The idea of rebuilding parts of Parliament is not new and it occurred after the second world war as the most recent instance of it. The need today is to update the building according to health and safety requirements as well as standards of usability that are common across all office spaces in the world.
According to my sources, it would take no longer than five years and its budget would meet the stipulations of the Treasury, who would be able to legally pay the bills.
The only implication is moving MPs and Peers onto a separate building – a Parliamentary interregnum – and making sure they’re happy to be politically active in the new location for up to 5 years only.
This is no big deal. It fits with the ambitions of the majority of people that are concerned that Parliament remains as a central focus of governance and as a space that both the elected and the public enjoy.
The more general concern, however, is how Parliament continues to appeal to people not just in the UK but around the world. This is a crucial point of debate because a lot of opinions have formed over the years. It’s not simply a matter of drawing up a list of requirements and suggestions from other people. It needs to fit the expectations of everyone, not just the few.
The other problem is that it’s not certain what political party should be most involved in the planning and the discussions before it starts. The two main parties have not shown an ideological interest and the smaller parties have not been able to. This means it may just be a public works program in the public interest.
It matters a lot what people say about things because it can come to form a definition of how other people see things in future. This cannot be the legacy of a works program that is simply there to make sure that people can work in place and in their proper functions in the UK Parliament. It has to be sorted out properly.
