Almost exactly 15 years ago, on 18^th February a new TV show called Relocation Relocation began, building on a previous version called Location, Location, Location that had started 3 years earlier. The show helped to legitimise those people whose wealth put them in a position to consider owning a second or even third home in the country as well as living in an urban environment. It helped to justify the idea that homes are not just for living in 52 weeks of the year and could be seen as a contributing factor to several social issues which our society faces today. It was one of a number of TV shows over the last 25-30 years that helped many people gain the confidence that they can shape their own homes or in the case of Changing Rooms which began 22 years ago, that influencing the design of other properties is something any one can consider turning their hands to. It would be pure speculation to suggest that any of these shows influenced the thinking of any of our 650 MPs, but another great name for such a TV show could be Restoration and Renewal which is the name given to a committee and set of reports produced in Westminster over recent weeks which focuses on a building that will be familiar to many of us. As Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons stated on Wednesday at the beginning of a three hour debate with that phrase as the subject heading “This debate arguably should have taken place about 40 years ago, so I can say that I am delighted that here we are today, finally discussing the future of the Palace of Westminster”

Most of the MPs who spoke in the debate appeared to ignore how such a matter would be interpreted in our communities. Particularly for people who are poorly housed and who lack any influence over their places of work. The Palace of Westminster consists of historic buildings which today it is purely the setting from which our Parliament operates. Whilst it is important to understand its historic foundations, there also needs to be an understanding of the modern foundation of our Parliament. The roots in Palaces and Manor Houses no longer relates to the communities where modern voters live. These buildings have many failings beyond their need for a 40 year overdue major construction overhaul. These buildings are no more vital in themselves than traditional places of worship, Courtrooms or Police Stations. Yet the words of several MPs made it clear that they believe that the land and buildings hold a special role in our sovereignty of our nation.

John Baron, the MP for Basildon and Billericay stated “it is important that we do not break the 1,000-year link between the Governments of the country and this site, and that we should therefore have a debating Chamber on this site while the restoration works continue?” and Henry Smith, Crawley MP stated “does she agree that a temporary chamber should be built within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster to ensure that there is parliamentary footprint on this historic site, even just once a year?” Voters in Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland and even London understand that modern democratic process does not depend on being located in a building that appears to be untouched for 1000 years and a well designed debating chamber offers a great deal more both to the representatives and their electors. A noticeable element of the debate was how many of those who argued for the Parliament to remain in its historic setting had argued vociferously that the EU is not a recognisable democratic institution. The wealthy, stately home resident, Jacob Rees Mogg argued that “It seems to me that we could have sat there in our overcoats, as that would have solved the problem in the winter. And in the summer, some hon. Members more racy than I am might have felt it possible to take off their jackets. It seems to me that there is an easy, affordable solution whereby we maintain a Chamber in our historic residence. That is what we should do and that is what we should vote for.”

Yet Jacob, Henry and John are supporters of a Government which claimed it could resolve all of our Brexit requirements in a matter of days, then refused to allow MPs to vote for the outcome, and has since demanded that MPs vote in a particular manner. The same Government wants to spend at least the next 2 years debating plans for an upgrade to a few buildings and want the MPs to vote with their consciences because unlike Brexit, the Palace of Westminster is too important to place expectations on our elected representatives.