Last Word: What Needs to Change in the House of Commons?
| Author | Hannah White |
| DOI | 10.1177/20419058221108785 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
40 POLITICAL INSIGHT • JUNE 2022
Last Word
What Needs to Change in
the House of Commons?
The Palace of Westminster is a global
icon of democracy, but also a
crumbling edice that constrains
the eectiveness of Parliament. It is
a symbol of much that is good about the UK’s
democracy but also a depressing metaphor
for what is wrong with its legislature, and why
Parliament nds it so hard to reform itself.
When it was rst constructed, between
1840 and 1876, the vast neo-gothic
Palace was a modern marvel of Victorian
engineering – with novel ventilation systems,
innovative encaustic tiles and cutting edge
cast iron roofs. But it also manifested the
values and culture of the Victorian age – the
exclusions, hierarchies and imperial hubris
which structured society were reected in the
architecture of the building constructed to
house its governing classes.
Many MPs and indeed members of the
public are attached to the grandeur and
tradition embodied by the Palace. But in truth
it is no longer a building t for a modern
parliament. Society has changed over the two
centuries since the Palace was built, as have
the public’s expectations of their democracy.
The intimidating, inaccessible and crumbling
Palace reects an outdated conception of
MPs as elevated beings set apart from the
electorate and its layout limits who can gain
access to Parliament and how.
The Palace’s warren-like corridors,
numerous staircases and tiny lifts are dicult
to navigate, even for the able-bodied but
near-impossible for any member or visitor
with mobility diculties. The architecture
echoes the complexity of the rules by which
Parliament runs itself, which have accreted
over centuries without being regularly
reviewed and rationalised. As a result, these
rules are impenetrable to most of the public
and even to some MPs – meaning their ability
to represent the interests of their constituents
is not equal.
By an accident of history, the UK Parliament
meets in a royal palace, which means that
like other royal residences it is exempt from
certain laws – such as certain health and
safety legislation. Although such laws are
normally adhered to – by choice rather
than compulsion – the anomalous status
of the building is one of several factors
which promotes a sense of exceptionalism
among MPs and distances them from their
constituents, reinforcing public perceptions
that MPs think they should not be subject to
the same rules as the rest of the population.
Such perceptions are – in turn – validated
by the behaviour of some MPs, who, as we
have seen during the ‘partygate’ scandal, fail
to recognise the proper limits of their rightly
‘special’ status.
The Palace of Westminster is in need of
reform if it is to reect the aspirations of the
UK’s modern democracy, but that is not the
full extent of its problems. It is also in serious
need of restoration. For more than 40 years,
a series of ocial reports have documented
serious risks of re, ood, crumbling masonry,
asbestos and outdated mechanical and
electrical machinery which plague the Palace.
These reports have been consistent in setting
out the scale of the problems and also in
their recommendations for action – MPs and
peers need to vacate the Palace for a period
of years to allow an enormous and expensive
programme of works to take place. (The latest
estimate, in 2021 put the cost of the necessary
works at £12bn.) Anything other than a
‘full decant’ – in the parliamentary parlance
– would vastly increase the cost, risk and
timescale of the works that are required.
But despite the consistency of the expert
recommendations made to Parliament,
remarkably little progress has been made.
The history of attempts to restore and renew
the Palace is a litany of buck-passing and
delay, reecting many of the shortcomings
which limit Parliament’s ability to reform
itself more broadly. A constitutional set-up
which privileges stability and an executive-
dominated system with a massive vested
interest in maintaining the status quo, provide
a brake on progress and innovation. The
absence of a single point of parliamentary
leadership able to drive the works forward,
combined with the complexity of the
governance of the Commons and the Lords
have led to frequent roadblocks and reversals.
The most dramatic and depressing of
these has to be the decision of MPs in 2022
to dismantle the ‘sponsor body’ which their
predecessors had established to reduce
political interference in the restoration
programme. This change of direction matters
because it will return Parliament to a situation
where progress with the restoration will
depend on the ability of today’s MPs to set
aside their short-term preferences (to remain
in a prestigious building, without the hassle
or moving out and without having to justify
the enormous cost of restoration to their
constituents) in favour of the long term
interests of Parliament as an institution (to
meet safely in a building which is t for a 21st
century democracy and accessible to the
public) . The history of their ability to manage
these short- and long-term interests is not
inspiring.
There is much that needs to change in the
House of Commons if Parliament is to restore
its credibility. But for as long as MPs fail to
address the problems facing the building in
which they meet, their chances of increasing
public trust in their institution seem remote.
Dr Hannah White OBE is Deputy Director of
the non-partisan think tank, the Institute
for Government. Her rst book, Held in
Contempt: what’s wrong with the House
of Commons? is published by Manchester
University Press.
Westminster needs to be reformed and restored, argues Hannah White.
Political Insight June 2022.indd 40Political Insight June 2022.indd 40 01/06/2022 11:4901/06/2022 11:49
To continue reading
Request your trial