House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Lord Haselhurst Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), because this is the first time that the House has been able to examine, after a considerable degree of preparation and consultation, what is, in effect, its budget. This is an important occasion, and it may well be one that can be repeated on an annual basis.

Some people, when they look at the suggested savings, might think that we are dancing to the Executive’s tune and that that is not what a legislature should do. In fact, one can see from our spending plans that there are ways of making changes and savings that bring us up to date in our operations, even if we are in a 19th-century building. The trouble is that everyone has their own ideas about savings, and what pleases some will not please others, according to their particular pattern of working. At some point, a package needs to be decided. It is not necessarily just a question of cutting or of doing things in a different way; the other ingredient can be to generate income.

We should not over-emphasise the public’s reverence for this building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has done in the past, because I suspect there is a lot less reverence for the catering deficit, which was £5.9 million at the start of this Parliament and which the proposals will, if carried, bring down to at least £4.4 million for 2012-13. If there is doubt whether we can press ahead with the full programme for the restoration and renewal of this building—a matter to which the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has just referred—it is because of the fear that the public will be concerned about the costs involved. I think that the public look to us to act in a responsible and, I would hope, business-like way.

I want to concentrate on catering and retail, bearing in mind the thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Clearly, we felt that the catering subsidy could not be ignored. We were not exactly helped by the Commission’s decision to impose a 10% price increase at the start of this Parliament, before the Administration and Finance and Services Committees were in place. That got us off to a difficult start. I wish it had left it a little longer. It has resulted in some perverse effects.

People think of this place as 650 Members of Parliament, but there are in fact 13,000 pass holders, not all of whom have the same income as MPs. A few have higher incomes, but for the most part they are on much lower incomes, and outlets have seen a reduction in footfall. Members of Parliament also entertain their constituents here and are finding that it has become much more costly to do so. We should not create a regime that makes Members hesitate to bring in guests because of the facility costs in certain outlets.

Income generation is an important element in achieving our objectives and we can do it through both catering and retail. I do not think that a considered approach to the issue should be dismissed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow seems to wish—as commercialisation, as though it were a vulgar activity. If, in his own words, this is the people’s palace, I do not see why we should not widen access, especially when our facilities are not needed by us.

[Robert Halfon]

My right hon. Friend has said that some of the proposals are justified because Members are finding the restaurant prices too high. What he is saying is that it is okay to bring in companies to have special access to our facilities, because that will help Members reduce their bills. How can that be right and how would members of the public react to such a proposal?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend is both unfair and wrong. I said that one effect of the price increases has been felt by colleagues, but that a much greater effect has been felt by lower-paid pass holders in this Palace—I was more concerned for them. The fact of the matter is that large organisations, be they charitable, private sector or nationalised, have access to this place already, and we take a great deal of revenue from them. All they need is the fig leaf of sponsorship from a Member of Parliament. The proposals simply say that access could be achieved without the presence of a sponsoring MP. There is no actual difference with regard to the ability to access the Palace.

I am worried about the IPSA effect—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—on our budgeting arrangements. I believe that the change to Tuesday’s sitting hours has been effected by those colleagues who have found themselves without support for accommodation in central London. I must not impute motive to them, but 43 out of the 96 people affected by that IPSA regulation voted for the change in hours. I can understand why, but it has a serious effect on revenues. On Tuesday evenings this place is now deserted, and on Tuesday mornings we now have great difficulty in bringing in visitors from our constituencies, which is something that many Members value. That is also a question of access.

The Administration Committee has looked—indeed, it is still looking—at how our facilities can be better used. As a general approach, I honestly do not see what is wrong with that. First, I would like to think that Members themselves would use the facilities more often—that would be a start. The Committee, together with the catering management, is trying to find innovative ways in which we can hold Members here more often to take advantage of the facilities and, therefore, make a contribution to revenue, but allowing public access is the other way. Other Parliaments do it. Indeed, in the Parliament of Quebec, the public are able to book a table in the restaurants not only when Members are not present, but on days when the Parliament is actually sitting. I am not suggesting for a moment that we go that far, but the idea that this is a revolutionary or demeaning move on the part of the Palace of Westminster is entirely wrong.

Is it wrong to host civil ceremonies? Is it wrong to develop specialist tours, such as a works of art tour? Is it especially wrong to hire out the facilities? That is what we already do, but we could do more of it. My amendment to the business improvement plans simply draws attention to the valuable work done by the management in that direction, and I believe that that should be given the fullest opportunity to work before we consider any outside catering or similar. Let us put that to the test first—that is the gravamen of my amendment.

[Mr George Howarth]

In congratulating the management, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they have received considerable co-operation from the trade unions in achieving their ends?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I absolutely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although I hope that my testimony to the work that has been done was implied in the fact that I said that the business improvement plans should be given a chance.

Turning to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, I am speaking ahead of him, but he has helpfully sent round an e-mail indicating the thrust of what he intends to say. As I have indicated, I do not believe that “commercialisation” is a dirty word. I think that we should adopt a business-like approach, respect taxpayers and recognise that they are concerned about what this place costs, and, at the same time, widen access for many more of those taxpayers. The fact is that we do not yet have a proper visitors centre. We have talked about it in the past and there is a motion in its favour dating back some years, but we have shied away from the cost of it. We ought not to have people standing in a queue outside in all weathers, waiting to get into this building. It is a serious interference with their rights and, in part, probably, the true business of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned film crews when responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. There is nothing new about film crews using the Elizabeth Tower—that has happened before. All we are talking about is charging a proper fee. As I have said, rooms can be hired out already—what is wrong with that? The demand for commercial tours is ever greater, so why should we not satisfy it? Of course, if we meet that demand, there is wear and tear and it is reasonable, on the whole, to find the income to deal with that.

If that is wrong or demeaning, would my hon. Friend extend that description to the sale of souvenirs? We could be accused of going down market by doing that. When I first came here a long time ago, the only gifts available were bottles of whisky and packets of cigarettes. Souvenirs have been extended a great deal since then. It gives great pleasure to people to have the opportunity to buy such things. We could certainly sell a lot more of the gifts that we have. We are doing it, revenue is going up, and I do not see why we should not take every single opportunity proposed by the report.

We are talking, as I said at the beginning, about the House’s budget, which has been laid out in detail. If we take out any item, we must consider the alternatives. I say respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that some of the alternatives that he put forward in the debate on the Clock Tower to save £469,000 a year would, if debated individually like the Clock Tower charges on that day, be heartily rejected by a large majority of his colleagues. The idea that we should cut down on parliamentary outreach at a time when we are trying to extend the idea of what this place is throughout the country or that we should cut down further on overseas trips and delegations, which would hit at the very purpose of our Select Committees, let alone other groups in this House, is all wrong.

It is absurd to suggest that there has been no consultation before today’s debate. The Administration Committee consulted, listened and put forward a sensible plan that we would defend to the hilt. We cannot afford to delay. We need to have a budget in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He has a thankless task, but he always deals with me with respect and understanding. I greatly admire the work he does; I simply disagree about the emphasis.

I welcome much that is in the report, and it is rare that I disagree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). We have worked together on other matters, but I disagree fundamentally with some of his arguments. As far as I am concerned, there are three issues: first, as I have said, our respect for Parliament; secondly, the precedent that the Commission’s decisions might set; and, thirdly, the need for savings. I am not against savings. I believe that we should have savings; I just dispute where those savings should be made.

The issue of respect is incredibly important, because Parliament is not a stately home or a tourist attraction like many of our other tourist attractions. It is not a hotel or a conference venue. It is a very special place and the foundation of our laws and democracy, and so it needs to be treated differently. Yes, we could make a lot of money by allowing companies to hire out rooms, letting people hold weddings here and allowing film people to use Elizabeth Tower, but, once we set that principle, where do we stop? The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is incredibly enlightened, and I believe him when he says that these changes will be limited, but who is to say that someone less enlightened will not in years to come extend the principle still further?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, “Well, we already have business sponsored by Members”, but most of that is politically related. We reached a compromise: we allow business to enter Parliament when sponsored by Members and when Members are there, and it is usually related to their activities as Members of Parliament. That is different, however, from allowing businesses to hire out rooms or from giving people special access, because they are rich, to see paintings that my constituents, who are not rich, who are on £20,000 a year, cannot see. This is our Parliament, our democracy, and we pay for it through our taxes. It is not like going round a stately home. That is why I feel so passionately about it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden criticised what I said during the campaign to stop charges for Big Ben tours. I said much of what I said then for the same reasons I say what I say now. He talked about overseas trips. The whole House will recognise the incredible work that he has done in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, but if we asked taxpayers whether we should shave a few percentage points off overseas trips—I will come on to savings in a moment—or give people privileged access to the Houses of Parliament, I know what they would say.

Once we set the precedent, where do we stop? Do we have rollercoasters outside? [Laughter.] Members may laugh at the suggestion, but once we agree the principle that we become nothing more than a theme park, we create a dangerous precedent.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

It does not help the quality of debate to start using terms such as “theme park”. My hon. Friend has a vivid imagination, if he believes that any of us are interested in going in that direction. What is being proposed is an enlargement of what we do already. The logic of what he is saying, particularly about businesses coming in, is that hon. Members should be prevented now from allowing these functions to take place, and that is irrational.

[Robert Halfon]

This is where the disagreement lies. I think that we have reached a happy compromise and that we should go this far and no further. The Commission is suggesting that businesses will have special privileges to hire out rooms. My right hon. Friend said that if people are rich they should be able to see some special paintings in the House of Commons. That is wrong. This is our Parliament. We should not make a distinction between people with money and people without when deciding who sees which parts of Parliament.

I turn to savings. I have already talked about overseas trips: if a small percentage—20%, for example—was cut, we could save £250,000 a year. Another £50,000 a year is wasted on food waste. Have we ever considered closing one of the dining rooms, for example, because often the dining rooms are not used?