A building can shape how people behave. The Palace of Westminster is a remarkable building. Its structure and internal design shape how we operate. I find it difficult to imagine engaging in the activities we do in any place other than the current Palace. Having visited many other legislatures, I still prefer our own.
As you will know from previous posts, there is a great deal of work to be done on the infrastructure of the ageing Palace. The possibility of one or both Houses moving out temporarily has even been floated. There will be stiff resistance from many members to any such proposal. However, should it be necessary, one reader contacted me with a question he thought may be appropriate to ask here: if we do have to move, where should we move to? Any suggestions?
If the Lords needed to move to a new home, it would have to be close to the Palace, and be a suitably imposing and prominent building.
How about Middlesex Guildhall?
Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, if only to get a decent internet speed in the area.
In reality, I suppose it would have to be near Manchester, to make the BBC staff move worthwhile.
How about the Commons? They occupied the HoL once, so that will be fair. Would also bring some sense to the place. Otherwise perhaps County Hall or the Millbank Tower.
If it is simply a matter of finding alternative space for the chambers themselves, then my drastic/inventive solution would be to construct a temporary chamber complete with walls and ceiling (as much for heat retention as for aesthetic) within the cavernous space Westminster Hall. Either the Commons or the Lords could occupy it as required to accommodate building words. The Lords also have the option of the Royal Gallery.
If it requires moving out of a large number of offices as well as the chambers, Middlesex Guildhall is an option, although now the new Supreme Court are moving in there it seems unlikely they would be booted out straight away. Methodist Central Hall might be a possibility, though the QE2 Centre would probably provide more flexible accommodation.
Surely the Oxford University Schools or Christ Church College hall – should keep the traditionalists happy…
I believe that there is only one sensible solution. Move the whole thing to Hull City Hall!
The new Olympic Stadium might offer added value, a tad draughty though.
Whatever the venue can the public expect the office of Freedom of Information or any Information Tribunal to be thwarted? How does the law stand?
Does legislation only allow disclosure from a Westminster Parliament or number 10 Downing Street? It looks like an opportunity for politicians to play hide and seek with our rights.
Norman Lamb MP take heed! Healthy work amongst the Iceni.
Ref: Lamb in the News Today
http://normanlamb.org.uk/
14. Our Decision
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i283/Cabinet_Office_v_IC_(EA-2008-0049)_Decision_05-01-2009.pdf
Senex: I might get you wrong…but are you afraid that just because the physical place where the HoL conducts its business changes, the House of Lords would no longer be subject to the FOI legislation? If yes, I have no idea how you got to this conclusion. There is a reason why the legislation refers to “House of Lords” and “Prime Minister’s Office” as opposed to “that part of parliament that meets in the Lords’ chamber of the Palace of Westminster” and “that government agency which has its principal seat at Downing Street 10, London”…
On the wider topic: Sheldonian Theatre, definitely. You don’t need to move the HoL library as this would be redundant with the Bod, no one needs to move his robes for state openings or new members for their introduction, as the academic dress suppliers have large stocks of robes and gowns anyway (and really, who’d note the difference?). you have academic excellence as well as parks around you, you can promote the Youth scheme by inviting all the colleges in turn to watch sessions and talk to House members etc. etc.
Given the relatively poor attendance in the Commons, with the exception of PMQs, wouldn’t one of the larger rooms used for Standing Committees be suitable enough?
“The possibility of one or both Houses moving out temporarily has even been floated. There will be stiff resistance from many members to any such proposal.”
This resistance concerns me, I highly doubt the press coverage around Parliament on it will be flattering, especially if predictions are true and this is the cheapest option. After all, people at the minute are facing far worse than a temporary relocation from one of the countries greatest landmarks which in urgent need of renovation.
What about the Millennium Dome? After all the taxpayer has already forked out £600 million for it. Or returning to Westminster Abbey where the original adversarial debating style was formed? Or how about a touring Parliament? The RSC does it the English football team have done it AND NOW the cabinet are doing It! (At great expense of course)
Thanks for all the replies. I have been impressed with the comments, both in terms of number and content. They have suggested venues – some of them quite ingenious – that had not occurred to me. I especially liked Jonathan’s suggestion of Middlesex Guildhall: no doubt he has in mind that we should all move there from October.
Your comments also raise some interesting wider issues. The comments fall into two categories: those that assume we move out completely (chamber, offices, support staff etc) and those assume it is just the chamber(s) that will be out of action. If it is the former, then we have the opportunity to move to other parts of the capital or, indeed, other parts of the country. You have come up with some interesting ideas. If it is the latter, then either one or both Houses could relocate temporarily into another part of the Palace (possibly on a peripatetic basis). One possibility might be, as Matt Korris suggests, Westminster Hall. Paul suggests one of the larger committee rooms (some of the large rooms in Portcullis House?). Given that much work needs to be done on the chamber of the Commons, I don’t think the Lords moving in there would be feasible, even though I see the logic of David’s suggestion.
Senex raises another rather important point. If the two Houses did have to relocate somewhere, what would be the consequences of not sitting in a Royal Palace? Like Michael, I don’t see that this would have any bearing on FOI legislation, but it may have relevance for other provisions. The fact that it is a Royal Palace made it exempt from licensing laws for example. I presume that is no longer an issue (not my area of expertise) but there may be others.
In response to Noodles, if either or both Houses did gave to relocate, it would not be the end of the world – we are adaptable – but it would affect the way we work and could, potentially, be extremely costly. We certainly would not want to emulate the European Parliament, having our offices in one city and having plenary sessions in another.
Lord Norton, Michael: I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the House of Lords would wish to hide from FOI infrastructure.
However, that is another matter for the Commons. The link refers to Norman Lambs attempt to find out who saw the Prime Minister at number 10 Downing Street in June 2005.
The cabinet now chooses to relocate to the provinces; the cost of such visits is another matter, and where the political colour of the map is predominantly red. With so many entrances and exits in such a public place it would be difficult for Norman Lamb to obtain information for these venues should he desire so?
My question still stands generally and to all matters legal, especially with archaic constitutional or Common Law instruments. A Bill might have to be passed to counter their influence?
Ref: Tony Blair meeting details made public
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/08/blair-meetings
re Royal Palaces: That’s an interesting issue indeed… Does anyone have an idea as to whether these (the currently-in-use ones, not the abandoned ones, although it might be worthwhile to check how much it would cost to temporarily revive them, set them up with desks and IT equipment etc.)are completely “booked out” or whether there might still be space in them? Does the Royal Family’s staff always need the entire Palace? I’m referring eg. to St. James’s Palace/Clarence House here or maybe Kensington Palace or even Hillsborough Castle.
Looking forward to other, um, creative ideas…
Further to that, historic palaces that might still be usable from preliminary research include Banqueting House, Hampton Court Palace and Somerset House (I know that the last one is occupied…)
How about one of the rooms of the Lords Library? Im sure they would be big enough and the books could be moved somewhere else for a few years…although I’m not sure the library staff would be too keen!
With so many people moving to remote work, it might be a good opportunity to drag Parliament kicking and screaming into the 21st century, allowing offices to be more decentralised and only bringing parliamentarians together when it was really necessary. This would be a change of pace, but it might also allow legislators to spend more time in the part of the country that is Not London.
I think that there’s a lot to be said for taking some more steps to break London’s cthulu-grip on the economy and national landscape. However, I’m not silly enough to believe that this kind of thing will happen as a result of simply refurbishing the house. That said, trying somewhere up north might make people realise they don’t get a nosebleed if they head north of Watford.
Senex: I don’t think location has any relevance for FOI purposes. We do have some indication of the costs of the Cabinet meetings that have taken outside London. Any information that is or is not given has no bearing on the fact that the Cabinet is meeting outside London. When it meets in London, it is not meeting in a royal palace.
On the issue of royal palaces, there appears to be uncertainty on the legal implications of Parliament meeting in one. It is a fascinating topic that has not been tested. No one formally dies in Parliament because of its status as a royal palace (people are always recorded as ‘dead on arrival’ at hospital); the Palace is exempt from certain legislation (such as health and safety) but voluntarily complies with it. However, the extent to which this has a formal basis, not least since the Queen has handed over responsibility for most of the Palace to Parliament itself, appears to be not at all clear.
McDuff: As I have argued in response to comments on earlier posts, there is no substitute for parliamentarians gathering together physically and, as I mentioned in this post, the physical configuration of a building can shape behaviour. We can and do utilise new technology, and much can be done electronically when we are many miles from the Palace, but meetings of the House are still essential – and having those meetings in the Palace of Westminster makes a big difference.
Hmm.. This does make me think about those ‘cold war’ plans for British Government to continue from an underground bunker in case the ‘balloon [mushroom cloud?] went up’..
I wonder if such facilities still exist ? They would probably be a tad basic [!] and it would be difficult to decide who would be the most important peers to take there if there wasn’t room for everyone ?
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/873564/posts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5415893.ece
Bedd Gelert: If we have to move out for some period of time, I don’t think we would wish to move underground – even if the facilities do still exist!
Actions not architecture earn the public’s respect.
I find myself somewhat jaded by the evolutionary pace of change and the way arguments and ideas seem to come around every 10 to 15 years – much like fashion. And fasion wise the House of Lords remains in the age of the buckled shoe and 19th century swallow-tailed evening wear.
The House of Lords is a place of work, not a gentleman’s club or a museum.
The ‘Palace of Westminster’ is not fit for purpose; its layout and splendour are devisive and encourage ‘yah boo’ party politics akin to pantomime – is it any wonder that most members of the public cannot engage with politics when there’s so much gold leaf between parliament and the people?
Why should we vote for Widow Twanky? Further, how can we even begin to understand why there are unelected individuals (no matter how competent) embedded within our parliament; are there any competences against which MPs and Lords are regularly assessed and is action taken if they are found wanting? I think not.
As for a temporary place of work for the Lords, why not give the the dome a whirl? Alternatively, there’s plenty of office space around Kings Cross – it’s nearly regenerated and very convenient. St Pancras station should do it – a home from home – the wallpaper will be the same eh? It’s a bit of a treck to Wilton’s though and so may not find favour with all.
Best wishes,
Ms Hanson.
Ms Hanson: I think your argument falls down at several levels. The layout of the Palace is not necessarily divisive. ‘Yah boo’ politics is a feature primarily of the Commons. The adversary style is dictated by the imperatives of electoral competition between the parties. If you have elected members of the second chamber, then you are likely to see the same style of politics. Are there competences against which MPs and peers are assessed? in the case of MPs, it is whatever competences that electors choose to judge them by. And members of both Houses operate in a highly transparent way. Not many people follow what we do, but everyone could do so if they wish – and let us know what they think. And both chambers are indeed places of work. While some officials wear distinctive clothing (making them stand out and hence visible to members and others), members do not.
Lord Norton
It does indeed make a difference, I’m sure – but is this difference altogether a good thing? Might not a change of scenery and pace produce some unexpected changes to the way parliamentarians think and work which would be beneficial in the grand scheme of things?
Lord Norton: Thank you for your reply but you may have missed my point. Many people perceive parliament as irrelevant to their lives, they’re uninterested in government and the methods by which law is made. There may be many reasons for this of course, but it cannot help that the ‘showcase’ events in parliament and the occasional televised debate in the Commons or Lords shows a world that is entirely alien to most people. There is little that is familiar and with which people can identify don’t you think?
Much has been said on this website and elsewhere lamenting the public’s lack of engagement – perhaps it would help if parliament’s business was carried out in a way that involved people more than once every five years and in an environment that doesn’t shout ‘gentleman’s club’ (which it does). There are few female MPs or Lords, and few people from ethnic minorities.
Plus there’s a creeping feeling that it’s one rule for those within parliament and another for everyone else outside – largely focusing on conduct (e.g. the expenses kerfuffle).
It seems there is little willingness to change to bring about more transparency about standards of conduct and competence and adherence to them. As for competences – I think Lord Nolan devised an excellent basis for a set of competences for measuring standards in public life didn’t he?
Best wishes,
Ms Hanson
Ms Hanson: I am not aware of evidence of a correlation between the physical layout of a legislature and disengagement, which is not a feature confined to the UK. There is, as variously touched upon in this blog, various opportunities for people to engage with Parliament in between elctions – and an increasing number of people do, both individually (not least through constituency correspondence) and collectively through interest groups. To say there are few female peers or peers drawn from ethnic backgrounds is incorrect. Women peers are notable in the House of Lords, both quantitatively (relative to the Commons) and, more importantly, qualitatively. The leader of the House is a woman (as was her predecessor), the Opposition chief whip is a woman, the Attorney General is a woman; various other women peers occupy ministerial posts (e.g. Baronesses Andrews, Morgan of Drefelin, Vadera) or opposition posts (e.g. Baronesses Warsi, Neville-Jones, Verma, Noakes, Hanham, Rawlings). The convenor of the cross-bench peers is female (Baroness d’Souza) and there some eminent women on the cross-benches (e.g. Baronesses Ashfar, Greengross, Boothroyd, Manningham-Buller, O’Neill, Butler-Sloss, Prashar, Deech, Murphy, to name but a few). As may be inferred from some of the names, a number of these are drawn from ethnic minorities. The first black woman Cabinet minister was drawn from the Lords. There are prominent male peers drawn from ethnic minorities (Lords Alli, Adebowale, Ahmed, Paul, Sheikh, Morris of Handsworth, Patel, Parekh, come immediately to mind – the list is far from exhaustive exhaustive). Parliament, not least in international perspective, is notably transparent and the public can see what is going on; and there have been major changes in the regime of clarifying and enforcing standards since 1995.