MPs should abandon the crumbling Houses of Parliament in favour of a less confrontational modern chamber, a senior Labour MP has suggested.
Former Labour leadership candidate Chuka Umunna said the debate over how to conduct urgent repairs costing up to £7 billion was an ideal moment to move forward.
He suggested the historic Palace of Westminster could be turned into a tourist attraction.
"It's a beautiful building and it often feels like you are in a museum. So why don't we turn it into a museum?" he asked in an interview with the Evening Standard.
"How in 2015 is it that we are carrying on with a Commons that cannot even seat all its members? How can we continue with a chamber that nurtures the ridiculous tribalism that switches so many people off?" - suggesting a semi-circular arrangement like that used in many other countries instead.
"I think that would change the nature of debate. Sketchwriters would hate it."
It was revealed recently that the taxpayer faces a bill of up to £7.1 billion to stop the Palace of Westminster falling down unless MPs and peers agree to move out while the work takes place.
A study by independent consultants has highlighted the appalling condition of Parliament - with potentially deadly fire risks, collapsing roofs, crumbling walls, leaking pipes and large quantities of asbestos.
If politicians refuse to leave the building, patching it up to basic standards will take around 32 years and could cost between £4.9 billion and £7.1 billion.
Some MPs have suggested the work could be used as a chance to move Parliament out of London for good, and bring with it civil servants in a massive decentralisation of power.
Birmingham Library has been suggested by some as a potential venue, but it is unlikely MPs would want to move out of the UK capital because of the inconvenience and the fact government ministers and civil servants work in Whitehall.
Even if they relocate to another venue and allow renovation teams free run of the historic site, it will still need six years and an estimated £3.5 billion capital outlay.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article