British House of Commons defends Big Ben charge.

The House of Commons Commission has said charging members of the public to visit the Big Ben clock tower is an important part of cutting costs in Parliament, BBC News reported.

It says up to 10,000 go on the tours each year and "it is not clear why the taxpayer should subsidise them".

But Tory Robert Halfon, one of many MPs against the idea, was quoted as saying that the British people should not be charged £15 "to see our ancient democracy".

A debate on the issue will be held in the Commons on Thursday.

It is currently free to climb the 334 steps of the clock tower containing Big Ben, but, from July, visitors will have to pay £15.
The commission is trying to save 17% from the Parliamentary estate's budget and says imposing a fee for tours would help balance the books.

It says charging "does not contravene the principle that citizens should have free access to their Parliament" because there is "a clear distinction" between the clock tower and the rest of the Palace of Westminster.

It says visits to the clock tower are specialist tours, unrelated to the work of Parliament.

"Only a small number of people can go on clock tower tours each year - around 9,000-10,000. It is not clear why the taxpayer should subsidise them to do so," it said in a statement.

The commission says the proposal is only to cover the cost of the tours, not to generate a profit, and without the move, more savings would be required elsewhere to meet the 17% target.

But a large number of MPs have signed a motion opposing the plan ahead of Thursday's debate.

Mr Halfon said: "We shouldn't be charging British people for the right to come to see our ancient democracy. This is our Parliament, we've already paid for it through our taxes.

"Once they start this at £15, in a couple of years it will go up to £20, a couple of years after that it'll go up to £30, and then they'll start charging to see other parts of the Palace of Westminster.

"So I think this is both unprecedented and it sets a dangerous precedent."
But the commission says members were consulted about the proposal in November 2010 and it did not attract opposition.