DON’T MOVE PARLIAMENT

Parliament should stay where it is — in the Red House — until Government builds its new “home.” This is the recommendation coming from House Speaker Barry Sinanan.  In the letter, which examined the options for the temporary relocation of  Parliament, Sinanan ruled out every option, which involved moving the Parliament from the Red House, or splitting it up among several buildings in Port-of-Spain. The letter was addressed to Chairman of the House Committee, Ken Valley. And sounding a note of warning at the conclusion of his correspondence, he stated: “I stress the need to be discreet in your decision-making on this matter since nothing should be done which will diminish the integrity of the nation’s Parliament and undermine its strength and stature as the pre-eminent symbol of our stable democracy.”

Sources who provided a copy of the letter to Sunday Newsday, said it was very interesting that the Speaker accepted as a foregone conclusion the fact that the Parliament would be eventually relocated to a new building and that the Red House would be used as an office of the Prime Minister. Government sources confirmed that this plan is still very much in the cards. In fact, sources said Government planned to move Parliament out of the Red House soon.  “We need Whitehall and Stollmeyer’s castle for use as an entertainment area,” the source said, adding that several international dignitaries are expected to visit this country over the next few years. “The plan is to furbish Stollmeyer’s Castle and put six rooms in it so that it can be used (as a home) to accommodate small delegations,”  the government source stated. It added that a reception hall and the Prime Minister’s office will be the major  constituents of the Red House after the renovation. The Speaker’s letter noted that “in view of the decision of Cabinet that a new Parliament building be built, and that the Red House be restored ultimately for the use of the Office of the Prime Minister, restorative works (on the Red House) for use by the Parliament have been suspended by the Project Team.”

Sinanan’s recommendation which advises Government to build the new building first, then relocate the legislature, will necessitate a change of plans. The Speaker, who is responsible for the Parliament, noted that the question of what  happened to Parliament in the interim was “now an important concern since it is anticipated that a new Parliament Building will take at least five years to construct.” He noted that Cabinet had initially decided on the Chaguaramas Hotel as a temporary location, but rescinded this decision in the light of constraints such as accessability, spatial requirements and security. Sinanan narrowed down the options. Option one, he said, was the relocation of the entire Parliament to the Cyril Duprey Building, a proposal put forward by the Ministry of Public Administration and Information. However he said the Cyril Duprey Building was plagued with several problems, including poor ventilation, inadequate internal lighting, inadequate sources of external light, the presence of biological contaminants in the building and some of the finishes of the building were crumbling. In analysing these problems, he pointed out that buildings with such problems can be the cause of health problems such as “sick building syndrome.”

“Sick building syndrome can have severe effects on the staff of Parliament who are often required to work long hours to meet criticial deadlines, and would therefore be required to spend more than the typical eight hours in the confines of the building,” Sinanan stated. The Speaker also stated that the Ministry of Works and Transport, which investigated the suitability of the Cyril Duprey Building, raised other concerns — the height of the ceiling was insufficient for the planning requirements of the parliamentary chamber; the existence of columns made it difficult to have clear lines of sight;  inadequate space for a public gallery (no more than 20 persons could be accommodated); the building was unable to accommodate “the load” of the Parliament library,” which would have to be housed in the basement, (currently used as a car park).” Furthermore, Sinanan said, Special Branch also had difficulties with this building — namely its proximity to the Magistrates Courts; the limited number of entrances and exists  which made evacuation difficult for MPs “who are  always at a greater risk of security threat”; the limited space at the entrance of the building which made it inappropriate for proper screening of members of the public and the fact that the building was “tightly fitted between other buildings.”

Sinanan observed  that “even if the decision was to be taken to settle for a less than adequate Parliament Chamber,” the cost of the upgrade to the facilitities at the Cyril Duprey Building, coupled with  the recurrent monthly rental expenses would surpass all the costs involved in the other options. Option two, he said, would involve the use of both the north wing of the Red House (for Parliament) as well as the Cyril Duprey Building to house certain offices, such as the administrative units, the Library and Hansard. However Sinanan felt that this would “severely restrict the functioning of  the Parliament.” MPs would be required to move between both buildings to conduct business, he noted. “Parliamentary operations would no doubt be restricted if not reversed,” he said, adding that this option did not take into account the location of the dining rooms, lounges, reception rooms, committee rooms and pantry. It was therefore not a viable solution, he  concluded.

The third option involved the relocation of entire Parliament from the North to the South Wing,  something which could be done with “minimal disruption to the functioning of Parliament,” he noted. However he  pointed out the preparation of the South Wing for Parliament would involve an unnecessary waste of time. This left the Fourth Option, deemed by Sinanan to be “both time and cost efficient.” It embodied the continued occupation of the North Wing and Rotunda by the legislature. It “will not disrupt parliamentary operations,” he said.