John Harris’s article is timely, not just because the present structural fabric of parliament is unfit for purpose, but our system of parliamentary governance itself is unfit for purpose (Parliament is falling down. Let’s move it to Birmingham, 9 September). What a heaven-sent opportunity for review and revision.
A federal system in which each of the four member countries has equality, with their own parliaments for governing their own distinct affairs, would require the creation of an English parliament, built for purpose, with a smaller number of sitting MPs. The British federal parliament could be located centrally to the member countries in Birmingham or the north of England to deal with pan-British affairs such as foreign policy and defence.
If the decisions of the federal parliament were required to be ratified or referred back by the parliaments, there would be no need for a House of Lords. Add proportional representation and democracy would be truly served. A once-in-a-century opportunity to fix our collapsing system of governance, not to be missed. Otherwise I’m voting for Guido Fawkes.
John Stone
Thames Ditton, Surrey
• The headline on John Harris’s article is misleading, as Harris is arguing to move the House of Lords, not the entire parliament, out of London. The difference is important.
As most ministers are also MPs, they need to have the legislative house close to their departmental offices, as they often work part of the day in their ministerial office, and have formal and informal duties in parliament, including answering routine oral and emergency questions (of which they are given only a few hours’ notice) to MPs; appearing before select committees, meeting lobbies and attending events organised in parliament.
Peers who are ministers also do these things, but are usually not the lead departmental minister, so could always belatedly inform the upper house.
The magnificent library would have to be split up.
With parliament in the capital, many organisations that regularly interact with parliament have similarly located there. Thus most non-governmental organisations/pressure groups, trades and professional associations and institutions, trade unions and many thinktanks are based in London.
Harris clearly spends a lot of his time reporting politics from outside London, so may not appreciate how important it is to co-locate parliament and its collective – and very important for democracy – lobby.
Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey
• A massive project to move both parliament and the seat of government out of London would have many advantages for both London and the rest of the country, but moving to an existing big city is unnecessary and would be very disruptive to that city. Suddenly there is a real chance to make the “northern powerhouse” something more than a few new railway lines. Only by moving the seat of power itself to the north can we transform and rebalance the relationship between London and the rest of England and create a genuine economic counterweight to the south-east.
What is needed is a 20-year project to create a new northern city of perhaps half a million people, as not only a political and governmental powerhouse but an economic growth centre based on new technologies – a new silicon valley of the north. The obvious location would be somewhere in the “concealed” coalfield belt east of Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham – on the M1 and linked motorways, on HS2, in attractive countryside – and with plenty of flat land for England’s new hub airport, which does not need to be and should not be in “London”.
The fairyland palace by the Thames created by Barry and Pugin can then become the museum of English and British history they always intended it to be, a focus for democratic debate and civic society outside the formal parliamentary system, and a massive revenue-earning tourist attraction.
Tony Greaves
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
• The architect Charles Barry designed both the Palace of Westminster (aka the Houses of Parliament) and Highclere Castle (AKA Downton Abbey). Perhaps MPs and lords wishing to retain the architectural character (“Jacobethan”) of their current offices and facilities might contact the earl and countess of Carnarvon to discuss rental terms and the construction of bars. Highclere Castle isn’t far from London or Windsor, has landscaped parkland by Capability Brown (most suitable and ideal for photoshoots and garden parties) and ample space for parking and helicopters. I’d be happy to act as agent.
Richard Griffin
London
• Why is the obvious solution – to move out of London for a while – not being considered? For it’s not only the fabric of parliament that is crumbling, but national confidence in the institution itself. Entrapped in the Westminster bubble it is widely considered to have lost touch with the country at large. If it spent the next five years moving around, like a mediaeval court, or were transferred for the duration to, say, Manchester (Britain’s, or at least England’s, second capital in effect: her radical capital in all kinds of ways, and with a far better Victorian building to house it in), it would be of huge benefit to the MPs who would have to decamp there. The electorate might be newly bonded to it, too. Of course the City and the metropolitan press might not like their government to be so far away from their malign influence. But in every other way it would be a great way to turn a temporary inconvenience into an enormous democratic good.
Bernard Porter
Emeritus professor of history, University of Newcastle
• John Harris echoes my thoughts. It is high time there was a realignment of the political (and, by association, financial) establishment in Britain. The current Houses of Parliament are outdated and clapped out.
Rather than expensive and pointless renovation, why not move elsewhere? Geographically speaking, I would suggest Manchester. If the Scots decide to go their own way, then Birmingham has it.
At the same time you could get rid of all the Gilbert and Sullivan flummery (wigs, Black Rod, Mr Speaker, yah boo politics etc). The politicos would hate it. If one has ever watched either the Welsh assembly or Scottish parliament, you would be conveyed to a different world. It is quiet, orderly and stultifyingly boring, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
I wonder what our European counterparts would make of the present lot.
Michael Grange
St Davids, Pembrokeshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
