Explain Red House relocation intelligently

The Editor: The argument over the relocation of the Parliament is being conducted by the wrong persons for the wrong reasons.

Firstly the Parliamentarians with the technical background such as Saith and Imbert should have developed cogent and relevant technical arguments for the proposed move supported by the necessary input from specialist consultants. The arguments emanating from Government so far are simply unconvincing, inadequate, embarrassing and generally not thought out. Being so they can quite easily lead one to believe they were informed more by ego, and constructing monuments rather than an attempt to fulfil a need and improve the functioning of Government and Parliament.

The way I understand it, the reasons for any relocation have largely to do with the fact that the Red House, for several reasons which have not been properly explained by Dr Saith, is not able to accommodate the requirements of modern Parliamentary Chambers and related facilities. If one were to think of what goes into the “intelligent” buildings today it would become apparent that just in terms of basic infrastructural requirements the present Parliamentary facility is woefully inadequate and even with extensive, expensive and time consuming renovation and retrofitting, it could not fully meet the requirements of a modern Parliamentary facility.

Add to this the need for appropriate acoustics, specially shaped and dimensioned rooms for various sizes and types of meetings, facilities for research and information storage, adequate staff requirements, security, public spaces, separate circulation arrangements for the different types of users, television and other audio/visual requirements, internal and external communications, kitchen and dining facilities, rooms to accommodate abnormal floor loads, fire protection and prevention, etc, etc, one wonders how far the present Parliamentary building, with its internal spaces already defined by fixed structural walls and other elements, can take us.

It is amazing that a User Brief and Functional Analysis for the proposed new facility was not done so as to compare the two options, arrive at preliminary budgets for both and justify the expenditure of what could amount to a sum in excess of $200M or 1,200 low income homes. The arguments presented by opponents to the new facility would be valid if they did not conflict with the logic and practicality of the situation. In my opinion, arguments based on the latter should be given considerably more weight than any other if only for the simple reason that time alone will compel us to decide in favour of a new facility and this could be sooner than we think.

Although it should have been done before, it is not too late for Dr Saith, as the Minister responsible, to do the necessary work and come to the people with properly thought out reasons, supported by the opinions of experts, to explain why the Parliament should be relocated from the Red House to a modern, custom designed building and how the Judiciary is going to be accommodated in the whole development plan. An intelligent approach should deal with the critics of the new building option but the manner in which Government has dealt with this and other issues can only serve to call in to question its thought and decision making processes —  particularly that of Dr Saith as its de facto Chief Minister and spokesman. Both simply must do better.

Eugene A Reynald,
Port of Spain.