Modernisation of the House of Commons - How could the Palace of Westminster be made more visitor-friendly?

How could the Palace of Westminster be made more visitor-friendly?

Have you ever visited the Houses of Parliament? What were your impressions of the place? If you haven’t visited, is there any reason why not?

The Committee is interested in measures which would make the Parliamentary Estate more accessible to the general public, subject always to security needs. This applies not only to those who want to come and look at the building, but to people who want to see Parliament at work—to see a debate in the Chamber, a select committee or a standing committee, for example. What can we do to encourage people to come and to make them feel welcome while they are here?

Public Gallery

posted 01/03/2004 - 12:39 by David Pollock

I have read that there is a proposal to put a glass security screen up between the gallery and the chamber. This would symbolise a radical alienation of Parliament and public. Surely the security checks before you can get into the gallery are sufficient?

Glass partition in the gallery

posted 05/03/2004 - 19:03 by flackangela

Every effort must be made to protect all members of parliment, at all times
even if it means moderns items like glass partitions, and, earphones, to hear the debate.
Angie

strangers' gallary

posted 01/03/2004 - 16:48 by tiptoes21

I agree with D pollock. Any glass barrier would only be symbloic of the division that already exists between parliament and public.

Strangers gallery

posted 05/03/2004 - 19:07 by flackangela

Again every effort must be made to protect our members of parliament,its what they do for us, not symblolic gestures.
The division between parliament and the public stems from the posh rich ruling the underclasses, with very little or no choice, between the lot..
Angie

MODERATORS COMMENT

posted 04/03/2004 - 16:05 by Barry

Re: 'Strangers'

DavidPollock and Tiptoes21 raise some very interesting points about the security of the public gallery and Parliament as a whole.

What does everyone think about the use of the term 'stranger' when Parliament refers to members of the general public?

It would also be interesting to hear what people think of the way Parliamentarians refer to each other in debate i.e. "My Rt Hon friend" or "The honourable member for Billericay"

Do you think terms like this are useful to the public in terms of identifying what area an MP represents or do you think such prefixes serve to distance members of the public from the political process? Perhaps if MPs called each other by their christian names people would relate to that style of language more easily.

Barry
e-Moderators Team
The Hansard Society

Although the pomp of Parliame

posted 05/03/2004 - 13:34 by susie

Although the pomp of Parliament could be seen to alienate the public I feel the use of historic terminology is important. Democracy in this country has a long and facinating history and maintaining tradition does validate the actions of members. If too many attempts were made to "modernise" Westminster I think people may question the professionalism of Parliament. Saying that, I do think it is very important that these terms are explained in a very readable way on the website, infomation booklets etc. I don't think the public are put off by language [infact I think suggesting they are does not give us due credit] as long as these terms are explained and the system it's self is seen to be transparent.

Plainly speaking

posted 05/03/2004 - 19:17 by flackangela

Plain English speaking is the only way to reach all the public voters

Plain Speaking

posted 08/03/2004 - 13:36 by David Allen

The use of traditional protocol is the only way to maintain the unique standards of our Parliamentary system.
It is the dilution of this regime which is creating the an atmosphere of personal indulgence which most people have come to dislike. Most people do not want or need to listen to all of the words that are spoken; it is the substance that matters, and we have precious little of it at the moment!

Plain English is dull

posted 08/03/2004 - 14:31 by redpants

I am always confused as to why people want to denude Parliamentary processes of their uniqueness. We are at a point in history where to many modernity is everything and all the traditional ways should be torn down. I disagree and I think this is missing the point of reform. I think Parliament should be modern in the way it connects with people, through technology, through transparency and through openness. Connecting with your representatives is not generally affected by the ceremonial processes discussed here. I don't think that taking away these fun, historic elements would make a huge difference. It would simply take away some of the more enjoyable aspects of the institution.

Pomp is one thing

posted 05/03/2004 - 19:21 by flackangela

Th cost of all this Pomp! over indulgance in entertaining, glorified banquets, and the alcohol bill, is obsence..
Angie

Connecting Parliament with the Public