Now here’s a parliamentary irony. Had I booked a room in the Commons end of the Palace of Westminster last week to celebrate some political anniversaries, and the publication of my new book “Who Decides?”, I would have been permitted to sell copies to the friends and colleagues who attended. MPs and former MPs may sell their literary works in rooms with a green carpet. Others may not do so, to stop Commons meeting rooms becoming a free venue for any commercial book launch. Incidentally, my book is largely concerned with Parliament and political decision-making, and is not a novel or collection of indifferent verse!
However, the Lords’ rules are more restrictive than those for MPs. My short “Cornish Cream Tea” reception took place in the Attlee Room, at the Lords end, with a red carpet. There no book sales, whether by Peers or anyone else, are allowed at all. Given that so many entrants to our House – past and present – have gained preferment by success in business this snobbish attitude to “trade” seems peculiarly inappropriate. However, whichever are the right rules, surely the two Houses should agree on a common set?
Here are the two competing guidelines:
Commons
The rooms may be used for launching books written by Members or by former Members who are currently Members of the House of Lords. Selling copies in these instances is permitted. Members may use rooms to launch books written by ‘members of the public’ as long as they fall into the main qualifying categories:
• history of the Palace of Westminster, the House of Commons or any of its departments;
• anthologies of Members’ speeches or extracts from their diaries;
• biographies of former Members of either House who have taken their seats in either House;
• biographies of former servants of the House (e.g. Erskine May, Hansard or Bellamy).
These books must not be sold on House premises
Lords
Members may hold book launches for books written by them or primarily about them.
You might think the Lords’ guidance sounds ambiguous, but I was sure to check with the authorities: no selling allowed!
I was advised in November, when I attempted to attend a joint committee on Immigration, at which I was expected, to use the
peers’ entrance for Peers’ meetings, which I proceeded to do. I was escorted thru the winding corridors by a woman who had little more idea than I of how to get to the peers corridor. Eventually she found it for me.
I was unwise enough to use the same procedure last month
and entered unmolested, and normally, as I thought.
My problems had begun since some doors open; others don’t;they are all lackadaisical; they are all chaotically organized. I eventually found my way yet again to Peers Corridor but not before asking the way a couple of times.
I succeeded in getting to the meeting in time, which, in view of the hugely increased “tripper/tourist” attendance at the palace,even in February going through the now heavy security, I would not have managed to do.
Interviewing me a little later, Black Rod mentioned that he was a little surprised when his own little office door had its locked handle turned. I was that far from finding my way!
He tells me I
“run the risk of being treated as a trespasser
in Parliament”
which considering my long relationship with the peoples of it , the places,the committees, and the chairmen of them, is somewhat surprising. I shan’t argue with Black Rod, nor did I.
However I would say that I was appalled by the unalluring nature of the place; the bad odours, the dingy corridors, the
skimpy lifts; the narrow staircases, which cannot have been designed even for the peers of the 19thC, let alone the 21st.
I gave some thought to Lord Tyler’s remarks about Parliament square and the desperate need to do something to make it more attractive. Many of those entering through the security checks might well have been happy to inspect old, and very
out of date buildings from a distance, and let the philosophers and politicians amongst us, get on with the thinking.
My suggestion that UK Parliament, even though only for a shallower version of representation, without the Welsh and Scottish needs, should have a new greenfield, splendid and spacious palace, in which to do its business, is one that I take up again; anywhere where the large crowds can view and say
“Ah Yes now that is more like the palace in which the one time
mother-of-Parliaments SHOULD reside,”
with plenty of spacious acres around it to give the impression of consummate organization and political skill.
The new £800m Portcullis house does no such thing, only compounding the difficulties of overcrowding, security, and so on, of the surrounding area.
They can spend hundreds of millions on Olympics in 5 or 6 years, but if it comes to doing the same for a more relaxed Parliament, no such possibility is mooted.
The Yorkshire moors are too far! Somewhere nearer would be fine! …… Oh! and some more spacious offices for Black Rod!
I can’t see why the two Houses should have common rules when each House is a separate entity.. It’s like saying that M&S and John Lewis should have common refund policies on occasions when they are both tenants in a particular shopping centre.