THE Palace of Westminster, conscious it lacks Box Office appeal, wants to make itself more attractive to the public.

The idea is for a visitor centre to save people from having to queue outside in the rain, snow and smog. It would also have a few facts about the building and, possibly, edited highlights of what goes on inside.

A reasonable idea for a 21st century in which all but the smallest British tourist sites have already gone interactive. At £5 million, it would only cost ten times the amount MPs recently spent protecting themselves from voters with a bullet-proof screen for the Public Gallery in the Commons' Chamber.

But, where our elected representatives are involved, nothing is ever straight-forward. So they debated it for hours and hours. Even sitting late - a rarity in the days of the 7.30pm finish. As one MP commented on Tuesday: "There are some 17 members in the Chamber which at 9.23pm on such a night is not bad, because normally nobody would be here at all as the house would not be sitting."

There were three main points of concern: Did they want to make life more pleasant for the humble visitor? What would it mean for Parliament's security? And what would happen to Oliver Cromwell - whose statue could be moved to make way for the centre?

Eric Forth - a Tory opposed to change at almost any price, but certainly when it costs £5 million - had particularly kind words for the public.

Leaning back on a warm green bench, he said: "Is there any evidence that people are are put off visiting the Palace of Westminster because of the present arrangements?

"We hear pitiful stories about people waiting in queues and standing cold and shivering in the rain, but I have never had the impression that this deterred people from coming here.

"In fact, it may make them appreciate it more when they get in."

To see Mr Forth in action, I'm sure they would wait until hell froze over. But what of terror?

This sparked a long, complicated and surprisingly detailed debate about the way things explode.

Normally, this sort of thing would take place behind closed doors but the MPs voted to continue sitting in public - so on we ploughed.

The unspoken worry was that someone posing as an innocent visitor could plant a bomb, suicide or otherwise, before they had cleared security checks. The visitor centre should therefore "blow outwards" as that is what explosions do, according to Labour stalwart Andrew Mackinlay.

Oliver Heald, the Tory shadow leader of the Commons, thought different. "I thought the general point about security screening buildings was they had thick walls to stop the blast going outwards and make it go upwards."

East Yorkshire MP Gregory Knight favoured a tent. They blow outwards, apparently. Mr Mackinlay almost agreed.

He thought a visitor centre with a tent at times of heightened security could be the final outcome.

Mr Forth popped up again to describe the whole thing as what the Americans call a "boondoggle", the wrong proposal at the wrong time.

But what about Cromwell - who brought Charles I to trial and execution and currently occupies Cromwell Green, the likely home of the centre?

Labour's Stephen Pound, a man who has an opinion on almost everything, had an opinion.

Describing Cromwell as the Butcher of Drogheda, he said: "I would not like to see the statue relocated to anywhere other than a foundry."

Updated: 10:22 Friday, May 14, 2004