On April 4, amid the political chaos in Westminster over Brexit, as the government of Theresa May attempted to persuade MPs to back the controversial EU withdrawal agreement and more knife-edge votes took place – a drama of a more tangible kind gripped the House of Commons chamber. During a brief respite from Brexit, as MPs debated tax collection strategies, water began to pour through the ceiling of the main chamber into the press gallery. With Brexit developments being leaked to newspapers on a regular basis, the incident provided almost too obvious a metaphor for political commentators, but it also provided a stark reminder of another crisis facing Westminster, which had been relegated to the back-burner.
Flooding — whether from rain or leaky pipes — has become fairly common at the Houses of Parliament. In fact, in another metaphorically apt incident, a storm the day before the Brexit referendum in 2016 wreaked havoc on the parliamentary estate. Such incidents have been one of the few visible signs that the grand Victorian construct, whose impressive façade and interiors attract thousands of visitors each year, is not in as good a condition as it appears to be.
Its aged infrastructure also manifests in other ways: there are frequent fire alarms, the ceiling has netting in many places to guard against “the risk of falling objects”, and many MP offices are freezing during winter, as many windows fail to shut and open properly. Less visible are problems with its mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Patch-up work has been on for many decades but it has proved to be a bit of a hotchpotch.
Renovating Parliament is a massive task: to give a sense of the scale of the project, Westminster Palace has over 1,100 rooms, 4,000 windows, about seven km of pipework and 402 km of cabling. The depth of the crisis has gained recognition in recent years. In 2016, a committee of both Houses acknowledged that there is an impending crisis that could not be ignored, but the strategy for dealing with it proved divisive. Should the whole building be vacated during works or should workarounds be found to enable restoration work and parliamentary business to carry on together? Moving out of the chamber is a particularly emotional issue.
After the Fire of London in 1834, the only time that neither Houses sat in their chambers was after a particularly heavy bombing raid in 1941, which destroyed the House of Commons chamber. For much of the rest of the Second World War, and despite the threat to the city and the Houses, the Commons sat in the House of Lords, while the Lords moved to the ceremonial Robing Room. The depth of current feeling was signified as some politicians continued to lobby for the building to be used during the works despite reports that suggested this would vastly increase the costs of the renovation. Sense, and practicality have prevailed and in 2018, MPs and Lords agreed to temporarily shift their home while work begins in the middle of the next decade. But controversy has persisted.
Temporary chamber
Earlier this month, details of the temporary commons chamber were revealed — which will occupy Richmond House, part of the parliamentary estate in in nearby Whitehall. The House of Lords is set to occupy the grounds of a nearby conference centre. Images of a simplified chamber with the familiar green seats overlooked by a large public viewing gallery were released. The building will also contain a lightweight glass atrium and offices for all MPs and their staff. “This approach is the quickest and most cost-effective way of tackling the significant work that needs to be done to protect the Palace of Westminster,” said Tom Brake of the House of Commons Commission.
However, the plans have faced criticism: Richmond House itself requires extensive and costly revamping, on top of the billions that the restoration project of Westminster Palace will cost – a sensitive matter in a country that has continued to wrestle with the consequences of fiscal austerity. In addition, work is only expected to begin on Richmond House next year, while plans for MPs to move into other temporary buildings in preparation for the bigger shift also faces delays.
The government has pointed to the Notre Dame fire to highlight the need to act. Others have pointed to a missed opportunity. They argue the temporary structure could have attempted to provide the practical mechanism for a new kind of politics, through the use of a U-shaped or even circular chamber that has been taken up by many countries, attempting to get away from the traditional two-sided chamber, seen as encouraging confrontational behaviour. Given the heated nature of parliamentary debate, such a change, some believe, would be worth attempting.
(Vidya Ram is The Hindu’s London correspondent)
