MOVING MPs out of Westminster for £4 billion repairs could harm the post-Brexit economy, an MP claimed yesterday.
Tory Shailesh Vara spoke out during a debate on massive repairs and upgrades planned for the UK’s seat of government.
A report last year found work to fix damp, leaks, old wiring, decaying pipework and out-of-date electrics could take up to eight years and cost around £3.9bn.
The estimate is based on moving politicians and their staff to a temporary base for the duration of the project. In contrast, keeping MPs in place and working round them could cause the timeframe to rise to 40 years and drain £5.67billion from the taxpayer.
The work is said to be overdue and failure to act at the Unesco world heritage site, parts of which date back 900 years, is said to cause a substantial risk of a “catastrophic” fire.
Yesterday, former Trade and Industry minister Sir Edward Leigh said elected members must not be moved, citing the example of wartime leader Winston Churchill, who had been determined that “the Nazis would not bomb us out”.
His colleague, Vara, suggested the relocation option would lower the UK’s international standing and hurt efforts to protect the economy after leaving the European Union.
He said: “This is no ordinary building. This is the seat of government.
“We have to take account of the fact that, at a time of Brexit, when we seek to make new friends overseas, when we seek to secure favourable trade agreements, do we really want to convey the image of a temporary building in the courtyard of a government building? We have to take into account the soft sell power of this iconic power that is parliament.
“I put it gently to members here that the selling power of this building far exceeds any figures of costs that have been produced here, because this is an iconic building.”
The debate was called by Labour’s Chris Bryant, who said when the vote is called, MPs mostly back the full decant as the cheapest and most practical option.
Rejecting the need to remain in the complex after Brexit, he said that risked appearing “as if we’re hanging around in an old ancestral mansion like a dour duchess, running with buckets from one dripping ceiling to another”.
Leigh said: “Despite the massive damage to this building, we kept the debating chamber of the House of Commons in the House of Lords throughout the Second World War.
“Although it’s not primarily about sentiment or emotion, this is not an office block. If it was an office block, I agree we should move out. It’s not, it’s the centre of the nation, and the nation should keep its debating chamber in this building.”
Airdrie and Shotts MP Neil Gray, speaking for the SNP, also backed a full decant, saying: “Romance and sentimentality about a building – the idea does not make engineering or financial sense.”
Questioning why the government has not called a debate on the issue in the last five months, he urged them to “get on” with the project to avoid further costs.
However, chartered surveyor Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP warned the cost “will be well in excess of £3 billion”, adding that the current projections are based on a report which “hasn’t really scoped the work properly”.
Deputy Commons Leader Michael Ellis said the government would hold a vote on the project “in due course” and “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
Bryant said: “Due course is the kind of phrase that weasels use, because it means you don’t really intend to do it in any expeditious way.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel