This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/03/the-guardian-view-on-refurbishing-parliament-get-a-move-on

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
The Guardian view on refurbishing parliament: get a move on The Guardian view on refurbishing parliament: get a move on
(5 months later)
Sun 3 Sep 2017 18.40 BST
Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 17.36 GMT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
View more sharing options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Close
To describe parliament as a decaying institution, crawling with vermin, would be unjust as metaphor. As a literal account of the state of the building, it is accurate. The Palace of Westminster is in an advanced state of physical degradation, infested with mice and in need of an upgrade. Faulty wiring, antiquated plumbing and other structural inadequacies make it unsafe as a workplace – not just for MPs but also security officers, clerks and administrative staff. The most decrepit Victorian sections need 24-hour patrols by fire marshals.To describe parliament as a decaying institution, crawling with vermin, would be unjust as metaphor. As a literal account of the state of the building, it is accurate. The Palace of Westminster is in an advanced state of physical degradation, infested with mice and in need of an upgrade. Faulty wiring, antiquated plumbing and other structural inadequacies make it unsafe as a workplace – not just for MPs but also security officers, clerks and administrative staff. The most decrepit Victorian sections need 24-hour patrols by fire marshals.
A cross-party restoration and renewal committee declared last year that the most effective remedy would be a massive refurbishment, lasting up to six years, during which period parliament could sit elsewhere. That conclusion echoed advice by independent consultants the previous year that vacating the building, costly though it might be, would be cheaper and more efficient than an ongoing saga of piecemeal repairs.A cross-party restoration and renewal committee declared last year that the most effective remedy would be a massive refurbishment, lasting up to six years, during which period parliament could sit elsewhere. That conclusion echoed advice by independent consultants the previous year that vacating the building, costly though it might be, would be cheaper and more efficient than an ongoing saga of piecemeal repairs.
But the plan has not been put into action. The government has avoided taking the decision to proceed, so MPs have not yet voted to decamp. Some traditionalists cannot abide the idea of legislating anywhere but Pugin’s sumptuous chambers. (MPs’ hysteria at Big Ben’s temporary silence during repairs testifies to the overblown scale of such romanticism.) But the real obstacle is allergy to the sight of politicians spending money on themselves. The refurbishment would cost at least £3.5bn.But the plan has not been put into action. The government has avoided taking the decision to proceed, so MPs have not yet voted to decamp. Some traditionalists cannot abide the idea of legislating anywhere but Pugin’s sumptuous chambers. (MPs’ hysteria at Big Ben’s temporary silence during repairs testifies to the overblown scale of such romanticism.) But the real obstacle is allergy to the sight of politicians spending money on themselves. The refurbishment would cost at least £3.5bn.
In truth, that is money spent not in satisfying some greedy Westminster appetite for luxury but on preserving a monument of incalculable heritage value and ensuring the effective functioning of democracy by providing its headquarters with operational facilities. That is not an easy argument to make in a climate when people are quick to presume that politicians are a venal bunch, and when public services have been starved of funding. It may be harder still to win. Nonetheless, it must be made, and won, if parliament is to function properly.In truth, that is money spent not in satisfying some greedy Westminster appetite for luxury but on preserving a monument of incalculable heritage value and ensuring the effective functioning of democracy by providing its headquarters with operational facilities. That is not an easy argument to make in a climate when people are quick to presume that politicians are a venal bunch, and when public services have been starved of funding. It may be harder still to win. Nonetheless, it must be made, and won, if parliament is to function properly.
Then there is the question of where MPs sit if not on the north bank of the Thames. The simplest solution is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, an unglamorous concrete stack just off Parliament Square. The idea of shifting the whole enterprise to another city has been mooted. That would be a fine gesture of political rebalancing, removing MPs from the capital that is perceived as a geographical monopolist, hoarding power and privilege at the expense of the regions. But it is unworkable, since the daily business of parliament involves questioning ministers who would still be tethered to Whitehall. That doesn’t preclude holding some sessions outside London – a practice pioneered by select committees.Then there is the question of where MPs sit if not on the north bank of the Thames. The simplest solution is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, an unglamorous concrete stack just off Parliament Square. The idea of shifting the whole enterprise to another city has been mooted. That would be a fine gesture of political rebalancing, removing MPs from the capital that is perceived as a geographical monopolist, hoarding power and privilege at the expense of the regions. But it is unworkable, since the daily business of parliament involves questioning ministers who would still be tethered to Whitehall. That doesn’t preclude holding some sessions outside London – a practice pioneered by select committees.
Wherever MPs end up meeting, the change of venue is certain to be disruptive to their working practices, which is no bad thing. The move would raise fascinating questions about the need to replicate habits that are tied to the layout of the current chamber – voting by trooping through “aye” and “no” lobbies, for example. Archaic linguistic protocols might seem doubly peculiar when expressed in a more modern setting. People’s behaviour is shaped by their environment and it is unlikely that parliamentary culture could be unaffected by transplant to a space unlike the unique one in which it has been nurtured. The whole enterprise, stuffy with the idiom of ancient privilege, could use a breath of fresh air.Wherever MPs end up meeting, the change of venue is certain to be disruptive to their working practices, which is no bad thing. The move would raise fascinating questions about the need to replicate habits that are tied to the layout of the current chamber – voting by trooping through “aye” and “no” lobbies, for example. Archaic linguistic protocols might seem doubly peculiar when expressed in a more modern setting. People’s behaviour is shaped by their environment and it is unlikely that parliamentary culture could be unaffected by transplant to a space unlike the unique one in which it has been nurtured. The whole enterprise, stuffy with the idiom of ancient privilege, could use a breath of fresh air.
That is not to say the old ways should be swept aside. Parliamentary tradition is not ornamental. It is the expression of British democracy’s gradual evolution and testament to its stability; a heritage symbol as potent as the building itself. When the Commons chamber was gutted during the blitz, Churchill rejected any notion of a modern replacement because he cherished the theatrical intensity fostered by the cramped arrangement of opposing benches. That aspect of proceedings alienates many observers, but it is not clear that its abandonment would excite a new audience.That is not to say the old ways should be swept aside. Parliamentary tradition is not ornamental. It is the expression of British democracy’s gradual evolution and testament to its stability; a heritage symbol as potent as the building itself. When the Commons chamber was gutted during the blitz, Churchill rejected any notion of a modern replacement because he cherished the theatrical intensity fostered by the cramped arrangement of opposing benches. That aspect of proceedings alienates many observers, but it is not clear that its abandonment would excite a new audience.
Any decision will upset someone. Traditionalists and modernisers cannot be equally satisfied. But since the current situation is untenable, and delay drives costs upwards, the best course is to embrace relocation as an experiment of no predetermined outcome, confident that parliamentary dignity will not be compromised by the experience. And, above all, to quit stalling. Honourable members must move out, and they must get a move on.Any decision will upset someone. Traditionalists and modernisers cannot be equally satisfied. But since the current situation is untenable, and delay drives costs upwards, the best course is to embrace relocation as an experiment of no predetermined outcome, confident that parliamentary dignity will not be compromised by the experience. And, above all, to quit stalling. Honourable members must move out, and they must get a move on.
House of Commons
Opinion
London
Architecture
House of Lords
editorials
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Reuse this content