliament is about-Royal, Lords, Commons, Westminster, St Stephen’s Hall-it makes much more sense to the lay person, too.

The sixth point, which you will know about because you have been to visitor attractions, is that you exit through a gift shop for very good reasons. Here, you bypass the gift shop, which is in St Stephen’s, and end the tour in Westminster Hall. Most people, because they have been on their feet for an hour and a half, either go straight out of the door or get a cup of coffee. Relatively few people, at least in my group, went back to the gift shop. The gift shop is good. It is my honest opinion that it could be a lot better. I am assuming that it has a limited range of products only because it has a limited floor space to occupy, but the lack of opportunity to sell additional tour guides and books, souvenirs, or indeed additional tours of, say, Big Ben, is completely lost.

My final point may seem slightly curt but I think it is important. You have attracted these visitors, many of whom are constituents, into the building. When they depart there is nothing that says, "Thank you. We have enjoyed having you here. Do you have any more questions? Please come back." From all the research we have undertaken, visitors come back to those organisations who thank them for coming in the first place.

In summary, the content of the tours is fantastic and slightly underpriced, but the logistical arrangements that surround them are confusing and do not allow prime opportunities for maximising both visitor experience and income.

Chair: That is a very telling statement, which will resonate with the Committee. For the record, the tours for which people buy tickets take place only during a limited part of the year, and at the moment large numbers of people who come as guests of Members are escorted around free. Whether that changes is another matter, but that is the situation at the moment.

Q236 Mr Jones: What you say is very interesting. I was a member of this Committee in the last Parliament. It used to be exactly as you say. You started with a walk through, which was the obvious, logical thing. There was a suggestion to put the gift shop in Westminster Hall at the end, for the obvious reason you gave. What has been your experience at Buckingham Palace and other places that are working places? What do they do that we are not doing here in terms of visitor experience?

Bernard Donoghue: If I may give two particular experiences that are relevant here, I am also on the board of St Paul’s Cathedral. You will appreciate that we have had our own particular experience of the concept of welcome over the last four months. St Paul’s is also a working institution. Tourists and visitors are very welcome, as long as the work of the cathedral can carry on unhindered. Both Buckingham Palace and St Paul’s Cathedral have done relatively similar things. They have established a visitor or welcome centre physically distinct from the primary building. That enables you to do two things. First, all the messy logistics of ticket selling, picking up of tickets, going through security and orienting oneself can be done away from the building. Therefore, when one enters the building, in this case St Paul’s Cathedral, it is uncluttered. Your first sense of the building of St Paul’s is uncluttered awe. That is not the case here. Your first experience is one of messy logistics. All of it is necessary, but it is not concentrated for the visitor. Similarly, Buckingham Palace has a separate visitor welcome/orientation place, during the summer months when it is open, to do all of those messy logistics offsite.

Q237 Mr Jones: Is that within its secure area?

Bernard Donoghue: Yes, it is within the royal estate, but it is distinct from the building. Similarly, I was in Israel last summer, not as a member of ALVA, and visited the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. They do something very similar. Goodness, if there is a building that has security considerations, that is it.

Mr Jones: It is a horrible building.

Bernard Donoghue: But they also have a separate visitor/education centre where all the security screening and orientation is done offsite, so your access to the Parliament building is uncluttered and freed up. Second, both of them have invested in high-quality audio guides. That enables you to change the script on those audio guides very easily and quickly; you are not dependent on tour guides to do visitor and traffic management, which takes up quite a lot of time; and it also means that at both Buckingham Palace and St Paul’s Cathedral you can have two different pricing structures. You can buy a normal audio-guided tour, which might be £15, but you can have a premium tour as well with a tour guide. Believe me, people do like to pay more for the premium experience of having a tour guide to take them round. Therefore, there are a couple of things in terms of both logistics but also what they mean in maximising marketing opportunities.

Q238 Simon Kirby: Picking up on the gift shop, do you have any statistics about spend per head, because it seems to me that often, looking at businesses elsewhere, most of the profit comes from that last port of call?

Bernard Donoghue: Yes.

Q239 Simon Kirby: Can you quantify it?

Bernard Donoghue: I cannot today, but I do have the figures and can provide them to the Committee. ALVA provides a benchmarking service for all of its members. Therefore, everyone, from Chester Zoo through to Blackpool Pleasure Beach and the National Trust, contribute their retail and catering figures. We have learnt in the last couple of years that spend in gift shops has gone down in the last four years, largely because of the economic climate. Spend in catering establishments has gone up, because people still want a cup of tea and need to eat. That is not universally the case. Where you have very good products in a gift shop, retail spend has gone up dramatically, but it depends on having good products and making sure the gift shop is well managed and stocked.

The last factor is the pester power of children. If you provide a gift shop and retail experience that gets the product right for children, you know from your own experience that you end up buying slightly more in a gift shop than you thought you would because the kids want it. We always say at St Paul’s, slightly heretically, "Give me a child at seven, and I will show you a visitor and purchaser for life." Therefore, attracting young people is enormously important, not least because this is their first experience of politics and Parliament. On my tour on Saturday there was just one child of about seven or eight called Ben. He was told very candidly by the tour guide that it was completely possible that one day he would end up here as an MP or Member of the House of Lords. How extraordinarily inspiring it is for a young person to have that experience.

Q240 Simon Kirby: You referred to a "thank you" at the end of the tour. Should we be giving out a party bag at the end?

Bernard Donoghue: I doubt it very much. All people really want to know is that their time, effort and money have been appreciated, and a very simple, "Thank you very much for coming. Please come back again," is sufficient.

Q241 Mr Watts: First, what would be your guess about how much more effort could be put into the sale of souvenirs? Second, what do you think about online sales? Is that something of which you have any experience, and how much does that generate compared with shops?

Bernard Donoghue: First, we know from ALVA members such as the British Museum, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum, all of which are free to enter, that they put a huge amount of effort into getting their retail product correct. The profits they are now generating from their retail shops are absolutely enormous, particularly when it is allied to a blockbuster exhibition like Leonardo or whatever. Getting the right retail experience can be hugely important. The savvier members of ALVA, the large museums and galleries, are learning as much from John Lewis and Ikea about packaging, marketing and retail as they do from some of their contemporaries within the tourism and attractions sector.

Second, online is absolutely the way to go, particularly if one can buy tickets to the visitor attraction in that way, because it is cost effective; it reduces queues at site; and you can manage and predict your visitor traffic in advance. In addition, if you use the website that manages those tickets to sell online products-frankly, at Westminster that could be anything from House of Commons cufflinks through to Speaker’s whisky but also potentially Oyster cards-there is the enormous possibility of providing a one-stop retail shop that is not tacky but is sensibly managed and still projects the dignity of the institution.

Q242 Mike Weatherley: I can show you our gift shop, which is open to Members and has all those things in it; just it is not on the tourist route. When you bought your ticket, was it a souvenir-type ticket, or did it just refer to today’s entry? Following Simon’s point about having something to take away with you, was it a memento? There are lots of museums, institutions and so forth around the City. The British Museum has 5 million visitors, for example. Is there a benefit in our partnering in some way, for example if you have been to the British Museum you can have 10% off the House of Commons, or some reciprocal advertising or link?

Bernard Donoghue: That is a very good point. As for the ticket, I can remember it having a logo on it, which I think was purple. Beyond that, it was prosaic and factual and I did not keep it, and also part of the stub was taken off. I suppose you could make more of that. As to cross-marketing, one of the things that surprised me on Saturday was the continual reference by the tour guide to other museums and galleries not only in London but across the UK. Rather brilliantly, they were all ALVA members, so I applauded it. For example, when we were in the royal gallery, which contains the fresco showing the death of Nelson, the guide went out of her way to say where the fatal bullet is housed, which is Windsor Castle, and where Nelson’s uniform is, which is the National Maritime Museum. She was referencing all of these points, which prompted you to visit those places too. Therefore, the text is already within the script, if you like. What I do not think happens, though there is no reason why it could not, is more crossselling between institutions of a similar quality and dignity. I think that could work very well.

Q243 Nigel Mills: When I did the tour with family guests, I was not convinced that the tour was very tailored to different ages and interests. If you are doing it with a collection of school-age teenagers, they quite like the House of Commons and seeing where the king had his head chopped off, or at least the trial. They, and certainly younger children, were not quite so concerned about some of the art. Do you think there is more scope for tours to be tailored and perhaps booked at different times that are suitable for younger children and teenagers, or for art specialist tours? At the moment, it is just a standard offering that does not suit everybody perfectly.

Bernard Donoghue: That is a very good point. One thing that quite impressed me on Saturday was that those thinking they were going to see Parliament in aspic and a museum of politics did not get that. They got a clear enunciation of what Parliament means and stands for, and so it is more than the building and the contents. I was impressed by that. You are right that there was an age range of between probably seven and 80 in the 20 people in my tour group. It was by definition blanket coverage for everybody. What an audio guide would enable you to do is make specific those bits of information. If the Committee is interested, I can recommend one in particular: the Roman baths at Bath. That has an audio guide, which you would ordinarily employ here, and is partly chronological and partly history, certainly in terms of what Parliament is about, but you can also add in former or current Members, or Members of the Lords, giving their anecdotes of what it was or is like to be in the Commons. You cannot get that on the current tour, but with an audio guide you can build in all those things.

If someone wanted purely an arts or paintings in Parliament tour, or whatever it is, they could opt for that, so an audio guide would allow you to be much more creative and tailored in the products you are providing to the visitor, and therefore enrich their experience.

Q244 Rosie Cooper: What difference do you believe charging or not charging makes to the attractiveness of this particular building, not just in general?

Bernard Donoghue: It is a very good point. When the Labour Government introduced free admission to national museums and galleries 10 years ago last month, I was working for VisitBritain and the National Tourist Board. We had a duty to advise DCMS on the likely impact. We said that the vast majority of visitors, particularly overseas ones, to national museums and galleries would happily pay because they paid for the same experience in their own countries. Therefore, levying a charge of £15 to £20 is not in any way a deterrent to accessing a visitor attraction such as a museum, gallery or somewhere like here. The only note of caution is that the kind of people who want to go on a guided tour are very happy to pay and look for value for money. Visitors are pretty savvy shoppers, so they understand what they are getting and what they are paying for. I do not think it would make economic sense to have this as a free attraction, because the case is proven that people are happy to pay, and I am pretty confident they would be happy to pay more if the product was suitably arranged for them.

Q245 Rosie Cooper: Do you think it is schizophrenic on the one hand to talk about openness, transparency and getting the taxpayers of this country into this building, and then say to families or schools that want to come in, "We are now going to charge you"? Is there not a contradiction there?

Bernard Donoghue: On the surface there is, but it is the same dilemma faced by national museums, galleries and in particular cathedrals, in that you can certainly experience them for the purpose for which they were built entirely free, but there is a supplementary, different experience for which people are ready to pay. I think they understand the dilemma you are identifying.

Q246 Rosie Cooper: Do you see it as a particular dilemma in that we are not talking about a building in aspic but the theory is about trying to engage with and bring people into the parliamentary process and whet their appetite to be more involved, and then you say, "If you haven’t got money or can’t afford it, don’t stop here"?

Bernard Donoghue: Paying for a ticket and going on a tour is not the only way one can access Parliament. I think the two are entirely different but complementary ways of accessing Parliament. The very fact of having a good, rich and sensibly managed visitor experience that is paid for does not undermine at all the nature of free access by all constituents to their MPs.

Q247 Rosie Cooper: I am not suggesting that. Free access to the mother of Parliaments-to see this building, go round it and be involved in the history. All those things people are currently telling us. I am concerned because I want openness; I want as many people to come into this building as possible, but I am concerned about cost and silly ideas about the portcullis being offensive to people out there-all that kind of thing-which build up another layer of impenetrable fog through which people have to pass.

Bernard Donoghue: My experience of visitor attractions in ALVA is that, if you make yourself as attractive as possible at commercially sensible prices and provide an opportunity and experience that is rich and welcoming, people entirely pay for that, and that is not necessarily at odds with free access. For example, there is a very good case up the road at the National Gallery. That is free to everybody, but if you want to go to the Leonardo exhibition-by the way, good luck because it is completely sold out-you can pay additionally for that, so it is supplement and complement, not instead of.

Q248 Rosie Cooper: In your view, would you charge everybody to come here, even during the working week? Do you think that is how we should operate?

Bernard Donoghue: No, because I think Parliament is a very different institution, in that it is founded on openness, transparency and access. At the same time, it realises that it has elements that are a tourist attraction and therefore it can capitalise on that too.

Q249 Rosie Cooper: I phrased that really badly. You would want to charge everybody who went on a tour, even during the working week?

Bernard Donoghue: Not necessarily. That is a business decision entirely for the Committee and the House. I think the two work very neatly together, so if you want to access Parliament and see it on a tour arranged by your Member of Parliament, that is entirely free.

Q250 Rosie Cooper: I mean a proper tour during the week of the kind you paid for at the weekend. I often sign requests from people who come in free, so it would be the same tour but free during the week and you would pay at the weekend. Do you say we should charge all week?

Bernard Donoghue: I would not, because I think the kinds of tours that you get are qualitatively different. The nature of the institution is such that you can have paid-for tours that sit happily alongside free ones, and a free tour is your right as a constituent.

Q251 Rosie Cooper: I was not aware that I was sending my constituents on a second-class tour.

Bernard Donoghue: No; I did not mean that.

Q252 Rosie Cooper: What would be the difference between a tour during the week and one at the weekend?

Bernard Donoghue: I have not experienced the one during the week. I am merely identifying the fact that Parliament is already deriving income as a good, though not brilliant, visitor attraction. Therefore, the opportunities not only to deepen but increase visitor experience and welcome visitors of whatever sort-they could be overseas visitors paying £15 a head, or individual constituents coming through on a week-day tour-are before you, because at the moment they are not being fully realised.

Q253 Graham Evans: My colleague here mentioned different age groups-children, young people, middle-age adults and senior citizens-and different areas of the Palace appealing to certain groups. Certainly, for young people it is an opportunity. I do not know whether you are familiar with Horrible Histories.

Bernard Donoghue: Yes.

Q254 Graham Evans: That sort of tour may appeal to them. I am not thinking necessarily of school children and school tours, because that is very much educational, but there is perhaps an opportunity for birthday parties and that sort of thing. One quick win would be not to charge the great British taxpayer to come to this place but charge foreigners a reasonable sum, and the clue could be in the prices. It could be in euros, dollars or whatever, so British citizens would not have to pay a bean, but lots of tourists could make a significant contribution to the running of this House.

Bernard Donoghue: They could indeed. The idea of hypothecated price ticketing is not one that ALVA members currently undertake. It is either an attractive proposition as a visitor attraction or it is not, and it is either free or not. The idea of differentiating that is not normal, but entirely possible. It would be quite difficult to do logistically, not least because most people buy their tickets online. Therefore, trying to identify where these people come from, what passports they possess and their nationality would be hugely complicated. Ultimately, visitor numbers tell me that people are very happy to pay for a good quality tour of Parliament. My own commercial sense is that they would also be happy to pay more for that if the presentation of the tour was slightly differentiated and tailored specifically to children, young people, those interested in arts or whatever.

Q255 Chair: What is your impression of our security processes? Probably all the organisations within your association have the problem of security to overcome.

Bernard Donoghue: Yes.

Q256 Chair: How do we do it? Do we do it efficiently? Do we put off visitors by the process?

Bernard Donoghue: Everyone from the security side that I encountered on Saturday was entirely helpful and polite, and some were real characters. I do not mean that in a dismissive, pejorative way. They really engaged with the people who came in. Like anybody who does a job in a repetitive fashion, particularly security screening, there is no explanation given for what is being done, what you are going through and why you need to wear a badge. It is just assumed that you would know that kind of thing, and therefore there is almost no conversation between the visitor and the security personnel at the initial point. My own experience is a good one, but it provides another opportunity for everybody who interacts with members of the public to think that they are the first face of Parliament that the person is experiencing. The first face of Parliament that the visitor experiences could be a police officer, a tour guide, or someone standing outside in the road directing people in, but that initial experience of Parliament is an important one to get right because of all the welcome connotations that come from that.

Q257 Chair: Do you have experience of buildings and places that have a problem similar to ours, in that people are coming in for what might generally be called business reasons, while others are coming in for entertainment and the interest of a tour? Do you know how that is best coped with?

Bernard Donoghue: Yes. The best and most meaningful examples are parliaments: the Scottish Parliament; certainly Capitol Hill in Washington DC; similarly, the Canadian Parliament; the Israeli Parliament, which I have just identified; and Dáil Éireann in Dublin. All manage their security, welcome, logistics and screening in a different way for conventional visitors to the parliament, as opposed to those who come as paying visitors to a tourist attraction, to call it that for the moment. They tend to differentiate the two. That makes a great deal of sense, because a person coming for a business meeting to, say, a Select Committee could end up being in the queue for 45 minutes alongside a whole host of people, which may include paying visitors who could be more successfully managed, processed, oriented and given a welcome and screened at an entirely separate building or venue. Their needs as visitors could be met in quite a different way as opposed to the generalised, holistic process through which one goes. I think you could differentiate it. Many organisations have done exactly that. In some cases, while maintaining the dignity of the institution and being careful with the fabric of the property, management of those who come for business and those who come as tourists is done most successfully by establishing a separate charitable trust as a managing entity to handle all of those things, almost as an outsourced management exercise. That is what Buckingham Palace does through the royal collection; it is also what Historic Royal Palaces does for unoccupied palaces.

Q258 Chair: Knowing the Palace as you do, would you suggest that an education centre has any more importance as an additional facility than a visitor centre, or is the distinction a hard one to make?

Bernard Donoghue: I think the distinction is a hard one to make, not least because everybody coming for an educational experience of Parliament is by definition a visitor. Every paying visitor-the classic tourist, if you like-who comes here will ultimately get an educational experience. While the philosophies of the two objectives may be somewhat different, the experience for the individual is incredibly similar.

Q259 Chair: Do you believe the portcullis is a barrier between the public and Parliament?

Bernard Donoghue: As a logo?

Q260 Chair: Yes.

Bernard Donoghue: No.

Chair: Are there any other questions?

Rosie Cooper: Do you want a job?

Simon Kirby: Very funny.

Chair: Thank you very much for your evidence, which has been both interesting and highly relevant.