The Palace of Westminster is a magnificent, indeed awe-inspiring, building. I admire it every time I walk in. However, it is beginning to show its age. Many of the internal systems – water, gas, heating, ventilation, electrics, drainage and communication – have exceeded their economic service life and major modernisation is required. As the Chairman of Committees, Lord Brabazon of Tara, put it in a written statement on 15 October: ‘The complete project will take many years and will involve considerable cost’. As he went on to say, the normal practice is to undertake major work during the summer recesses. However, the scale of the work now needed meant ‘that a full range of options should be carefully considered’. The House of Commons Commission has ordered a feasibility study to see whether substantial savings could be made ‘by moving some operations of both Houses out of the Palace for a period to enable modernisation to be carried out continuously to completion. The Lord Speaker and I have agreed that the House of Lords will participate in this exercise’.
The feasibility study is expected to be completed in the middle of next year. We shall see what it comes up with. If it entails either House, or both, having to sit elsewhere then there is going to be tremendous opposition from some members.
The problems with some of the internal systems are all too apparent at times. Yesterday morning, I was in a committee room for a meeting of the Constitution Committee. In the afternoon, I was in the same room for a meeting of Sub-Committee E of the EU Committee. In the morning, most of the members complained about how cold the room was. One member even had to put her coat on to keep warm. The heating is centrally controlled, so an official was sent to see if the heat could be turned up. She returned to report that members in the adjoining committee room were complaining that their room was too hot! At least I had the consolation that in the evening, when I chaired a seminar with my students on placement at Westminster, I was in the warm room.
Perhaps you could order a temporary suspension of the Welsh Assembly Government, and requisition their premises in Cardiff Bay ?
That might very well kill two birds with one stone. There are fewer seats in the Assembly, but no doubt it might accommodate the most valuable noble Lords who turn up most often.
Or it could be done on a first come, first served basis ?
Let this debate be practical. Many people are about to lose their homes, please remember that. If the Treaty of Lisbon becomes ratified by all 27 Countries, our new Government will become housed in Brussels. This will not be an easy transition because the people have had no say in the decision taken by this present Government and Parliamentarians.
There is only one option for the people that simply can no longer afford to keep on a Government and Parliament that has quite deliberately and against the known wishes of the vast majority of people continued to give the authority (Sovereignty) to govern this once great country to foreigners, whilst at the same time knowing their allegiance was sworn to their own Head of Country and to all the people in it.
Those beautiful Buildings can either rot or be made safe and used as tourist attractions. The Welsh Assembly as suggested by Bedd Gilert, is of course a Region of the EU as is the Scottish Parliament a Region of the EU. They will begin to play a rather more important role than they do at present.
Whether the British people will continue to pay anything towards this new arrangement that most MP’s, Lords and Ladies have been working towards for the past 37 or so years, remains to be seen.
Bedd Gelett: The National Assembly of Wales is far too small for either House. Even the two Houses of Parliament are too small for all the members. In a packed House, some peers have to sit on the steps in the aisles – I have done it myself on occasion. The great attraction of the new National Assembly building, of course, is that it is environmentally friendly. Given the age of the Palace of Westminster, I fear that, even with modernisation of the infrastructure, we shall not be able to emulate it.
Anne Palmer: Parliament remains extremely important, even allowing for the policy competences ceded to the European Union. I have no intention of taking the line that all powes have passed to Brussels, therefore we should just give up. Parliament remains vital to our political system and both Houses have crucial roles to play. The important point is to strengthen them, politically as well as physically, in fulfilling their vital functions.
With the greatest respect Lord Norton, it has been suggested more than once by both sides of the argument for and against EU governance, that at this present moment in time about 80% of our legislation is instigated in the EU. Therefore, it does not need a whole compliment in either House to see through that legislation. Plus, England has already been divided into EU Regions in readiness to do the job of Parliament. Each of those that sit in those houses cannot surely expect to remain in there when year by year, day by day each House has passed legislation (correction, has ‘welcomed’ each little bit of EU legislation) that removes authority from this Country (a once sovereign Country) to the EU.
This has been done without the authorisation of the British people. They were denied a say on the very Constitutional Treaty of Lisbon which I think I have given enough evidence on other titles of this blog.
Governments of this Country have willingly and eagerly accepted EU Treaties knowing that they cannot alter or ignore one tiny paragraph, dot or comma, so why, Oh why has our own Constitution been ignored? It has been rubbished, torn to shreds in part and deliberately ignored. It is however, still in place for the people to use.
Parliament has always been extremely important to me and many millions more and it has been painful to many to see what has happened to it over the years, but more so over these last years under this Labour Government. My father was a true Labour man but he most be spinning in his grave at what is happening at this moment in its history.
Lisbon is the Treaty too far. It may be the last Treaty for the EU will have the authority to make further Treaties with reference to what used to be our Government. See also what is NOT in the Treaties. The EU’s Motorway in the Sea where it will end up in transferring the last remaining territorial seas to the EU. World maps will be changed to reflect this. Then there is the strong possibility of transferring, for the first time in the history of this Country, sovereignty over our National Security. Had that happened in wartime (and who knows who is going to ‘fall out’ next and we are at war -or are we not in constant war with terrorism?) it would have been a hanging offence.
Perhaps you do not believe me. Believe this man then Mr. de Vris (who was appointed the first EU Counter –terrorism Coordinator) said, “All of this amounts to an ambitious programme. Notwithstanding the highly sensitive nature of the subject-no other issue is more central to national sovereignty than the protection of national security-the role of the European Union in combating terrorism has grown significantly. Some might say: surprisingly quickly. In the near future the EUs coordinating responsibilities will be extended further to the protection of critical national infrastructure and civil protection”.
I wonder if this will remain on this site?
Correction to this sentence, “Lisbon is the Treaty too far. It may be the last Treaty for the EU will have the authority to make further Treaties WITH OUT reference to what used to be our Government”
Anne Palmer: That’s rather a long-winded way of repeating your original point, of which I suspect we are all now cogniscant. I know it has been suggested that 80% of our law originates from Brussels. It has also been suggested that the figure is below 40% – and there have been various figures in between offered. There is no definitive answer. Even if it was 80%, there is still 20% left. However, if one were to spend time analysing the legislation passed by Parliament, one would find a mass of measures being discussed and enacted, all within the competence of the UK. As you will have seen from some earlier comments, there is criticism of the sheer volume of legislation passed by Parliament. There is arguably too much legislation per se, whether emanating from Brussels or London. Devolved assemblies are created by Act of Parliament and can be repealed or amended by Act of Parliament, as we have seen already in respect of both Wales and Northern Ireland. The Lisbon Treaty may have some undesirable as opposed to dire consequences: I have previously drawn attention to the report of the Lords Constitution Committee on the subject. In any event, the treaty has not cleared the necessary hurdle of ratification by all Member States. The problem with the Treaty, as I have said before, is its irrelevance to the issues it should be addressing.
Lord Norton,
What I love about this blog is that even some of my more flippant posts will result in an intelligent, knowledgeable, well-considered and thought-provoking reply – maybe you get lots of practice of this in the House ?
This story does rather remind me of the old joke that an economist is someone who, if his [or I suppose her..] head were in the oven, and his feet were in a bucket of iced water would reply to the question “How are you ?” with the reply “Well, on average, I feel fine..”
Bedd Gelert: I think we get some practice making considered points in response to flippant observations – and vice versa! I know several jokes about economists, but I had better resist the temptation.