As an alternative to posting a Saturday Supplement, today we reproduce some historical information provided to the House of Commons by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Dame Caroline Spelman, on the use of CofE venues by the State; Church House has been suggested as possible alternative accommodation for the Palace of Westminster during the proposed repairs; a full or partial decant will not take place until 2025 at the earliest. Further information is to be found on Parliamentary web page Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster which links to a Factsheet, handy for the pub (or end-of-year) quiz.
Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee), HL Hansard 31 January 2018 Vol 635 Col 914
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con):
I rise to speak to amendment (c), and I hope that in so doing I can be helpful to the House in explaining an option for a decant that has historical precedent. This would not be the first time that the Commons and the Lords had met in other places. Westminster Abbey Chapter House has been used, and Church House was used extensively during the second world war. Church House was first used as a contingency Chamber on 7 November 1940, and it was used during three main periods during world war two. In fact, in 1944, both Houses of Parliament were forced to decant to what was then known as the Churchill club, as Church House was sometimes described. I would like to assure Members that the corporation of Church House still stands ready to speak to the Government about once again accommodating Parliament, should the need arise. Many of Churchill’s famous speeches were made in Church House. The then Prime Minister announced the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of HMS Hood in Church House in 1941, and a plaque can be seen in the Hoare memorial hall, where he made the speech, commemorating that event. Heritage is taken seriously, and any visitor would immediately be aware of the links with Church House.
I will give Members a quick guided tour of what is available at Church House. The main assembly room has exactly the same number of seats as this Chamber, and it was designed with a bombproof roof to increase security after the experience of world war one. The assembly room is set within two sets of exterior walls to address the security needs of the time, and that would address today’s needs, too. Dean’s Yard, with which Members are probably familiar, has a secure entrance with a narrow archway and barrier and contains a quadrangle with no access from outside, around which cars can circulate securely. It would be possible to close the relatively little-used Great College Street and Great Smith Street without great disruption. There are many committee rooms and reception rooms, and Bishop Partridge Hall, which is roughly the same size as the Grand Committee Room, is often used for events—Members may have been there. There is a chapel, a large dining area, catering and, yes, licensed refreshment facilities.
All that is why Church House had a contract with the parliamentary estate until recently to provide a default setting to decant at short notice in times of emergency. It is worth emphasising that it would take less public money to adapt Church House for the needs of one or both Chambers than to construct a replica building. The optics for parliamentarians are therefore strong, because explaining to our constituents, as taxpayers, why we are spending such an amount of money gets a bit easier when we can explain that it has been done before.
To add a little more historical information, Church House has been used for the state opening of Parliament. A simple ceremony was conducted with little of the picturesque tradition that we see in a full state opening, but it was 1939. The King himself made his speech from the throne in Church House, so it has even been used for that purpose.
I simply wanted to provide colleagues with some thoughts on how decanting could be done more quickly. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House, and she said that we would be decanting in 2025—the middle of the next decade—which, in the spirit of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), is not very rapid. Church House would stand ready to help, as it has done before, and there is a strong historical precedent that can be used to explain to taxpayers why it may be an entirely practical solution to address the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On division, MPs voted 47 to 410 against Amendment (c), which proposed:
“at end of paragraph (2), insert: ‘(2A) regrets that no detailed assessment has been carried out of the cost-effectiveness of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster, and calls for any future review to include such an assessment.’—(Pete Wishart.)”
At Col 886, Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con) commented “I cannot believe I am going to say this—but in this instance, in supporting amendment (b), absolutely everybody vote leave”.
the decanting of legislators into nearby Church House would appear to be an ideal solution to this vexed problem
“and, yes, licensed refreshment facilities.
All that is why Church House had a contract with the parliamentary estate until recently to provide a default setting to decant at short notice . . .. The optics for parliamentarians are therefore strong,”
licensed….decant…optics … strong ???? 🙂
The debating chambers maybe. But if the offices were needed where would all the CofE admin go?
In 1987-88 there was a move to sell off Church House. Fiercely opposed by a group of us then on General Synod. I have no regrets in applying then to get it listed! It has been a Grade II listed building since December.1988.
For that matter, where would the Lords and Commons staff go?
Can anybody explain why necessary restoration piecemeal could not have been carried out during previous decades of economic growth?
I worked there for 36 years from 1970 and there was an immense amount of piecemeal restoration carried out then, mainly to the stonework. For example, the entire building was cleaned, in stages, during the late ’70s and ’80s and large sections of the roofs were renewed. But it’s a huge building and, evidently, has got to the stage where a much more thorough restoration is necessary.