There are big things going on in the world. The government's shambolic approach to Brexit (ding ding, only took me a sentence and a half to mention the B-word), Trump swaggering around Earth, living a trail of misery in his wake, North Korea looking more and more likely to blow us all up.
However, none of them come close to the state of the Palace of Westminster. The decrepit, crumbling building is a risk to all its 8,000 inhabitants (and that doesn't include the thousands of public visitors every year). According to the Guardian, the building caught fire 40 times between 2008 and 2012. That is ridiculous. Many pipes and cables date back to the 19th century and by 2025, 52% of pipes and cables will be at risk of failure. This is ridiculous. Something must be done. For years there had been lots of discussion about re-locating while Parliament was fully repaired. It was the only logical thing to do. But nothing was ever done. Politicians from all political parties may spout agreements with one another on the need for MPs and peers to move out, but this never reached the interest of the highest offices. MPs were happy to conserve their place in Parliament, whatever the consequences. Finally, there has been change. Last week, MPs voted 236 to 220 to depart the Palace of Westminster while a proposed multi-billion-pound refurbishment takes place. Interestingly, this was a rejection for a Government proposal that would have delayed the final decision on a departure, revealing how MPs of all political colours were able to work together to ensure Parliament is safe for future generations. The cabinet themselves were split down the middle. While the Prime Minister was helpfully able to avoid the vote, being too busy drinking tea and watching parades in China, her senior ministers stepped through all division lobbies and none. Chris Grayling, David Gauke and Matt Hancock vote for the move, while Damian Hinds, Sajid Javid, Esther McVey and Penny Mourdant were among those against the decisions. Interestingly, this decision can once again be traced back to a person's stance on Brexit. Chris Bryant and Anna Soubry, both MPs who supported remaining in the EU, Bryant believing it is 'bonkers' to remain in Parliament while the building works take place and Soubry stating it is time to 'do the right thing' i.e. vacate! In contrast, Sir Edward Leigh, a vocal Brexiteer, believed MPs would be out of Parliament for '10 to 12 years', a reason to vote against the bill. What a fascinating, negative correlation. Though some may say it is only a correlation, there could be a reason to suggest causation. Brexiteers are traditionalists. Meaning they want all powers back to the British Parliament, hence their distaste for a temporary vacation, even if it is just down the road. Remainers are more socially liberal and therefore more adjusted to change, believing it is better for everyone if MPs are not in Parliament when work is taking place. The departure of MPs makes sense not only because of health and safety, but also, economically. The total refurbishment is likely to cost £3.5bn over six years. This is no small sum. However, it is far more minuscule than other potential costings. Were the Commons and Lords to move out one after the other, the costs would likely be £4.4bn over 11 years. Even worse, were the tradition voices to prevail, the so-called supporters of economic sustainability, the cost would be £5.7bn over 35 years. We don't have 35 years to ensure safety. A fire, potentially causing mass destruction and endangering life, could be imminent. It is not a suitable condition in which to work. To ensure the public remain on the side of Parliament, a lower cost solution for the same amount for work in a shorter time frame is the most practical and politically successful solution. Stephen Pound, a Labour MP who bucks the negative correlation trend by supporting EU membership and remaining in parliament, said the Palace is more than 'bricks and mortar.' I quite agree. He is right to say the building is a 'statement' of democracy admired around the world. The palace truly is iconic and a beacon of democracy. Despite the unelected Lords (and automatic right of bishops to sit in the upper chamber), the Commons remains superior from the monarch and the upper house, where the people have a say. However, the Palace cannot remain an inspiration if it has been burnt to the ground. It would take far longer to rebuild it than repair parts within the existing structure. Even if the Palace was rebuilt, it still wouldn't be the same. Call me a scaremonger, but I would far rather be wrong about a fire, having moved out for less than a decade, than have a lethal situation in a neglected Palace full of people. Despite the progress made recently, change is unlikely to occur until 2025, well into the next Parliament and Britain's journey outside the EU. There would still have to be a full Act of Parliament, where the composition of the House of Commons and Lords could be totally different, full of traditionalists who would refuse to leave. It is because of the iconic beacon of representation, liberty and democracy the Palace represents that MPs should move out. Then, as soon as the work has finished, Parliament must return, ready to speak for constituents and hold the Government firmly to account.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|