Saith admits public outcry on Red House eviction

Minister of Public Administra-tion and Information, Dr Lenny Saith has admitted that there is a public outcry against government’s plan to evict the Parliament from the Red House and establish the PM’s Office there. In an interview with Newsday, Saith said: “There is always going to be, with every decision, people who are going to agree and who are going to disagree. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong.” He added that if the country is for it, it becomes easier, “But that is a test of leadership to drive your country forward...” He noted: “If you listen to some  people, we shouldn’t have a vision at all.” He also stated that Government was not only dealing with a resistance to change but an attitude. “But in the end I think you (the Government) have to lead on some matters,...on the broader matters, you have to lead” he insisted. Saith stressed that the driving force behind the Red House Renovation Project was, is, and will continue to be, to satisfy the urgent need for a new and permanent home for the Parliament.

But, having taken that decision, the question of what to do with the existing Red House building, had to be addressed, he said. Cabinet in October decided that the Red House should be used to house the Office of the  Prime Minister. Saith explained the sequence of events contemplated by the Cabinet in order to achieve these two objectives: The first involved vacating the Parliament from the Red House to allow the renovation to proceed apace without being compromised in any way. The second step involved the identification of a site and the building of the new structure for the Parliament. In substantiating his point Saith explained that when the Cabinet first deliberated on the Red House Project in February, it dealt only with the issue of constructing a new Parliament Building to meet its existing and expanding needs. At that time it mandated UDeCOTT, in consultation with the House Committee, to prepare a user brief measuring the requirements of the Parliament. By October, Saith returned to the Cabinet with an update. At that time, with the repairs to the south side of the roof almost complete, the renovation work had to move to the inside of the building itself. Saith said the issue was this — once the Parliament continued to occupy the buildiing, one was constrained to repair it to suit the needs of the Parliament, even though that is not the long term intended use. And if the building is not intended to house the Parliament, it appeared   pointless to repair it for the Parliament.

It seemed to be uneconomic, inconvenient and time-consuming, he said, arguing that the repairs being undertaken should be specific to the purpose for which the building is intended. The option to move the Parliament “internally” from the north side to the south side, “squeezing people” and moving them around to various parts of the building, would  make the Parliament more cramped. “And I know how cramped they are,” he said. Contending that the specifications for housing the Office of the Prime Minister and for housing the Parliament were entirely different, Saith stated:  “If we decide that we need a new Parliament building, we can’t spend all this set of money now fixing up the south side (of the Red House), building in chambers and all that, that we are not going to use. If that is going to be the Cabinet room and offices and Secretariat. Let us design it, let us wire it, let us put in the electricial and IT (Information Technology) wiring,” he said. It was this thinking that informed the note taken to Cabinet by Saith in October to have “interim arrangements for the continued functioning of the Parliament and the comfort and safety of the staff pending completion of the new Parliament building” be referred for discussion with the Clerk of the House, NIPDEC and the Ministry of Public Administration.

Saith stressed that it is the Clerk of the House along with NIPDEC who were charged with the responsibility of looking for more suitable temporary arrangements. He said Trinidad and Tobago was not the first country building a new Parliament. Citing countries like Australia and Nigeria, Saith said the important thing was to build something that the people can be proud of and which would  “move” the Parliament into the 21st century. This included the “services that could be provided to the Parliamentarians, to the public coming in to listen to debates, to the committee system which you want to foster, and to those who have to report and work in the building,” he stressed. He emphasised that Government planned to consult every step of the way. The House Committee  however seems to be in conflict with the decision of the Cabinet. The Committee agreed earlier this year that the Parliament should be “relocated internally” and it expressed dissatisfaction with both the sites identifed for temporary and permanent location for the Parliament.

Saith said that if the House Committee decided not to move from the Red House temporarily, “then the Parliament stays there. If they don’t want to move, nobody will move them. Nobody is going to force anybody out. And at every stage there will be discussions,” he said.  Government however has a majority of members on the Committee, which is chaired by Trade Minister Ken Valley and it is expected therefore to reverse previous decision and go along with the recommendations of the Cabinet decision. On the House Committee’s suggestion of the Zoo as an alternative site, Saith stated: “I will leave that (the choice of a site) to the professional architects. Leave us see what they come up with” He asked rhetorically: “You really want to take away the Zoo and interfere with the Botancial Gardens? Then you will have fishermen and folks on your back. Somebody will always be on your back,” he said, adding that there was “so little green” in the country already. Government has suggested as the designated site, the block bounded by St Vincent St, Abercromby St, Duke St and Knox St this would involve moving the courts. “Where there are existing buildings on the site that  can be demolished, you demolish them. You would not demolish what you just spent $35 million  on (Magistrate’s Courts).” He said this would mean finding a new home for the Magistrate’s Court.

This, would only be done, after discussions with the Judiciary. He said however Government was building a new Revenue and Customs building and therefore all of Trinidad House will soon become vacant. “Could that be renovated for the court?” he asked. Told that given the experience of the National Library which took 10 years to build, the new Parliament Building could take a very long time,  Saith countered: “Understand this,  there was a period when this building (the National Library, which was conceived and started by the 1991-1995 PNM administration) was put on the back burner (by the UNC government).” So how long is the new Parliament building going to take? Saith was cautious in his response. “Ask me as an engineer,” he began, adding wearing that cap, he would say that it would take a year to design, and three to four years to build. “Not (speaking) as a minister now, (I am) talking in my professional capacity, because I am not a politician by profession; I’m an engineer.”

Asked whose brainchild this whole project is, Saith conceded that it is the Prime Minister’s. Although he (Saith) has no idea of the cost involved,  he conceded that  it would cost a substantial sum. “But you are building the country’s infrastructure,” he said. He added that one thing is known — buildings never go down in value. And what it cost you to build today, it would cost you more to build in the future,” he said. Even though, Saith said the Government was open to consultation, he also pointed out that the executive felt very strongly about two decisions — to construct a purpose-built facility to house the Parliament and to house the Office of the Prime Minister which has the Cabinet Secretariat and other ancilliary offices in the Red House. Addressing fears that the renovated Red House would dwarf the new Parliament, Saith assured that the opposite would be true. The new Parliament “would obviously” dwarf the Red House.