10 signatures reached
To: John Bercow - Chair of House of Commons Commission
Palace of Westminster Unsafe? Move Parliament!
Don't waste money on an out-dated building. Build a new Parliament - in the North.
Why is this important?
Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible.
This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction.
A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster".
The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now.
One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar.
There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties.
There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel.
I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.
This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction.
A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster".
The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now.
One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar.
There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties.
There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel.
I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.
