{"id":23084,"date":"2019-06-22T16:10:13","date_gmt":"2019-06-22T15:10:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=23084"},"modified":"2019-06-21T19:24:19","modified_gmt":"2019-06-21T18:24:19","slug":"ihbc-update-interested-in-the-politics-and-presumptions-around-heritage-change-see-the-chat-from-the-floor-on-the-parliamentary-buildings-restoration-and-renewal-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=23084","title":{"rendered":"IHBC update: Interested in the politics and presumptions around heritage change? See the chat from the floor on the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"HousesThe Report and 3rd Reading<\/a> of The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19<\/a> in the House of Commons took place on 19 June, and among other threads was Tim Loughton<\/a> MP\u2019s unsuccessful proposal (Amendment 5<\/a>) to include heritage in the Bill\u2019s list of duties, raising Neil Gray<\/a> MP\u2019s objection that \u2018the conflict between access for members of the public versus heritage\u2026 will make it far more difficult to make this place more accessible to disabled people\u2026\u2019. (Col 275).<\/h3>\n
image:\u00a0Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament<\/em><\/h6>\n

<\/p>\n

Loughton\u2019s Amendment 5<\/a> was submitted following on from his role as Chair of the Archaeology All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), and was supported by Valerie Vaz MP. <\/a>\u00a0It called for the Bill to specify: \u2018the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster including the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site\u2019.<\/p>\n

However Neil Gray objected on the basis that: \u2018\u2026 as I have said before this project will throw up irreconcilable conflicts which will make for very difficult decisions. One will be the conflict between access for members of the public versus heritage. Amendment 5, as well-intentioned as it may be, will make it far more difficult to make this place more accessible to disabled people. Besides, if this is just going to be a project to empty everything out and return it all back as it was but a bit cleaner, then what on earth is the point? The building contributes to the culture here, which is elitist, inaccessible and out of date, and that must change. We support amendment 6 as a way of improving the Bill, but it does not in itself satisfy our desire for greater emphasis to be placed on the Sponsor Board and the Delivery Authority to ensure the project has discernible UK-wide benefits.\u2019 (Col 275)<\/p>\n

Loughton explained in response that: \u2018We must absolutely make sure that, in the considerable work that will need to take place in this Palace, the full archaeological integrity and importance of the building\u2014what is under it, what is on it and what is next to it\u2014is appreciated and we do not lose the opportunity to investigate more the history of this place or destroy, in our pursuit of getting a building that is more sustainable, user-friendly and so on, all that in the process.\u2019 (Col 277)<\/p>\n

In further debate, John Redwood<\/a> pointed out that \u2018\u2026 an additional complication is that this is a complete Victorian rebuild of an earlier building, which also reflects the Victorian view of the history that predated the building. We therefore have a double time capsule: it is a piece of Victorian Britain and it is their view of the previous few hundred years.\u2019 (Col 278).\u00a0 To this Tim Loughton responded that \u2018My right hon. Friend is dealing with the really modern stuff\u2014\u2018.(Col.279)<\/p>\n

The amendment was not called.<\/p>\n

For more see UK Parliament Publications<\/a>\u00a0and see links to Bills<\/a><\/p>\n

See the Bill stages<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Report and 3rd Reading of The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19 in the House of Commons took place on 19 June, and among other threads was Tim Loughton MP\u2019s unsuccessful proposal (Amendment 5) to include heritage in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ihbc-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23084"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23084\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23085,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23084\/revisions\/23085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}