Baroness Donaghy
Main Page: Baroness Donaghy (Labour - Life peer)
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for his very clear annunciation of the report. It is tempting to look backwards, to dwell on the sorry story of complete failure of political will and the shocking neglect of our heritage. To an extent, it is inevitable that this debate will feel a bit like Groundhog Day. However, I will concentrate on the political sell, on health and safety, and on the risk to our working relationships in this building as it continues to deteriorate.
This morning, a friend and neighbour in Peckham asked me what I was working on. I said, “Well, Parliament’s falling down and it’s going to cost gazillions”. She said, “Well, there’s only two buildings that matter—the Tower of London and Parliament. Tell them to get on with it, or I’ll come down and sort them”. I thought that was quite a good reaction from somebody who had not thought very much about the issue.
This reflects what the report says about public support. The same public have little or no confidence in politicians. The symbolism is important. Although I take what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and will try to be as open-minded as I can, not being an expert, a total decant would be a signal that we embrace that symbolism. I make a plea to the client board that the narrower issues of finance, architecture and complexity should not swamp that message that we are protecting our heritage. One of the reasons why people are very often disenchanted with politicians is the short-termism and the feeling that they are managing decline rather than protecting our heritage. This is a very good opportunity to try to turn that around.
Of course there will be grumbles about money; frankly, that will happen whatever we do. I have to say that my heart sank when I read that the client board had asked for work on the third option. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, this work will prove me wrong. However, what happens if there is a disaster in the meantime? I assume that there are contingency plans, but it will mean us being forced to take drastic action rather than controlling events. I still believe that this could happen in this building, which is so fraught with difficulties—not just leaks and security issues and all the stuff going on in the basement. This really could happen. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, can reassure us that there are contingency plans. I am not asking what they are.
When I chaired the former Information Committee 10 years ago, I visited the archives in the Victoria Tower. I could not believe that we were storing our national assets in such an inappropriate building. This has been going on for so much longer than the 10 years that was referred to. Last year, I fell in the Committee Corridor on the first floor because there was a hole under the carpet. It turned out that the metal covers for computer wiring had worked loose and had moved, and repairs had to be done all along that corridor. Members will have noticed the different strips of carpet that have appeared there. Although I went down like a sack of potatoes, fortunately I am well padded and suffered no harm, except perhaps for a dent in the dignity area. However, what might have happened if someone with a stick was walking along, or someone suffering from osteoporosis? It could have been a life-changing experience.
I believe that when work starts on the basement area, it will be a horror story—I fully expect to find Peter Cushing and Vincent Price down there. Bear in mind that the “pipes and wires” referred to on page 24 of the report stretch from Westminster Bridge to Victoria Gardens and will be a continuous process. That is where I find it difficult to find a patchwork approach, or option three, but I am still striving to keep an open mind.
Fifteen years ago, I prepared a report for the then Government on fatalities in the construction industry. Noble Lords might ask what on earth is the relevance of that here. I spent a lot of time on building sites and refurbishment areas, and refurbishment is the area where most accidents take place. It does not take a lot of intelligence to know that you do not leave the family in the house when you are fixing the foundations. Health and safety and access, as has already been said, are vitally important issues, and that includes the workers on site both now and in the future. I believe that it is unfair on our maintenance staff that we expect them to make do and mend in increasingly challenging conditions, and construction workers should be enabled to get on with their job in a controlled environment, not with hundreds of busy people milling around.
My final point is on a more domestic issue, perhaps a sensitive one. It is vitally important and harder to describe. It is the relationship between us as politicians and the administration. As the building throws up more and more problems, the administration does its best to keep the show on the road, and Members, and possibly the leadership, become more and more stressed, anxious and grumpy about the developments or the lack of developments. I believe that there are real dangers here with regard to the working relationship that we have and the understanding, not least because we have this not very well defined area of who is responsible for running what and where the power lies. No matter how much it is written down as joint responsibility, joint boards, joint programmes, this, that and the other, it is not the clearest possible management system that any chief executive officer would welcome if they were taking over an organisation. The longer we allow this to continue—someone actually mentioned 74 years to me as one of the possible options—the less effective we will be as an institution and the more difficult it will be to change the culture of our organisation.