Parliament should leave the London bubble – and the Palace of Westminster be repurposed | Letters

You are right that parliament should move from London (Editorial, 25 February), but surely the move should be permanent, not temporary? A permanent move to, say, Derby, would make parliament more accessible for MPs, organisations and voters from large areas of the UK. A new parliament building could be big enough for all MPs and have a more appropriate circular main debating chamber.

Whitehall would need to move too, bringing jobs northwards. Government properties in Whitehall could be sold or rented out, and replaced with buildings in Derby and Derbyshire that were much cheaper. MPs’ rental and other living costs would also be lower, which would further save public money.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent

I have been saying this for years. Parliament should move to a purpose-built, modern facility that is more geographically central to the UK, permanently. This should include modest but comfortable accommodation and facilities for MPs who are remote from their constituencies, which would improve security and mitigate further scandals around expenses and second homes.

The Houses of Parliament should be renovated as a tourist attraction and museum of democracy, especially as exhibitions, gift shops and cups of fancy coffee would start generating revenue.
Elizabeth Lock
Oxford

Your editorial advances very laudable reasons to move the government out of London without seriously addressing the negative consequences of doing so. In particular, the disruption to communication and collaboration with the departments of state that would ensue.

You have not considered a very reasonable alternative site in London: Buckingham Palace. It is perfectly placed and surely has enough space to accommodate both chambers. The king must have parallel offices in Windsor Castle and could comfortably relocate there. Given the current parlous position of the monarchy, such a selfless act would go a long way to restoring the reputation of another creaking British institution.
Dr Peter Hindley
London

The splendid election of the new member for Gorton and Denton (Report, 27 February) prompts me to propose that one qualifying criterion for all future MPs should be that they have a demonstrable background in the engineering, construction and decorative trades.

By forming all-party working groups, their collaborative efforts could be put to use during parliamentary recesses in reconstructing the Palace of Westminster, saving the taxpayer many billions of pounds as a result. As we all now know, the mere offspring of toolmakers should be excluded from candidacy.
Rory H D Cooper
Dunfermline

Westminster could be used once every four or five years for each new parliament if people are still into all that pomp and circumstance. I’m a republican so it has little interest for me, but good for tourism maybe?
David Bargh
New Brighton, Wirral

Rupa Huq does not go far enough (We conduct affairs of state in a building that’s riddled with asbestos and mice. Can’t Britain do any better?, 22 February). Anyone who visits the Scottish parliament building at Holyrood or the Senedd in Cardiff enters a building that looks as if it was designed for people to work in. By contrast, the Palace of Westminster looks like the kind of place one might visit on a Sunday afternoon for a cream tea.

So why not capitalise on this image and hand the building over to the National Trust? It would make a wonderful museum of political and constitutional history. For example with modern technology and the use of avatars it would be possible to recreate in the Commons chamber the great debates of British history.

But the real benefit of getting parliament out of the Palace of Westminster is political, not cultural. It would deliver a jolt to the political system – a severe jolt is needed if we are going to achieve the necessary reforms to our political processes and practices, which have been discussed now for many many decades (an elected House of Lords was identified as necessary in the Parliament Act of 1911). As it is we have cabinet ministers with archaic, meaningless titles that sound as if they have been culled for a cast list of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera (chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, lord privy seal).
Richard Henderson
Bristol