Written evidence submitted by Mr Andrew Judge (RNR0004)

I believe that Parliament is on the verge of a decision about its buildings and location that could undermine its reputation and that of Britain at a crucial time. Most experts agree that the Houses of Parliament will need to be evacuated for up to six years in the 2020s to allow essential refurbishment works to take place. The real question is where Parliament will conduct its business and its ceremony in the meantime? Recently, the Joint Select Committee of Parliament concluded that temporary chambers should be sited in a Whitehall courtyard for the House of Commons and the QE II Conference Centre for the House of Lords. The ostensible justifications are administrative convenience and cost, although it appears that alternatives outside London have not been closely examined. This begs the question as to whether the criteria used and the conclusions reached are the right ones?

The historic buildings of Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin are symbolic of Britain as the mother of Parliaments. In reference to the rebuilding of the Commons chamber in the 1940s, Winston Churchill said: We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. By the 2020s, Britain will be seeking trade deals with countries across the world and establishing a new relationship with Europe. Do we really want the representative building of British democracy to be a prefab in the grounds of the ex Department of Health building? Should the Upper House be sited in a characterless convention centre? Should not our parliamentary buildings, even for this ‘temporary’ period of six years, represent the best of British culture, history and architecture?

The context of this decision is of great importance. Recent events suggest that the country is divided and at a crossroads. Our aspiration is that Britain should achieve commercial prosperity and success as an international trading nation. It is vital that in making decisions about Parliament we do our utmost to bring the country together in support of our ambitions.

There is a clear alternative that would exalt British democracy and constitute a powerful statement of our emerging society. Parliament should meet in Manchester in its magnificent Town Hall, opened in 1877 and designed by Alfred Waterhouse, who also designed the Natural History Museum. The Town Hall’s neo-gothic architecture has stood in for Parliament in film and TV. In fact, its Great Hall is almost exactly the same size as the chamber of the House of Commons. For many, Manchester has also been the best venue for major political conferences with the Town Hall, Midland Hotel and Central Convention Centre making an excellent combination. The BBC is now based there. Manchester would also be convenient: it is central to the country and well connected by transport to every part of the UK.

It is trite to say that Britain’s future depends on the confidence of every part of the country. Inevitably economic growth and prosperity are anchored in local circumstances. Yet, there has developed a chasm of sentiment between London and the rest of Britain. The symbolism of Parliament meeting in a great northern city, post-Brexit, would be unmistakeable. Imagine the Queen arriving in Albert Square for the State Opening! 

Manchester also represents to the true spirit of international trade, industrial excellence and technological innovation. As Cottonopolis, it led the industrial revolution. Its buildings and monuments bear witness to its promotion of free trade as the city of Richard Cobden and John Bright. The indicator boards on the ceiling of the Royal Exchange (now a superb theatre) demonstrate the breadth of its past trading links with other parts of the world. Its motif of the worker bee, symbolising industry, forms part of a beautiful mosaic on the Town Hall floor. In the twentieth century, nearby Trafford Park comprised the largest industrial estate in Europe, with cutting edge US companies like Westinghouse Electric and Ford making huge investments in manufacturing. Manchester also has a strong tradition of close working between academia and industry. In 1948 the first working machine to include all the elements of a modern computer was run at Manchester University, which has recently become the home of graphene research.

By the 1970s Manchester was a faded relic of the past, but in the last quarter century it has reinvented itself. The Council has embraced partnerships with leaders in business, education, culture and sport to remake the city. Manchester’s vision is to be in a position to compete with great cities across the globe. To visit now, having known it in the past, is to appreciate the extent of its transformation. Today’s Manchester is truly a renaissance city!

It will be contended that it would not be convenient: that Manchester would be too far removed from Government departments so that the civil service could not work closely with Ministers. There is an easy answer to that: divide the Parliamentary week into two. During the £4 billion refurbishment, it is intended to continue to use MPs’ offices and committee rooms outside the main buildings, so let Parliament convene there on Mondays and Tuesdays: allowing MP’s to raise constituent's concerns, ministers to work with civil servants and Select Committees to go about their business. But on Tuesday evening let the parliamentarians travel to Manchester for two days of sittings in the main chambers. It only takes two hours by train. Urgent meetings can make use of video and telephone conferencing. There is ample hotel accommodation.

Manchester Town Hall needs to begin a £400m refurbishment of its own. That programme will take as long to complete as it will take simply to design and plan the upgrade of Westminster. My suggestion is that instead of spending money building temporary chambers, Parliament should make a substantial contribution to the works in Manchester in return for a free let for six years.

After all, there are more important things than administrative convenience.

February 2017