Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Tuesday 21st May 2019
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to be opening the Second Reading debate on the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill. This has been a very long time coming. Today we can move decisively to end inaction and protect our Parliament for future generations. Let us not be under any illusion about the possible consequences if we fail to take action. The tragic fire at Notre Dame has served as a stark reminder of the risks to this historic building. There is no doubt that the best way to avoid a similar incident here is to get on with the job of protecting the thousands of people working here and the millions who come to visit.
Members of this House will be well aware of the problems in the Palace. There have recently been three significant incidents of falling masonry—in Norman Shaw North, outside Black Rod’s Entrance, and at the door to Westminster Hall. It is only through luck that none of them has led to any serious injuries or even fatalities. Operating on luck is absolutely no way to proceed. We would not be forgiven if one of those incidents had caused significant harm to a visitor or a member of staff.
There is an ongoing need for round-the-clock fire patrols, given that there have been 66 fire incidents in the Palace since 2008. That is why, by the way, I have undertaken my fire safety training for the building—and I would strongly encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to do likewise.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the threat of fire. For a long time now, I have been arguing that we should get on and put in fire doors. I am delighted to see that they are now actually being put in. Can she confirm that all these long corridors, voids and spaces will at least be protected by fire doors? I would have thought that we could do a deal with English Heritage to get that past it. It is better that we are safe than that the place burns down because of the fears of English Heritage.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken enormous steps, at great expense, to try to put in place some temporary fire doors to protect this place. But of course he will also know that the way we keep our fire safety licence is by 24/7 patrols of people going around the Palace making sure that fires are not breaking out.
As I say, there have been 66 fire incidents in the Palace since 2008, and over the decades—
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Leader of the House mentions the issue of great expense. I know that this Bill is about the mechanisms and not the plans, but I am concerned that in building a temporary Chamber, we are building a white elephant without any purpose beyond 10 years. Will she look at alternative building techniques like those used in the 1950s and those used for the Olympics in 2012 for buildings that are built not for a 50-year life but for a shorter life, which would be much less expensive to the taxpayer?
Andrea Leadsom
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s contribution. She will understand that the House of Commons Commission looked very carefully at the options for a temporary decant, which could mean eight or even 10 years out of this place. She will also understand that, from a security point of view and from the cost-effectiveness point of view, the House of Commons Commission looked at the best combination of both those things. Temporary structures that are not possible to secure, and structures that are by their nature temporary and provide no legacy value, were also looked at carefully, but the decision that was taken to move to Richmond House provides permanent legacy value as well as the cheapest—or at least equally cheap—cost to the taxpayer.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Most people must be in favour of something happening, but I question the timing. There are many people in all our constituencies who are hungry and face destitution. How dare the Government bring forward a Bill before we are out of austerity and have made good those cuts in the living standards of the very poorest? Surely we should not be considering whether this fire door or that fire door works and whether the scheme is temporary until we are out of the age of austerity and have rewarded those who have paid most, which is the poor.
Andrea Leadsom
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I completely understand his point. He will appreciate that the Palace of Westminster is in the state it is in precisely because Members have made those exact points for more than 150 years. The reality is that it is now costing us a fortune every single day—money is being spent by the taxpayer to patch and mend a building that is beyond patching and mending. Seizing this bull by the horns and doing something proactively about it is designed to give good value for taxpayers’ money, instead of what is happening now, which is spending more and more money to try to restore something while we sit here, which will be much more expensive to do.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)
On the point about legacy value, would it not be better to have a Chamber that we could use for more constructive purposes? Rather than this adversarial approach, we could have a circular or semi-circular Chamber, with electronic voting facilities, so that we do not build in obsolescence, and we could then use it afterwards—for example, for citizens’ assemblies and other forums where we want to engage with the public.
Andrea Leadsom
I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is merely to establish a Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which will give the best value for money against a professionally run project that seeks to restore the Palace of Westminster. The shape of the decant Chamber and parliamentary procedures for voting can be discussed any day of the week. All Members are encouraged to feed in their ideas and suggestions to the northern estate programme, which is separate from what we are talking about today, and I encourage her to do so.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Leader of the House will be aware that nine of the 10 poorest parts of northern Europe are within Britain. Are the British Government not missing an ideal opportunity to decentralise power and wealth away from London and the south-east by relocating this Parliament somewhere else in the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a point that has been made at various points over the many decades that we have been discussing this work. He will appreciate that Parliament is the home of our democracy. It is a vast building with two Chambers, all the Committee Rooms, all the offices and so on. Moving away from this Parliament permanently to another location would not only involve huge expense, but would require entirely relocating Government, because we in Parliament are within the whole Whitehall set-up, where the Government of the United Kingdom work. The costs would be utterly unbelievable.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
May I take my right hon. Friend back to the point made by hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) about the future use of Richmond House? It was not so many years ago that people were saying that all the Committee Rooms in Portcullis House were not really necessary, because we have plenty of Committee Rooms here in the Palace. Actually, they are necessary—they are used a lot, and demand exceeds supply. I think the same will be found with Richmond House: when it is given back, and we move back into this place, it will be well used by not only Parliament but the public.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. In recognising the importance and the obligation of restoring the Palace of Westminster, we have to look at how the temporary decant, which is for eight to 10 years, can provide a legacy that we can use, that the public can use and that young people can use for Youth Parliament meetings. We can have parliamentary archives and permanent exhibitions, and as he says, Committee Rooms will be available for all-party parliamentary groups or for members of the public to visit their Parliament, so that we have much greater accessibility. Those should be the priorities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrea Leadsom
I will make a bit of progress and then take some more interventions.
Over the decades, there have been countless water leaks, floods, sewage leaks, and lighting and power outages, and these incidents are about much more than inconvenience. They demonstrate the rapidly deteriorating state of the Palace and the increasingly urgent need to act. The restoration of the Palace should have started literally decades ago, and the House authorities are now managing far too many serious risks, at great cost to the taxpayer. My concern is that the pace of deterioration is now much faster than our ability to patch and mend.
Only last week, I went on a tour of the basement, and it is clear that the Palace is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. There are widespread mechanical and electrical faults. There are wi-fi issues that disrupt parliamentary business all day long, every day. Paint is peeling off the walls in the basement, revealing the asbestos that it was designed to conceal, at great risk to the health and safety of visitors and Members. There are 15,000 people who work in this place, and we have more than 1 million visitors a year. We have a duty to their health and safety.
There are many mice running freely through the cafés while people are eating. One has even taken up residence in my office and rustles around in my bin of an evening. There is no doubt: we need a cost-effective programme of work to restore one of the most famous buildings in the world and the home of our democracy.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I commend the Leader of the House for grasping this issue, which has been around for many years, and progressing it. Does she agree that it is important for Members to also engage in the northern estate programme, which is a precursor to the restoration and renewal programme? I draw the House’s attention to two sessions coming up on 11 June and 18 June. At the first, Members’ accommodation will be considered, and at the second, Members’ facilities will be considered. We want to hear from Members on that programme as well.
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who is the spokesman for the House Commission and has supported the work to get this Palace restored. He is right to point to the work under way on not only Richmond House as the temporary decant but the northern estate programme. Unfortunately, some of the other buildings used by Members require urgent upgrades to wiring, plumbing, air conditioning, bomb-proofing and so on. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the need for all Members to provide their feedback on our plans to upgrade those buildings.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for approaching this on a cross-party basis and the way she has engaged so far with the Finance Committee, of which I am a member. She is right to say that this is a moment of decision. We have had reviews, committees, commissions and reports. It is not a case of going back; it is about making a decision today. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) about austerity, but this is not about austerity or restoring this Palace. It is about ending austerity and dealing with this Palace. Is that not right?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes a very good point. We of course recognise the needs of the poorest in our society, and as a Government and a Parliament, we always seek to alleviate poverty, but this is a very significant issue. We want to preserve for future generations our historic building, which is a UNESCO world heritage site and the home of our democracy. Frankly, we have to work from somewhere, and this building is extraordinarily difficult and complex to review. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Finance Committee.
This Parliament will have the opportunity to look at the outline business case, which will set out clearly the costs and deliverables during 2021, once we have established the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority in statute. I hope the House will agree to do that today, so that those bodies can get on with the work to ensure that we get the best value for taxpayers’ money.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My concern, putting on my hat as chair of the all-party group on archaeology, is not with what is in the Bill but with what is not in the Bill. The Leader of the House will be aware that when the underground car park was built some decades ago, proper archaeological conservation did not take place, and part of the old palace of Edward the Confessor was probably lost. Given the importance of the UNESCO world heritage site and the working democratic Parliament that this is, will she strengthen the Bill by taking on board the recommendations from Historic England about recognising
“the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster”
in the Bill, so that travesties such as that cannot happen during the extensive work we now need to undertake?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. It did in fact come up during the pre-legislative scrutiny, which I am keen to come on to. The decision was taken that this should be a parliamentary project, and what the Government are seeking to do in bringing forward the Bill is merely to facilitate the will of Parliament. We are setting up a Sponsor Body, which will be made up of seven parliamentarians and five external members, so that it can establish a Delivery Authority. Those bodies—the Sponsor Body in consultation with parliamentarians, and the Delivery Authority in consultation with many external stakeholders—will be able to decide the best way to proceed. It was felt that putting restrictions and specific requirements in the Bill might tie the hands of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and we were unwilling to do that. We want them to have the maximum ability to take things forward in the appropriate way, in consultation with all parliamentarians.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for extending the scope of the Bill to include the road network outside so that all works can be properly co-ordinated and we can avoid the situation we have now, with the road closed for non-essential roadworks when both Houses are sitting?
Andrea Leadsom
I think my right hon. Friend will garner a lot of sympathy across the House for his view. Again, we are trying to keep the scope of the Bill very narrow. It is merely to facilitate the establishment of the Delivery Authority for the purpose of restoring the Palace. However, he may be aware that consideration is going on of how, from a security point of view as well as from that of facilitating parliamentary business, we can ensure that the roads outside and the arrangements going on in Westminster also support Members in going about their business.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I am expecting my right hon. Friend to get to this point, but I may not be around. [Interruption.] Hang on a second; this may be a long way into the future. Once we are decanted, I would like to think we are going to return. I do not want to think that this place could be turned into some sort of museum that members of the public will come through; I want it to be a living piece of history to which we will return. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be the case?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly hope, and I think all of my right hon. and hon. Friends hope, that my hon. Friend will be here when we come back to this place. He is extremely young, and I am sure he will still be around. Yes, it is in the Bill that this is the home of our Parliament and that we will certainly be back here.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is being very generous in giving way. I agree with much of what she has said. The Bill sets up the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body, and we are not going oppose that. She is also right that we need to work from somewhere, and of course we need value for money. May I ask her, however, whether she regrets not going back to look again at a new build in central London, which was of course the cheapest of all the options when the original assessments were done?
Andrea Leadsom
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the House of Commons Commission. He certainly worked very closely with the other Commission members to consider the options available. I can say to him specifically that, since the appalling terror incident two years ago, a security review has been carried out, and it was very clear that parliamentarians, particularly elected Members of Parliament, need to be within the secure perimeter of the Palace at all times during the day, so for reasons of security as well as cost-effectiveness, the decision was taken to go with the Richmond House development.
I would now like to make a bit of progress, and particularly to address the fact that there are some who want to see this place become a museum. That would not of itself absolve us of our responsibility for restoration and renewal. The Palace is part of the UNESCO Westminster world heritage site. It is our obligation to maintain it, and the health and safety concerns of this Palace will need to be addressed regardless. Even if we were to move to a new permanent location, these works would still need doing. We cannot simply wash our hands of it. It is also worth remembering that when the Palace was finished in 1870—with debating Chambers, Lobbies, Committee Rooms and offices—it was purpose-built to serve as the home of Parliament. It would obviously be incredibly expensive permanently to relocate Parliament elsewhere. It would mean uprooting the Government Departments and agencies based around Westminster, and the cost of doing that would, frankly, be eye-watering. That is why the Government are committed to making progress with R and R, and why we have supported Parliament in bringing forward this Bill.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Has the Leader of the House actually done any assessment of the costs of relocating entire Government Departments out of London? Wanting to relocate civil service jobs to other parts of the country has always been the Government policy, and surely that would be a good thing to do. Frankly, this entire country ends up with all its politics being far too London-focused, when we should be having far more of those jobs in other parts of the country. We would certainly love a lot of them in Yorkshire. I am concerned that she seems to be dismissing the idea of moving Government Departments to other parts of the country without actually have done any proper assessment of that.
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly disappointed to hear the right hon. Lady’s intervention. This Bill is about setting up a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority to restore the Palace of Westminster, which, as I have just said, we are obliged to do whether or not we stay here. There is always a considerable amount of work going on to assess and analyse the location of various different Government Departments and agencies right around the United Kingdom. Today, however, we are simply looking at the Second Reading of a Bill that enables us to undertake our legal duty to restore this Palace, whether or not we stay here. It is not for us to consider under this Bill the whole of government. I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate that we are seeking to facilitate Parliament’s decision that we must take very seriously our financial, fiduciary and cultural duties to this place.
The House was very clear in early 2018 that work needed to be taken forward to protect and preserve the heritage of the Palace. I want to pay tribute to the hard work of Members and staff who have got us to this place. In particular, I would like to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which recommended that we decant; my predecessors as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington); the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who eloquently made the case last year for a full decant; the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who agreed to support the Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who always speaks with such passion on this issue.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have this horrible feeling that the Leader of the House is winding up or coming to the end, and I just want to raise the issue of planning. One of the biggest threats to the whole project is if the northern estate programme, which is essential to delivering R and R, ends up by being delayed by lengthy judicial review or planning problems. The advice seems to have been given that if we include some kind of planning provision that brings planning into the Sponsor Body or the Delivery Authority, that will make this a hybrid Bill. However, the Olympics Bill was not a hybrid Bill, and that had a planning provision that was granted to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, so why can we not do the same for this Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
I am only just warming up—I have hours to go. But the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The question whether to take planning into the Bill was certainly considered, but unlike the Olympic Delivery Authority, which I think had four or even five planning authorities to deal with, this project has one, and it was felt that working closely with the local planning authority would be the most effective way of enabling proper scrutiny while facilitating the Bill’s progress.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am taking my right hon. Friend at her word that she is not near the end of her speech. I thank her for her kind words, but I have not so far heard mention of accessibility for those with disabilities. The scrutiny Committee felt very strongly about that, not least because two members of the Committee themselves suffered from disability, and made us aware of just how inaccessible the present Parliament is for those who are visually or physically impaired.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend makes an absolutely vital point. First, in planning its consultation the Sponsor Body—as I have mentioned, made up of seven parliamentarians and five external members—will look very carefully at the report she has produced, but at the same time the Bill contains very clear provisions that specific focus on accessibility should be a core part of the work. However, we do not want to force too many strictures on the Sponsor Body, which will legitimately have a requirement to consult all Members and take their views into account before deciding who to consult further.
Andrea Leadsom
I want to make a bit of progress, then I will give way again.
I also want to acknowledge the right hon. and hon. Members who, like myself, arrived at this issue with a degree of scepticism, and have since carefully considered the issues that we face and concluded that the right decision, and the bold decision, is to take action before we run out of time. So the Bill’s Second Reading today, and its subsequent passage through both Houses, offers Parliament a unique opportunity to save this iconic and, to many, beloved building.
Since becoming Leader of the Commons, I have been determined to see the restoration project succeed. In early 2018, motions were brought before both Houses that gave the R and R programme its broad direction, with the House agreeing to a full decant over any of the other options. That moved the programme forward in the most substantial way to date, so the Sponsor Body, made up of seven parliamentarians and five external members, was established in shadow form in July 2018. It is currently taking forward the preparatory works needed. The draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill was published in October 2018, to enable the governance arrangements needed for the R and R project to be put in place, and a Joint Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has undertaken diligent work in scrutinising the draft Bill. The Joint Committee reported on 21 March 2019 and we have taken on board many of its recommendations.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
In the report produced by the Committee that I served on, we suggested to the Government that there should be a nations and regions capital fund, to make this a truly UK-wide project. I believe that the Leader of the House will struggle to get the support of public opinion if this is another massive London-centric capital project, so will she agree to have another look at that proposal, which I put forward and which was accepted by the Committee?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Joint Committee. As I said to him outside the Chamber, I will happily look at any proposal that he wants to put forward. Just to be very clear, however, the Palace of Westminster is a unique, world-famous building. It is owned by the people of the United Kingdom. It is not a London-centric project. It is one of the most visited and photographed buildings in the world, it has over a million visitors a year, and it is absolutely vital for the entire United Kingdom that we do not allow it to fall to rack and ruin.
I turn my attention to the Bill before the House. It is crucial in establishing the necessary governance arrangements to provide the capacity and capability to oversee and deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace. Both Government and Parliament are determined to ensure that the R and R programme represents the best value for money for the taxpayer, and that will be a guiding principle as we take the Bill forward. It is imperative that Parliament keeps the costs down.
The Bill will put in place significantly more transparency and rigour around the funding of this programme. As a Government, we are working with Parliament to facilitate the right combination of checks and balances within the governance structure to properly deliver the programme. The Bill creates a Sponsor Body that will act as the client on behalf of Parliament, overseeing the delivery of the R and R programme. The Sponsor Body will form a Delivery Authority as a company limited by guarantee to manage and deliver the programme. The design of the governance arrangements in the Bill draws on best practice from the successful delivery of the London 2012 Olympics.
Andrea Leadsom
I shall make a bit more progress, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
However, in formulating the governance arrangements, it has been essential that Parliament as the client has sufficient oversight of the programme. That is why the Bill also establishes how the works will be approved by Parliament. In particular, Parliament will be asked to approve the overall design, timeline and cost of the works, as well as the budget. The Government are determined that the work will deliver the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, so the Bill creates the Estimates Commission, which will be responsible for reviewing and laying before the House of Commons the Sponsor Body’s estimates of expenditure. It is through these annual estimates that the programme will be funded, and approved by Members of Parliament. In addition, the Bill puts in place a number of financial controls. They include requiring the Estimates Commission to consult HM Treasury on the annual estimates for the funding of the R and R programme, and to have regard to any subsequent advice that it gives.
We are confident that the arrangements being put in place will deliver the necessary restoration works, and at the same time protect public money.
Andrea Leadsom
I give way to the spokesman for the House of Commons Commission.
Tom Brake
The Leader of the House has referred a number of times to the Olympics, which has some similarities to this project. One reason why that project was so successful was that Tessa Jowell did a fantastic job of engaging all the Opposition parties, securing their agreement. Now the Leader of the House is engaging in the same process but, as I understand it, there is about to be a leadership contest in her party. Clearly, if she becomes leader, she will be committed to this project. Has she secured the support of all the other potential leaders of her party, to ensure that the project can reach completion in 2031 or thereabouts?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because of course this project is a parliamentary project; it is not a project for Government. Very specifically, I have taken steps to ensure that the Bill will succeed any changes of leadership, any changes of Government, so that we will be back in here in the 2030s, under the sponsorship and leadership of Parliament as a House. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Consultation—cross-party, cross-House—is absolutely key to the success of this project, because there is no doubt that by the mid-2030s, even the next leader of the Conservative party may still not be around.
Stewart Hosie
I thank the Leader of the House for what she said about estimates being laid, so that at least there will be clarity about how much we intend to spend. However, she will be aware of the difficulty debating the current estimates, when we can talk about anything except for the actual estimate. May we have an assurance that when these estimates are laid, we will be able to discuss the actual sums of money, not simply what they will be spent on?
Andrea Leadsom
I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. In essence, the Estimates Commission will be made up of parliamentarians, with lay member support, and those estimates will be laid before the House of Commons for debate and approval, with commentary from HM Treasury. Also, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the outline business case, which will be the initial proposal for deliverables and costs, will come before Parliament for it to vote on, and that should take place during 2021. I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that this House will have the opportunity to vote on, and debate, the finances; but I will perhaps provide him with further advice on that outside the Chamber, so that I can understand exactly the point that he is trying to solve.
Sir Edward Leigh
Very briefly, as a correction to the point that has just been made, following a recommendation from the Procedure Committee—again, following a long campaign—we do now discuss estimates on estimates days, so that point is not accurate and we can deal with this during estimates days.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I will still respond to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) specifically on his point.
Chris Bryant
Several times, the Leader of the House has referred to the seven parliamentarians who will be on the Sponsor Body, but the Bill says no fewer than four and no more than eight. The Joint Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) suggested that they should be elected Members. Should there not be more Members of the House of Commons than Members of the House of Lords, and would it not be a good idea for them to be elected?
Andrea Leadsom
This is a matter for the House to decide. I am talking about seven parliamentarians, because that is what is currently on the shadow Sponsor Body. It is, of course, for the House to make such decisions. The parties put forward their nominees, and that is the reason there are four peers and three Members of this House. This is precisely a very good example of where it is for the House to decide what structure it wants. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a bit more progress.
The Bill is not simply about restoring an old building in an urgent state of disrepair. This is about the ambition we have for a 21st century Parliament, which is more family-friendly and a truly modern workplace. The work we are undertaking provides Parliament with the opportunity to consider the daily working of the Palace. It is clear that the programme should seek improvements to the Palace for people with disabilities to gain access, but there is also an opportunity to resolve issues with long queues at visitor entrances and to offer more inclusive access to Parliament across the country by improving some of our broadcasting services.
The work will also provide employment opportunities right across the UK. The programme will require specialist skills, which, especially in the heritage sector, tend to be found in small and medium-sized enterprises. Apprenticeship schemes right across the UK will be able to engage in the work of restoring the Palace. This is already happening on other projects being carried out on the parliamentary estate, such as the encaustic tile conservation project. R and R also offers the opportunity to enhance the experience of students visiting Westminster, whether through improved educational facilities in the Palace or the opportunities of the Richmond House replica Chamber.
As hon. Members across the House know, I passionately believe in making Parliament a more family-friendly place to work. R and R will provide an opportunity to help make our workplace the best it can be in supporting Members to balance the long hours they work in this House with their family commitments and better reflect the public we are here to represent. That is just a run-through of some of my own views, but I recognise that all Members will have opinions on what they want to see delivered as part of R and R. That is why the Bill includes a specific duty on the Sponsor Body to consult parliamentarians on the strategic objectives of the R and R works.
Members across the House will also have views on the decant to our temporary workplace during R and R. In passing the motions in early 2018, Parliament was clear that as part of R and R it would temporarily leave the Palace, so that the restoration and renewal work can be done more quickly and more cheaply.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One concern people have expressed to me, and which we all have concerns about, is mission creep. Will the Leader of the House explain clearly how she sees the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority ensuring that once the case is set, future generations do not add in bells and whistles that will cost a lot more?
Andrea Leadsom
I hope I can assure the hon. Lady that the outline business case will be the project outline. The Estimates Commission will lay the annual estimates to the House for it to reject or approve. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady’s Public Accounts Committee and others, including the National Audit Office, will want to look very carefully at value for money and to ensure that there has not been scope creep. I absolutely accept the point she makes. This is a parliamentary project, so a very important feature will be that Members accept and respect the fact that we are seeking to restore this place at the best possible value for taxpayers’ money.
The work on the decant of the House of Commons is at present led by the House authorities and is not the responsibility of the Sponsor Body. I know that many of those who are engaged with the programme already, through visiting the booth in Portcullis House and reading the consultation strategy, will have had their own views and made them known. I have heard plenty of positive comments about the innovative and modern plans for the temporary Chamber, but there may well be something specific that Members would like to see. I therefore hope that everybody will feed their ideas and views into the consultation on the plans for the temporary decant and for the northern estate project.
I want to point out that the redeveloped Richmond House will provide a number of potential legacy benefits, the first of which relates to business resilience. All major organisations require a contingency plan. The works to Richmond House will provide a more robust future resilience plan, making sure that Parliament is prepared for business continuity, should it ever be needed, outside the Palace. Secondly, there is no doubt that it will improve the experience of the more than 1 million visitors to the parliamentary estate each year. The replica Chamber could become a hub for educational facilities, where schoolchildren could learn at first hand how Parliament works and could hold regular debates. It could become a home for the Parliamentary Archives, and it could be a location for major parliamentary and other exhibitions. The views of Members will be very welcome.
Thirdly, Richmond House is well placed in terms of security. The Murphy review, following the tragic murder of PC Keith Palmer in 2017, brought home the need for a fully secure perimeter around the Palace. Richmond House is the only option for decant within that secure perimeter. I encourage all Members to provide their views during the consultation on Richmond House, which is currently under way. However, I want to remind Members that the Bill before the House today is not concerned with where we will go while the works take place; it solely puts in place governance arrangements in order to deliver the vital works to the Palace at the best value to taxpayers.
To conclude, the time for patching and mending this place has come to an end. Those of us who are fully aware of the speed of deterioration of the Palace know that the sensible and decisive option is to facilitate a full restoration project. The choice before the House is to preserve the Palace of Westminster as the home of the UK Parliament for future generations or to keep risking a catastrophic failure, which I believe would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty. I look forward to hearing today’s contributions, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I start by offering the House the apologies of the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)? She has a long-standing personal commitment and has asked me to step in. I hope I can be an adequate substitute for her—as always, I shall at least do my best.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for her excellent introduction to the Bill. My understanding is that over the past few months she has brought together Members from right across the House, in what has been a very difficult process. She has managed to find consensus, and I pay tribute to her for that.
In opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition I should say that we are pleased to support the Bill, which has followed a long process of assessing and reviewing the state of the Palace of Westminster and of determining how best to proceed.
The House debated and voted on restoration and renewal on 31 January 2018, and the House agreed that the Palace of Westminster is in need of restoration and renewal. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that there are structural, mechanical, electrical, fire safety, telecoms and asbestos issues in the Palace of Westminster that need to be resolved. Perhaps I may take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thank the staff and the fire officers who have managed to keep the show on the road through numerous difficult crises, which the Leader of the House outlined.
To protect Parliament from the possibility of irreversible damage, it is vital that the R and R process starts. The Leader of the House referred to the tragedy of Notre Dame, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this very Palace itself was born out of destruction by fire in Victorian times—there is historical precedent for taking these measures now.
By 234 votes to 185, the resolution required that “immediate steps be taken” to establish a shadow Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, and that their “statutory successors” be established by legislation in due course. The House of Lords approved on 6 February last year a resolution in identical terms, and this is the Bill we are debating today.
I thank everyone involved in drafting the Bill. It gives effect to the resolutions voted for by Parliament last year and seeks to establish the statutory bodies that will be responsible for the restoration and renewal works in the parliamentary estate. It establishes the governance structure within which the bodies will operate. They will be able to make strategic decisions on the restoration and renewal programme so that the Palace of Westminster can be secured as the UK Parliament for future generations.
With the establishment of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, the Sponsor Body will have overall responsibility for the restoration and renewal programme, act as a single client on behalf of both Houses and be empowered to form a Delivery Authority as a company limited by guarantee. The Delivery Authority will formulate proposals in relation to the restoration works and ensure their operational delivery. This two-tier approach, which, as we have heard, was used in the successful London Olympics project, is the best structure to deliver a value- for-money programme that commands the confidence of taxpayers and parliamentarians and is accountable to them. The costs of the project are of concern to all parliamentarians and the public.
Sir Edward Leigh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The hon. Gentleman’s party has campaigned long and hard on austerity, quite understandably. Of course we have to make this building safe, but does he not think that it might go down rather badly in Labour heartlands that we are spending huge amounts of money on building a permanent replica Chamber, which will be a white elephant, when there are cheaper options for a temporary structure?
Christian Matheson
I thought that the Leader of the House answered that fairly during her speech; there will never be a right time to do this. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has been recruited to join those of us who oppose the Government’s austerity policies. I look forward to his joining us in the next Opposition day debate, whenever the Leader of the House grants us one. I have to say, though, that today is not the day for making partisan comments attacking the Government’s austerity programme.
We have kicked the can down the road for too long. As a result, I worry that costs are higher than they would have been if the job had been done previously. As the Leader of the House said, we now have to grab the bull by the horns, and her position has my support.
It is important that the programme provides value for money, but it is also right that we remember that this is one of the most historic and iconic buildings in the world and that preserving that history will come at a cost. The Bill establishes a Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission. The Estimates Commission will lay the Sponsor Body’s estimates before Parliament and play a role in reviewing the Sponsor Body’s expenditure. Crucially, if the anticipated final cost exceeds the amount of funds allocated for the works, the Estimates Commission can reject the estimate and require the Sponsor Body to prepare a new one.
A Joint Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who is in her place, scrutinised the draft Bill, which was published on 18 October 2018. My thanks go to the Committee for the thorough way in which it has scrutinised the draft Bill and made recommendations. I find myself again paying tribute in particular to the right hon. Lady for her leadership in that work.
The Joint Committee published its report on 21 March, which concluded that
“the basic structure of governance proposed by the draft Bill is the correct one.”
The Government response was published on 7 May, but they have not accepted key recommendations of the Joint Committee’s report. One of the recommendations was that
“a Treasury Minister should be an additional member of the Sponsor Body”—
which it said would
“underpin the hierarchy of decision making”
and
“provide clarity to those delivering the project”.
The Government did not accept that proposal and insisted on
“a fundamental role for HM Treasury in being consulted on the annual estimates for the funding of the…programme.”
In our view, that extra person—the Minister—could be an ad hoc member of the Sponsor Body, attending when necessary, and would equalise the number of MPs and peers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, peers have an extra place.
Neil Gray
The Opposition spokesperson is making a good speech. One of the reasons some of my colleagues on the Committee and I were so keen to insert that line into the report was that part of the success of the Olympic project was that Government bought into and were right behind it. At the moment, the Leader of the House is exercised in trying to progress this, but there is nothing that binds the Government in. Although the Chancellor of the day will sign the cheques, it is fundamentally important for a Treasury Minister to sit on that Sponsor Body to make sure that the decision making is done properly through the whole process.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and for emphasising the point I am making. This is about driving forward the process right from the start and getting buy-in across both sides of the House.
I will highlight five areas: public engagement; the education centre; carbon emissions and environmental sustainability; skills and employment conditions; and modernisation and heritage. One of the Joint Committee’s key recommendations was for public engagement to be included in the Bill. It recommended that the Sponsor Body should
“promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament.”
A response from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the House of Lords stated that it would not be
“appropriate that this should be part of the Sponsor Board’s role”—
and that responsibility should lie with Parliament instead. In our view, the Sponsor Body has an important role to fulfil in engaging the public with its work and the ongoing works. In that way, the public are involved in their Parliament at all stages and are aware of the process.
The Leader of the House referred to education in her opening speech. The Joint Committee said that the Sponsor Body should
“take account of ‘the need’ rather than ‘the desirability’ of ensuring educational and other facilities are provided in the restored Palace.”
But in their response, the Government instead raised
“the need for the R&R programme to deliver good value for money.”
The Government mentioned “cost” and “value for money” 13 times each in their 29-page response. Although it is important to keep costs in check, it is concerning that the Bill does not mandate the refurbishment of education facilities and the creation of new outreach spaces. Everyone should take pride in Parliament’s enduring legacy for education, and young people especially gain a tremendous amount from Parliament’s Education Service, which serves to inform, engage and empower young people to understand and get involved in Parliament, politics and democracy.
The education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens has been a massive success, as have the outreach services. Indeed, it was my great pleasure, just this morning, that children from Blue Coat Primary School in Chester were visiting the Palace of Westminster and taking advantage of the educational facilities. The education centre and its facilities and facilitators should have a secured future both during the works on the northern estate and in the Queen Elizabeth conference centre, where the House of Lords will be, and after the works are completed. Education about Parliament and democracy cannot be interrupted.
Meg Hillier
I had the pleasure of visiting Montenegro, where 50% of all primary school children go through its education centre. Obviously, with a slightly different history, they need to learn about democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that because the education centre is a temporary building, we need a long-term solution for that, and that some of the works at Richmond House could plug that gap?
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I had not realised until recently that it was only a temporary building. It has become such an important and integral part of Parliament’s work, and her suggestion is well made and I hope will be well listened to.
Let me turn to environmental sustainability. I was delighted that Parliament recently passed the Labour party’s historic motion declaring a climate emergency. It is important to consider the environmental impact of the restoration and renewal works. Designs for the buildings incorporated into the northern estate programme, and those being planned for restoration and renewal, emphasise the high efficiency of equipment and operational energy use and electricity as the principal power source, based on projections of future grid decarbonisation.
The Committee on Climate Change’s report, “Net Zero—The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming”, recommends an emissions target of net zero greenhouse gases by 2050, and Parliament has a plan for that. I understand that within the necessary constraints of heritage and conservation planning the refurbishment will support the energy efficiency of the buildings involved, using more energy-efficient building fabrics, including, where feasible, in the Palace of Westminster. However, environmental sustainability must now be locked into the heart of every decision we make.
The illegal practice of blacklisting is an issue that hon. Members have raised in the House, as have I. I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of and have gratefully received support from the Unite and GMB trade unions. While this is a matter for the Delivery Authority, we must remember that the practice of blacklisting is illegal and has caused untold harm to people’s lives. We have a wonderful opportunity to invest in people’s futures by upskilling them. We can harness the current skills of specialists from around the UK and train and encourage more young people, especially women, into this area. We must also send out the clear message that this is a prestigious project and that companies that have been involved in blacklisting construction workers will not be welcome to submit bids. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support this position.
Tom Brake
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on blacklisting. He raises the matter with me regularly. Does he agree that investment in skills must be a priority if the UK is not to need to import a lot of people, probably from the EU, to work on things as varied as the carvings, the masonry and the windows? If we do not invest in skills now, those people will simply not be there.
Christian Matheson
I absolutely agree. I hope we can also see this as an opportunity to train people in situ during the project, but someone has to do the training itself, so we will certainly have to upskill our people.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a lot of work is going on and firms are doing exactly that—bringing in apprentices and training them in specialties. I know that because one of the major firms is in my constituency.
Christian Matheson
It is great to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. I will come to the question of spreading the work around in a moment—the question that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) raised—but I am most grateful for that intervention.
Sadly, blacklisting is still rife in the construction sector. There are experienced construction workers and others in associated trades who cannot find work today or who are given a job offer only to find it withdrawn without explanation a couple of days later. Blacklisting wrecks lives, careers and families and damages workplace health and safety. When McAlpine was given the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben contract, it caused consternation because it had been up to its neck in blacklisting. Many large construction companies were part of the cabal of firms associated with the Consulting Association and faced legal action from trade unions on behalf of the blacklisted members. Numerous of those have now admitted their culpability and paid into a compensation scheme, but several others have failed to do so. I shall press the simple case that any construction company that has been found to be associated with blacklisting workers and failed to accept its wrongdoing and compensate workers for that treatment should be publicly excluded from bidding for these prestigious contracts. This is a chance for Parliament to express its opposition to the terrible practice of blacklisting, and we should embrace that chance.
It is incumbent on the Sponsor Body to ensure that all areas of the country benefit from this programme. London benefits from having Parliament physically located here, so the delivery body must ensure that work is fairly shared out across the country—a point that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts made in an intervention on the Leader of the House. I am proud that Donald Insall Associates, the country’s leading heritage architectural firm, based in my constituency and led by Tony Barton, is already working as conservation architect on the restoration and renewal project for the Palace and is advising on the northern estate. We must ensure that businesses small and large from across the UK have similar opportunities.
Finally, there are many ways in which we can respect the heritage of Parliament and replicate it while modernising it and making it accessible to everyone. This is a diverse nation and people have different needs. There are many people with disabilities that are not overtly visible. We need to be imaginative in working out how this place can be accessible—for example, to those with autism. We are told the noise in Portcullis House often reaches very high levels, and this has perhaps not been taken into account previously, although it was referred to earlier by the right hon. Member for Meriden.
Hon. Members have made various contributions to the consultation. I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has worked hard on bringing the idea of mindfulness to hon. Members and their staff, has asked that hon. Members and their staff benefit from a meditation room. These are ways of introducing new ways of working to an historic building.
In conclusion, we have a duty to protect this heritage building and world UNESCO site, and the restoration and renewal project will make this a more modern and compliant place to work with better access facilities for everyone. We can get this right, after so many years of kicking the can down the road, so that this place is fit for future generations.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The fire at Notre Dame was a stark warning that historic buildings are incredibly vulnerable to catastrophic damage, either from failure to repair them in a timely fashion or indeed during repair itself, although, to be fair to the Government, they had decided before that awful tragedy to get cracking on this project. It is important for this generation of MPs to note that this should have been started many decades ago. For the benefit of members of the public, some of whom are watching in the Gallery, I should explain that the difficulty for parliamentarians in starting this project has been that it is difficult at any time for us to argue the case for spending money on our place of work. This is not any old place of work, however; it is a world heritage site, and this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore it and renew it—two words of equal importance.
I was honoured to be asked to chair the draft legislative Committee on the Bill and was blessed in the composition of its membership. Its members were very knowledgeable and played an active part, some of them providing continuity, having come from other Committees that had already worked on the project, meaning we did not just reinvent the wheel.
What caused me most concern was the length of time before Parliament could decant and work begin in earnest. It was on 1 February 2018 that Parliament voted in favour of a total decant. It came as a shock to the Committee, however, when initially we heard that the decant might be delayed until as late as 2028, which would be a full decade after parliamentarians took the decision to get out completely to make sure the work could be done most cost-effectively. Our concern is whether the buildings can function sustainably for the length of time it will take to decant.
Meg Hillier
I think we are all willing to decant, so that is good news. I thank the right hon. Lady for her chairmanship of the Committee, whose work was concluded with dispatch but thoughtfulness. She will be glad to know, hot off the press, that the Public Accounts Committee has received a letter from the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence that should speed up our departure because we have now, I hope, resolved the issue of the MOD car park.
Dame Caroline Spelman
Yes, I was very pleased to hear that news hot off the press. It is very significant. For the benefit of others hon. Members, I should explain that the potential hold-up caused by our not being able to access the car park belonging to the MOD could have added three years to the project and resulted in an estimated additional cost of £350 million. I am delighted that common sense has prevailed. None the less, that still means, on the evidence the Committee was given, that we cannot decant until 2025, which is six years hence.
As the Leader of the House said, there have already been some near misses, with falling masonry and leaks—including one in this Chamber that interrupted proceedings. As a working environment, it is far from ideal for the staff, who outnumber parliamentarians in this place and often spend more days per year in Parliament grappling with the practical difficulties of a building that is deteriorating—quite apart from the rather depressing impact of working somewhere that feels like a building site.
For visitors, the experience is also unsatisfactory as large parts of the buildings are covered in scaffolding and hoardings that make them inaccessible and, as I hear many tourists commenting, unattractive to photograph when people have come all the way to do just that.
As I said earlier, the members of the Committee included parliamentarians with disabilities. I am sure that Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell will not mind—I have already spoken to them about this—if I pay tribute to the way in which they made us aware just how difficult it is to work in this place. We have practical experience of that, having moved from Committee Room to Committee Room for our hearings. There are hearing loops in some of those rooms, but we found in practice that when a loop was switched on for a hearing-impaired member of the Committee, the microphones went off. Even for those who do not, as far as we know, have any hearing difficulties, it was at times very difficult to hear the evidence that was being presented. Such barriers to the ability to work in a place that requires everyone to be able to access it put people off working here, serving here, and putting their names forward as parliamentary candidates. As we restore and also renew Parliament, we must make really sure that those barriers are removed.
The inaccessibility of the building to those with disabilities is a wrong that urgently needs to be put right, and it must be addressed during the decant. I am talking not about the building that we will eventually have, but the temporary building. Beyond that, however, we need to give expression in this legislation to the public’s desire to be better served by their Parliament. To that end, there needs to be extensive consultation. That will be part of the role of the Sponsor Body, but it has not escaped us as parliamentarians—and this is, as much as anything, for the benefit of the public—that MPs are not in good odour in the country, and the work of Parliament is coming in for a lot of criticism. People have views on how they want to see Parliament working better. There is no better opportunity than this project for us to consult them on the kind of changes that they want, and, as far as possible, to determine how we can deliver them.
The main reason for the delay is the chosen plan for the decanting of Parliament to a replacement building on the site of the present Richmond House. Because Richmond House is a listed building, it will be more difficult to demolish and rebuild it under planning law. The Committee took the view—which I am sure was correct—that under the Bill as it stands, Parliament is not taking separate planning powers to itself for this purpose, but will be subject to the same planning regime as everyone else. We were told, however, that the demolition and rebuilding of Richmond House would cause some delays, as there would inevitably be strong objections from those who value its heritage. This is not a “ready to roll” solution. The decant to Richmond House also requires some of the footprint of what is known as the northern estate, which is presently undergoing refurbishment and will not be available for some time. I am glad that the Government have accepted the Committee’s recommendation for the “rolling together” of those who are overseeing those repairs with the Sponsor Body, because that would surely optimise our ability to complete the work at speed.
In the light of the Notre Dame fire, I urge the parliamentary authorities to review the list of decant options that they discarded before deciding on the demolition and rebuilding of Richmond House. As I have said, it is not a “ready to roll” option. I appreciate that a primary reason for its selection was the security of all who visit and work on the parliamentary estate, and I am very grateful for that concern for our lives. However, other buildings in the vicinity are considered secure enough to host international conventions with high-profile participants, and all the options still require staff, parliamentarians and visitors to walk to and from the site of the parliamentary decant building in any event. That security risk cannot be avoided. The Committee was concerned by the implicit view that the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre is deemed safe enough for peers to use, but not MPs. I found that distinction between categories of parliamentarian rather strange.
As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I wrote to the Leader of the House asking why Church House had been rejected as a decant option, given that it had been the default decant option for 40 years and had set an historical precedent, having been used by Churchill as Prime Minister during the second world war to decant both Houses at different times. I have a simple way of approaching the issue: if Church House was good enough for Churchill, it ought to be good enough for us. Moreover, Churchill was kind enough to oversee the installation of a bomb-proof roof over the Chamber and a blast wall around it. However, I am no security expert, and I must acknowledge that the security threats that we face in the modern age may be subtly different from those that were experienced during world war two.
May I ask the Leader of the House to think once more about the options that might enable us to decant more swiftly? Let me also correct a possible misapprehension. When I wrote to her, I was envisaging not a temporary building in Dean’s Yard, but a straight swap between the whole of Church House—which has room for 460 employees—and Richmond House. I have another addendum: when we decant, can we please ensure that we still have the chapel facility that we currently enjoy in the Undercroft?
I am grateful for the acceptance of a number of the Committee’s recommendations, including the recommendation for the merging of the present works committee on the northern estate with the Sponsor Body proposed in the Bill. That is good, and may help to accelerate the project. However, we also recommended that a Treasury Minister should be appointed to the Sponsor Body, because it is taxpayers’ money that will be used, and the Treasury will have every interest in keeping an eye on the costs and value for money of the project. Today I received a letter on that subject from the Prime Minister, and I think it is worth sharing her response with the House. She points out that there are
“financial safeguards” in the Bill, and adds:
“This includes a fundamental role for HM Treasury in being consulted on the annual estimates for the funding of the R&R. As part of this process”
—this is the important bit—
“any comments made by HM Treasury on the annual estimate must be laid before Parliament.”
So we shall be able to see the Treasury’s response, but we must be able to debate it as well. I should be happy to hear the Leader of the House confirm that later.
I think that a political figurehead will be needed to answer questions in the House, after the model of the late Dame Tessa Jowell, whom we will eternally remember with gratitude for the success of the Olympics. I am sure that the Leader of the House would do that just as well, but to deliver continuity it would need to be done by the office holder rather than the person. Given the length of time that the decant and the construction will take, it is important that we do not suffer a corporate loss of memory in the process. I hope that the Leader of the House will be that figurehead, and that her successors will take on the role with equal enthusiasm in the model that she has demonstrated.
We must bear in mind that the Bill covers both restoration and renewal. We must not slip into the short- hand of talking just about restoration. It is also important for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to serve the whole United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for speaking up for the devolved nations—all of them—because every part of the United Kingdom must benefit from this. As others have pointed out, that was an important feature of the Olympics.
I remember visiting a small business in the north-west of England in the aftermath of the Olympics. Its owner told me proudly that it had produced one of the features that helped to make the buildings in the Olympic Park more sustainable. That had the knock-on effect of creating and sustaining jobs in the business, and it meant that people benefited well beyond the environs of Westminster. This project must do exactly the same, and—as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out—it must offer apprenticeship opportunities to both men and women, so that part of the legacy is an increase in the number of people with the skills that are needed to restore heritage assets throughout the UK. Those skills are currently in short supply.
The Committee also received evidence from Historic England, which asked us to amend the Bill to make specific reference to heritage. Parliament is a world heritage site so the need to conserve the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical Palace of Westminster should be explicit. I believe this is crucial because, as Historic England points out, heritage conservation should be within the scope of sustainable development which underpins the planning system. It is not about preserving this place as a museum; it is about making sure that its unique historical significance has a sustainable future. The Government agreed to give this further detailed consideration.
The Church of England has to balance the twin demands of heritage and future sustainability all the time. People are often unaware of how we make cathedrals more sustainable with solar panels on the roof—which people cannot see—and renewable energy features that people benefit from in not sitting in a cold church building. People often think it is impossible to do these things with listed buildings, but that is simply not true. Historic England has been very supportive of efforts to make these heritage assets sustainable and we should do everything possible to improve the sustainability of the Palace as part of this project.
The evidence given by the head of the church buildings division of the Church of England to the Committee urged Parliament to become what she called an “intelligent client” by asking hard questions in timely fashion and being disciplined about not interfering with the project in ways that lengthen it and add cost unnecessarily. I encourage all Members to heed this advice as the restoration and renewal of these great buildings gets under way. Most of us are, I think, unlikely still to be here when the project completes but this should reinforce our efforts to get it absolutely right for future generations so that we can answer any future criticism and say that we gave this our very best endeavours.
The Government are to be congratulated on grasping the nettle where previous cohorts of politicians shrank from the task, and I hope the Bill, as amended, will be passed speedily through both Houses to get a long overdue project under way.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Of all the things this House can do to endear itself to the good people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, spending billions of pounds on renovating the place where we, the Members of Parliament, do our work probably, just about, would not make the top 10. In these days of austerity and with us still going through all the horrors and psychodramas of this crazy Tory Brexit it almost seems like it is designed to intentionally wind up the good people of this country. So I sincerely wish this House all the very best in trying to sell this to a sceptical and, frankly, had-enough nation.
Pete Wishart
I have barely started, but I will give way given that the hon. Lady is Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman is critical of spending money on the UK Parliament so it amuses me that there are colleagues of all of ours up the road, as he would say, in a wonderful, splendid modern Parliament building that cost the taxpayer quite a lot of money.
Pete Wishart
I will say two things to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] She is already hearing a chorus on one of them: it cost less than Portcullis House. And if she wants to know about the difficulties in designing a Parliament and creating a Parliament she only needs to look at the experience of the Scottish Parliament. That was one of the first pieces of work that the Scottish Parliament went into, and I can tell the hon. Lady that it was not particularly easy; there was real discontent about it. That is what this House and Members will experience; that is what they have got to look forward to, because they will have to try to sell this to a sceptical nation, and I wish them all the very best.
On that, let me declare an interest—or maybe a disinterest. Me and my colleagues do not intend to be here at the end of the process.
Pete Wishart
I was going to tell a few jokes in my speech, but I think we have heard the funniest one already: the idea of the Labour party gaining any seats from the Scottish National party is the best joke we will hear.
Let me declare my disinterest: me and my SNP colleagues are not going to be here. We are probably not even going to be here at the commencement of the project given its tortuous progress. So we will let other Members get on with their vital restoration and renewal work while we get down to the business of restoring and renewing our beautiful country in the shape of the priorities of the Scottish people.
I like the fact that those in charge of this call it restoration and renewal—R and R. Who doesn’t like a bit of R and R? Everybody likes that. If they called it the restoring of a Parliament for the Members of Parliament of this country I am sure they would have a few more difficulties in trying to explain that to the people of this country. And good luck to them in defending the £4 billion to £6 billion that they will have to spend on restoring and renewing this place.
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend may recall that when the National Assembly for Wales had a new building the cost was £60 million, and the Conservative party in particular ran a full-scale campaign against that expenditure, yet it seems very relaxed about spending well over £5 billion on this Parliament.
Pete Wishart
I have to say very candidly to my hon. Friend that I have given up trying to second-guess what this Conservative party says about anything when it comes to spending in this country.
I think the people of the United Kingdom will now be trying to figure out how many schools and hospitals £4 billion to £6 billion could build, and I am pretty certain that all other Members will be reminded of that right up until their posteriors return to these restored and renewed green Benches.
Sir Edward Leigh
Just so the hon. Gentleman knows, I agree with him: every £100 million we spend on this permanent replica Chamber is £100 million less for teachers and doctors and nurses and all the rest. I just want the hon. Gentleman to know that I am fully on his side.
Pete Wishart
It is always curious what we pick up in the way of allies when we are going through particular issues and projects. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that additional comment.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It just so happens, as I will touch on in my own contribution, that I was on the Holyrood progress group, which was in charge of building the Scottish Parliament building, and I can remember the sound and the fury and the brickbats that came my way, John Home Robertson’s way and Linda Fabiani’s way as we proceeded with the project, yet I am bound to say this: I think my SNP friends will agree that now that the building is finished Scotland is extremely proud of it and nobody mentions the price any more—and I for one am proud to have been involved in building such a landmark in Scotland’s history.
Pete Wishart
I am tempted to say, “So it’s all his fault then,” but I will not do that—and I stress that I only said that in jest before the hon. Gentleman gets all shirty. He is absolutely right: the Scottish Parliament had a tortuous progress, and I commend the hon. Gentleman because I know he served on that group with distinction and hard work, and that project was down to those people who designed all of that. We should not forget, however, the fuss that was created for a very modest building that cost less than Portcullis House.
We are talking about something that it is said will cost £4 billion to £6 billion, but nobody actually believes it will cost that; it is never going to cost £4 billion. Most people suspect that that figure will come in at closer to £10 billion or £12 billion, and that is before we even find out all the different things that will be underneath as we start to dig under. We have already heard about Edward the Confessor; that was just in the car park of this building. Goodness knows what else will be discovered and the archaeological programmes that will be undertaken. So I salute the other Members of this House in their bold and courageous move and look forward to them selling this to the people of this nation; and from afar we will be watching and wishing them all the best as they get down to restoring and renewing this building.
But I agree that this building is falling down and becoming a hazard to all those who work here. Decades of neglect and indecision have seen to that. Anybody who stands still for a moment in this place now stands a very good chance of being hit by falling masonry. It is so overrun with vermin that even the mice in this place now wear overalls. Because of decades of prevarication this building is practically falling down. The failure of successive Governments to face up to their responsibilities means we now have a building that could face a catastrophic failure or massive fire at any time.
Everyone has drawn the comparisons with Notre Dame and that is right. The Leader of the House has given that example in her many comments on this; she has said the example of Notre Dame shows why this is now imperative. But there are key differences between this House and that cathedral on the Seine: one is a building where people think they speak to God and the other is Notre Dame cathedral.
It will probably not come as a great surprise to learn that me and my SNP colleagues do not share the same dewy-eyed affection and nostalgia that some Members feel towards this place. I have to say that I personally love this building. It is a truly iconic building, and it is a real pleasure and privilege to work in it; walking down Victoria Street to work I feel a sense of pride that I am coming to work in what is a fantastic building. But I have to say that I could probably just about discharge my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament from somewhere else.
This is a beautiful building, but it comes with particular historical baggage. It was very much associated with a height of empire when it was built, and with some of the worst excesses of global imperialism, which we have to concede was a feature of the 19th century United Kingdom. It is a building that is ingrained with 19th-century power relationships, and with a historical cap-doffing, forelock-tugging culture. We even have one part of the building where we refer to people as lords and ladies, and we actually think that is okay! What type of building is this that creates this kind of culture? If we are serious about being a new, modern 21st-century Parliament, we should have a building that reflects these new ambitions and aspirations. We should not be trying to shoehorn Parliament into a mock-Gothic Victorian tourist attraction. Why are we not thinking properly about this?
Andrea Leadsom
I always love the hon. Gentleman’s banter, but I must gently point out to him that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is a member of the House of Commons Commission, and I remember feisty discussions in which I was worrying about the value for money for taxpayers and the hon. Member for Dundee East was insisting that the money must be spent and that we had to get on with the project. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is telling a slightly different story now, but it is his Scottish National party colleague on the House of Commons Commission who wants this work to go ahead.
Pete Wishart
The Leader of the House is right in one respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East was the Scottish National party member of the House of Commons Commission, but I am now the new member of that commission. Let me make it clear that we are all for moving out of this place—of course we are. We have to move out. It would be ridiculous to try to stay in a place that is practically falling down and that is infested with vermin. It is no place for our visitors to come to and it is imperative that we should move.
I am coming on to talk about what I think we should be moving out to, and what we should do to ensure that we get value for money, because that is the key feature in our discussions today. We know that this very technical and mechanical Bill provides for the governance of the project, but it is very much caught up in the whole idea of how we present a modern Parliament in the future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is right to say that no one is arguing against spending any money whatsoever. This is about achieving value for money and doing the right thing. Let us look at the new Scottish Parliament, with its new, modern Chamber that is accessible to everyone; it has electronic voting and even has normal daylight coming in. That is what that money was spent on. What is being proposed here is simply to do everything up but keep it exactly the same, even though it is not fit for purpose.
Pete Wishart
That is the key point. Why are we taking this place apart, only to reassemble it in the same way and do the same old bad things in the same old venue? It is so unimaginative. Whoever presented this idea really must have been up all night thinking about it, mustn’t they? “Let’s just come back to the same place that we are going to be leaving! And when we leave this place temporarily, let’s just create a carbon copy for us to use before we come back to this place!” That makes absolutely no sense.
When I look around this building, I get a sense that it is a sad metaphor for Brexit Britain. It is dilapidated, falling to bits around our ears and unloved, and it could go up in flames at any minute. Is that not a truly fantastic representation of the Brexit Britain that we are heading towards? Perhaps this Parliament and this building are exactly what this country deserves. The Leader of the House is right to say that we have to move out, for the sake of the thousands of people who work here and the many visitors who come here. It is for them that we must move out, but to move out simply to come back to the same building, with all its cultural and historical trappings, is a serious mistake.
It is a real pity that we were not listened to when we were going through all these Committees, when we proposed selling this building off to the private sector. People would be queuing up and biting our arm off to get hold of a place like this. It is a UNESCO site and one of the most iconic buildings in the world. They would be fighting each other to get their hands on it. Selling it off to the private sector would obviously save us billions of pounds on the redevelopment costs. We could then move out to a new building that would meet our requirements as a modern 21st-century democracy. It would meet all the security arrangements that we obviously need, and it would actually accommodate all 650 Members, which is more than can be said for this place. Why was this not thought about seriously? I think it is a huge deficiency that that was not done. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) tried to ensure that that proposal was properly considered in the Committee, but it was not even given the time of day. The House has definitely let the country down by not considering it.
Let us imagine what would happen if we did sell this place off. I would like to see it become a museum to British democracy, where people could come and be amused by how Members of Parliament behaved and did their business in the early 21st century, braying like perfidious donkeys on speed to show their approval because they are not allowed to clap, and wandering around in circles for hour after hour just to register their decisions on what happens in this place. People would laugh out loud at the fact that Members referred to themselves as “honourable” and “right honourable”. I can just imagine the joy and amusement that would be brought to visitors from around the world who came to a museum of British democracy here in the House of Commons on this UNESCO site. It was a failure of diligence of the House not to consider that option.
We now have this Bill, based on decisions that were taken last year. The Leader of the House was right to say that it is all about the governance involved. It creates the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, and we will also have the Delivery Authority, which will operate as a company limited by guarantee. This is reminiscent of the London Olympics, but I was here when the London Olympics were first being considered, and I can tell the Leader of the House that the way in which the Olympics Delivery Body was shaped was not exactly a positive experience for us in Scotland, or for Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom.
What I remember about the way in which the London Olympics were designed was that we got next to nothing in the way of contracts. Large sums of our lottery money were diverted to pay for activity down here, and there were years of wrangling over the Barnett consequentials. The Government attempted to define the spending in London to build all that activity as UK-wide spending. If I remember correctly, it was only following the intervention of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was eventually resolved in a Joint Committee. That experience was not good for us, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts has to be supported. This has to be a project for the whole of the United Kingdom. We were all shocked by what happened at the Olympics, and this new project has to be seen to be of real benefit for the nations and regions of the UK. I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee, my hon. Friend will be listened to carefully and patiently—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) says he wants to be listened to as well. I think we have an alliance here, and knowing him and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, it would be a formidable one that would obviously deliver what we want. I look forward to them getting substantial and solid results. I see that the Leader of the House is perhaps wondering how she will be able to take them on to ensure that we all get the right results.
We have no issue with the northern estate programme. Looking at the plans for Richmond House, it is hard to see how any alternative could be designed. I know it was a hard job to figure out where we would go, and I do not think there is any issue about how this should be done. Richmond House was the right choice. Looking at the figures, I see that the works there have been vaguely costed at about £500 million, and that it will then become some sort of education centre. That has not yet been specified, so we are not too sure about what will happen there.
However, the plan seems to be to create a carbon copy of this place in Richmond House. Have we all seen the photographs of this? I am looking round, and I see that most Members have done so. It will be almost exactly the same as this place. What is the point of that? What is the point of moving all this somewhere else for six years, only for that place to become something else again? Why are we not using this opportunity to do something more imaginative? Why are we not thinking about all the difficulties that we have in this place, including our laborious processes and the ridiculous and silly conventions? Apparently it is even the job of the Speaker to dress the male Members of this House! How about looking at some of the ridiculous, absurd things that waste our time and get in the way of how we approach our business in this House? Why can we not go away for a few years and do things like a 21st-century Parliament? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the idea of going to the northern estate, doing something different and then coming back here? Members can then come back to this 19th-century palace and get on with their usual business, but it shows such a lack of imagination.
Sir Edward Leigh
I know that the hon. Gentleman is having fun, but there is a kernel of truth in that. One reason why they are having to demolish Richmond House is that the House authorities insisted that they wanted a Chamber of exactly the same size and these very wide division Lobbies, which means that we have to demolish a whole listed building. If we had modern voting during the temporary decant, as they do in every other Parliament in Europe, and just had a card to put next to a machine, we would not need the Division Lobbies, and we would not need to demolish Richmond House.
Pete Wishart
I am warming to the right hon. Gentleman. That makes it two interventions in a row that contained practically nothing to disagree with. Alliances are building up all over the place and—who knows?—we might actually be able to make some progress when it comes to modernising this place and making it look and feel like something belonging to this century, not the 19th century. I am pretty certain that he is already thinking, “I’m going to vote for this guy for Speaker,” because that is the sort of agenda that I will be putting forward. We need proper reform of this place, and it cannot come quick enough. I am looking forward to support from right across the House for that agenda.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that I am wearing your patience a little thin, so I will end by saying that the SNP will not oppose the Second Reading this evening. I hope that some of our modest suggestions and proposals will be at least considered—even just for the temporary decant. There is no reason why we cannot do things a little differently and be a bit more imaginative in how we do our business. We could have a look and see whether our absurd conventions actually have any value and work for us. Let us redesign how we work in this place.
We will be watching just how much the project is going to cost, because I must say again that this is not going to go down well. I do not think that the public have actually caught on to this yet—they might have done after my speech—and I do not think that they have really realised what this House is doing with this money. If the price tag is going to be £10 billion to £12 billion, I can only foresee difficulties, problems and issues as the process progresses through the House. Best of luck with it all. The SNP will not oppose the Bill tonight. We will try to get something for the nations of the UK and regions of England, and I hope that the House considers that as the Bill goes through Committee.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, which relates to an issue that nobody really wants to address. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the cost of the programme. Nobody likes the cost, but the truth of the matter is that if a building of this nature was in private ownership, we would be demanding that the private owners did the repairs and brought it up to standard. This building is important not just for the United Kingdom, but for the world. I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the Leader of the House’s commitment to getting on with the job, as it has been pushed to the side for far too long because it has been too difficult.
I understand the opposition and dislike of my colleagues who would prefer us not to decant. However, anybody who visits the basement to see the conditions down there—electrical pipes running next to gas pipes and air conditioning pipes—would not want to work down there for very long. Anybody who opposes this move should be sent to work down in the basement for six weeks—six hours would probably be quite sufficient.
However the decision is not just about the basement. The fire safety systems are antiquated, and fire officers are required to patrol the Palace 24 hours a day to be on the lookout for fires. Some of the essential mechanical and electrical services are up to 130 years old, such as the heating, drainage, lighting, water, ventilation and communications. Repairs are needed to Victoria Tower to preserve our Parliamentary Archives, which holds millions of records. I hope that a new home will eventually be found for some of those archives, because that could be an important part of the building in the future.
The Palace was built using Anston limestone, which quickly began to decay, and little was done to prevent its decline during the 19th century. The Bill and the associated proposals address something that has been put to one side for years. Asbestos, which was used extensively during the post-war rebuilding period, is present throughout the building and obviously needs to be replaced. The vast majority of the Palace’s 4,000 bronze windows do not close properly, letting water in and heat out. Many of the historic parts of the Palace are at significant risk.
This programme is the right course of action, and setting up a Sponsor Body to liaise with the House and with the authorities in both Houses is the kind of thing that we need. However, turning to schedule 1 to the Bill, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is wedded to the fact that the people who are already on the Sponsor Body should not be there for the next five years. It has taken a long time to get the Sponsor Body operating. Its members were appointed through a proper system, and I do not favour the idea of reappointments, because a lot of work has already been done.
I fully accept that we must keep a close eye on the cost of this building, but I also look to the example of what happened when Portcullis House was built. There was a lot of criticism about the cost. It did not help that it was built above Westminster station, which added a lot of extra variables, but look at how the building is used today. It is a solid part of Westminster, and it is always in heavy demand when Parliament is sitting—the rooms where Committees meet and the larger meeting rooms—and we can face problems when a group of schoolchildren comes down, for example. The situation has got better, but it is still quite difficult to book a room.
The Leader of the House has been incredibly patient and good at listening and taking on board all the representations. When we had the debate a few months ago about whether to decant, it was interesting that all the previous Leaders of the House voted for the decant. Every single one of them voted for it in a Division that was completely free for Government Members. Given my right hon. Friend’s views on public spending on big projects, which I will perhaps leave to one side at the moment, I can well understand why she was very reticent to say, “Let’s decant. Let’s move out. Let’s do it that way.”
However, one just has to look at the problems, at what is going on around the House at the moment, and at all the work that is going on year in, year out. Lots of that work cannot take place at the moment, because it would make places inaccessible. I reluctantly came around to the decant idea, but I was previously of the view—I partly regret this, but I understand why it has not been done—that we should take planning powers and become our own planning authority. I recognise that thought has been given to that and that we have decided not to go down that particular route, and I accept that. However, the simple fact is that this is an island building. We are employing the Sponsor Body and using the best available advice for how to do not only a proper renewal job but a restoration job. This is a building that we wish to protect not just for our generation, but for generations to come. Now that the scaffolding has been removed from the north face of Big Ben, people can see the difference made to the clock. I hope future Parliaments and future generations will make sure to keep on top of the restoration project once it has been completed.
Members said earlier, “Leave it for a little while, because we have had enough of austerity and we should not do this.” This project will take six years to get under way. Even now, a lot of the work on this project is not about the bricks and mortar part of the job, nor the decant, but about the planning process. It is about making sure that we get the equipment and materials right so that we can look back on the project and say, “Yes, they did make it right. They did get the aesthetics right. They did get the building right.”
The one thing I always point out to my constituents when they come down to Portcullis House is that the stone is from the Ann Twyford quarry in Birchover in my constituency. Portcullis House is a fine building we are proud of. Once the restoration of this building is done, I want to make sure it is in a similar position.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly commend the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) for his speech, and we now move from the dales to the valleys. I think he and I would agree that, as the Leader of the House said, when we first looked at restoration and renewal—I first looked at it in 2008 when I was Deputy Leader of the House—we saw it with a sceptical eye. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the land, and I would love to see large amounts of money spent on infrastructure projects in my constituency to improve the national health service and to save people from the food bank existence that many in work still have to pursue. The truth is that this is not either/or but both/and. We have to tackle the poverty in our land and we have to make sure that this building is put right.
I know the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) wants to live in this building, however horrible he was about it, and my one major difference with him is that I do not think we can just sell the building as it would no longer be the icon that it currently is. Every Hollywood movie filmed in London, if it wants to show the United Kingdom, shows this building. The building would no longer be that icon if it were just a hotel. Frankly, I do not think anyone would want to take on the building on a commercial basis unless we had already sorted out the plumbing, the electricity and all the mechanical engineering. In actual fact, it would be more expensive for us to find a completely alternative venue, rather than to make this building good.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that, as the building is a UNESCO world heritage site, it is the responsibility of the Government, through the Treasury, to fund the work or to make sure it happens?
Chris Bryant
Absolutely, and the point has been made many times not only by my hon. Friend but by the Public Accounts Committee, which she chairs, that this is a cost-saving measure, rather than something to our detriment.
The Leader of the House mentioned many of the problems in the building, including the falling masonry and the danger of fire, but I want to start with the stench. Maybe this year more than any other, but the stench on the Terrace, on the Principal Corridor and in the basement rooms is absolutely appalling because the building’s drainage system is from 150 years ago. There is a beautiful piece of Victorian engineering down in the basement underneath the Speaker’s garden, but it is not fit for the 21st century. We need to be doing these things better.
For that matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said admirably from the Front Bench, we need to get to a place where all the energy we consume in this building is used efficiently and is carbon neutral. That will be possible only if we have a major renewal of the mechanical engineering aspects of the building, which will be 75% of the bill.
I sometimes feel we are like King Canute trying to prevent the sewage from climbing up the stairs towards us. That is fitting because, of course, King Canute was the first person to build a palace on this piece of land at the beginning of the 11th century. It is bizarre that The Times has its office in a portakabin on the roof of this building. We would laugh at any other country in the world that looked after a UNESCO-listed building in such an appalling way.
The cloisters, one of the most beautiful parts of the building, are completely hidden to the vast majority of the public. They were built by Henry VIII, and who knows whether Thomas Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell or whoever else kept their horses in there? It does not matter, because the truth is that this beautiful perpendicular architecture is falling apart on our watch as we simply do not have the capacity to do all the work that needs to be done to the building at the same time.
We have dragged our heels. They may be beautiful heels, but they have been dragged for far too long. I am delighted that the Leader of the House, perhaps seizing the moment after the terrible fire at Notre Dame, which brought home the fact that a building is at most danger of fire during such work—exactly the situation in which we find ourselves—is taking advantage of the moment to put on her wellington boots and stomp over to Downing Street to say that now is the time to bring forward the Bill. I am enormously grateful to her for doing that.
We have already made some decisions, and I know people will want to review and revise those decisions endlessly into the future. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) did a good job of making sure that the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill did not keep on revising the decisions we have already decided. One of the things we have decided is that we will move out in one fell swoop and that we will come back. That does not necessarily mean that every single aspect of the Chamber will look exactly as it looks now.
We have to make sure this Chamber has proper disabled access. That will be complicated but, as the Joint Committee heard, there are many churches across the land that have had to deal with precisely these issues and have done so very beautifully and elegantly in a way that meets all the statutory requirements while respecting the history, the tradition and the architectural beauty of the places concerned. I am sure we can do that in this Chamber so that, for instance, a Clerk would be able to sit at the Table in a wheelchair, if necessary. Or, for that matter, an hon. Member in a wheelchair would not have to sit at the Bar of the House but could sit somewhere else—they could even be a Minister, a shadow Minister or the Speaker. All these things should be obvious to us today.
Other Members have already mentioned the issues for partially sighted people. Some years ago when I sat on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) might mention later, one of the things that came home to me most strongly is that the dim lighting in this building makes it particularly difficult for people with partial sight to feel confident as they go around the building, to read papers and to take part in discussions and debates. That obviously affects Members of both Houses.
We have also decided that we will decant to Richmond House—that is a decision. There is no point constantly revising it. That is what is going to happen. I say to those who want constantly to revise these issues that, by doing so, all we would be doing is delaying, delaying and delaying, and every year of delay is another £100 million added to the bill.
We have also decided in principle to set up arm’s length bodies, just as the Olympics were delivered, with the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, which is precisely what this Bill introduces. I fully support that process. There are, however, some problems that will need to be addressed in Committee and during the Bill’s remaining stages. The first is the issue of planning. The biggest risk to this whole process is the planning process. If we end up in protracted planning rows with Westminster City Council or if there is a judicial review, which could take many years, about either the northern estate programme or the restoration and renewal programme, that could put paid to the whole project. Everyone might at that point throw up their hands and say, “Oh gosh—this is too impossible. We will have to go back to ‘patch and mend’.”
I really want us to make sure that we have made the right decision on the planning question. The Committee considered the matter, but I think it was given wrong advice—bad advice, if I am honest. Notwithstanding the earlier comments of the Leader of the House about the difference between this and the London Olympics Bill—five local, planning authorities in east London were involved in that Bill, but only one is involved in this one—the repeated advice seemed to be that if we included a planning clause in this Bill, it would become a hybrid Bill.
I do not think there is any reason why this should become a hybrid Bill solely because of that. If we wanted to state that this was not to be such a Bill, that would be entirely within our power. It would be perfectly possible for us to say that we would give planning to the Delivery Authority, which could do exactly what was done during the Olympics: chair a planning committee, present planning proposals to itself and consider them openly. It managed to carry everybody with it, and the process was not confrontational; it simply meant that things could be done in a time-efficient way.
Members may not be aware of this, but one of the issues that has plagued us now for more than a decade— 16 years, I think—is what lighting we can put in Westminster Hall. We have put forward endless proposals; I have seen at least a dozen sets of pictures of what the lighting could be, yet we have still not managed to replace the hideous things up there now. I fear that we are going to go through exactly the same process—round and round in circles, not voting in Division Lobbies but trying to persuade another authority that we are doing the right thing.
I also want to raise accountability to Parliament. At the moment, there are more peers than MPs among the membership of the Sponsor Body. As the Leader of the House said, there are seven members, and the Whips Offices decided that the individual parties should nominate—not elect—people for it. Those on the Sponsor Body will be the major conduit for accountability to the House of Commons. They will make sure that the project does not run completely out of kilter with what Members of this House or the House of Lords think acceptable. I think it would be better if there were more Members of the House of Commons than of the House of Lords on the Sponsor Body because we have the primary responsibility for finance and have done since the 17th or maybe 16th century—and, after all, we are the representatives of our constituents.
Secondly, it would be better if Sponsor Body members were elected rather than appointed. Our experience thus far of electing Select Committee Chairs has been entirely positive: they have a mandate of their own and manage to bind views across the whole House. In general, transparency is a good thing. I note that the Leader of the House, when giving evidence to the Liaison Committee about something completely different last week, said that she is always in favour of elections whenever possible. I very much hope that we will be able to make that change during the passage of the Bill.
The Committee considered questions to the House, which could be made easier. Members will have genuine questions—why wouldn’t they, given that this will be one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country? There will have to be somebody who answers for the Sponsor Body. That cannot be an external person; it needs to be a Member of Parliament. My suggestion is that the vice-chair of the Sponsor Body should be a Member of the House of Commons and respond to questions in the House. We should set aside a time every six weeks or so for 10 or 15 minutes of questions.
As Members will know, the next step is the northern estate programme. As chair of the finance committee, I would prefer that programme to move on a couple more steps before it is handed to the Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body. We are close to presenting a planning application to Westminster City Council and we need to get a little further down the road before we hand it over; otherwise, there is a danger that the Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body will get obsessed with the northern estate programme rather than with developing a full budget and costed plans for restoration and renewal.
We should be ambitious in this project. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire expressed valid concerns, and although I disagree with some of them, there is no point in our coming back to a building that looks exactly the same as now in every single regard. It has to have much better access for the public. My constituents have a long way to come if they want to see Parliament. At the moment, they find it difficult to do a proper tour of Parliament unless they can get here by 10 o’clock on a Monday morning. That is really difficult to achieve, especially for a primary school.
I would like us to have a system whereby the Gallery is much more convenient for members of the public to use. Perhaps they might even be able to talk in the Gallery, so that what is going on in the Chamber can be explained to youngsters, rather than their having to go out of the Gallery to have it explained. I see no reason why members of the public should not be able to tweet when they are in the Public Gallery, as visitors can when they go round the Bundestag or most other Parliaments. I would like us to have much easier physical access for disabled people, not only to the Gallery, which is obvious, but because the rest of the building needs to feel far more like it belongs to the whole of the public in this country.
My final point is that we will not be able to deliver this project unless we train thousands more British people to be able to do the work. It is not just about the crafts, such as being able to cut stone and make new gargoyles. No doubt there will be a new gargoyle of the Leader of the House, or the next Leader of the House, or, if the Leader of the House becomes Prime Minister, perhaps several gargoyles—[Interruption.] Or one of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), indeed; that would be an even nicer gargoyle.
It is not just the craft skills that will be needed; we will need skills at the high-tech end of energy conservation, information technology, cabling and central heating in a system such as this, as well as conservation. I really hope that we will set up academies in every part of this country—we should be doing so now—so that young people from every single constituency in the land will think about working in this building as a matter of pride. I hope that at least 100 or 150 youngsters from the Rhondda end up working here, so that it is genuinely a palace for the people again.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for her introduction—it was a clear and useful indication of why we are here to debate this matter—and I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has obviously gone through the Bill carefully.
I listened to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) with interest, and I mostly understood him; as he knows, there is a language difficulty, but I did understand him—[Interruption.] If he addresses me, he has to do so very slowly. I do not agree with him, partly because this building is an iconic symbol of democracy. I say that as an ethnic minority immigrant from the Commonwealth, where some of the parliamentary buildings, particularly in Australia, are very much the same and run on the same lines, although the language in the Australian House in particular gets a little heavier than it does here, or than would be allowed here. I bring a lot of guests to Parliament—I run functions and so forth in the House—and to them, when they stand in the Chamber, this place is the epitome of democracy. The people most affected by it are the Americans. Over the years I have brought hundreds of them to the Chamber, and they envy us for what we have. We have to keep it.
I thought the need for works was well established—the Leader of the House set out various points as to why—but then I read some articles in the Sunday papers and it was quite clear that it had not been understood. I have brought members of the national press down and traipsed them through the underground. They understand, but not everybody does, and they also understand why it is going to cost so much money: it is an enormous task. The basic structure of the building is sound. Yes, bits fall off inside and outside, but that is superficial. Really, it is about the infrastructure underneath. I discovered that the House has been looking into doing something about the structure down there since 1904; it has taken us a while to get here.
We need to discuss the size of the task, which will mean, for all those members of the press, a little repetition. Most Members are aware that the House has a basement, which has a long passageway that runs the whole length of the building. The 86 vertical chimneys running from that passageway were originally designed for ventilation. This of course means—this had not been thought through—that a fire starting in that passageway could whip up any or all of those 86 chimneys and create a real disaster. If that happens, and if no life is lost, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire would feel all right about the fact that this iconic building had gone because we had not done the works.
At present, the chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying age, many of which are defective. We have gas pipes, air-conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems, communication fibres, and, as has already been mentioned, a ghastly old—1888—overloaded sewerage system. This infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys, and there is a duplication right across the roof as well. In the days when people did not know about asbestos, that material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere by brushes from buckets. As I have mentioned, the sewerage system consists of two large steel tanks that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. The system was put in, as I have said, in 1888 and suffers from repeated bursts.
A full decant was agreed by the House in the January 2018 resolution. Then there are the current security requirements. Those of us who arrived here 10 years ago did not need those security requirements then, but we do now. The whole security atmosphere has changed, so anything that we do and anywhere that we decant to needs to be within the current but enhanced security envelope. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, we need to decant to the northern estate. The work that should have been done there does not go back to 1904, but it does go back decades, which is why we have the difficulty and the cost. The cost of refurbishing that building to modern standards will be enormous.
The complexity of the task is quite staggering. It is for that reason that I am 100% behind setting up the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority. Although the ultimate task is the restoration and renewal of the parliamentary buildings, it makes sense that the major works enabling the decant to the northern estate and Richmond House should be undertaken by that body. I note the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda made. It is possible, if not probable, that, by the time those two authorities are set up and under way, the planning would have been—I hope—secured for the northern estate and perhaps even for Richmond House. I wonder—I say this slightly with tongue in cheek—whether Richmond House will be delisted and a new building of quality put in. The building must be of quality. We cannot have a Perth tent stuck in the middle of that space. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Heritage England to list the new building. My only nervousness relates to what has been said by others: we must move quickly for the safety of the building and for the people in this building—but quickly will mean many years.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I come to this debate, as others have already said, having sat on various Committees, bodies and boards regarding the restoration and renewal project. I was on the first Joint Committee, which assessed the independent options appraisal and reported in September 2016. I have been a member of the Finance Committee, currently chaired by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which has looked at this project and at the northern estate programme since I was elected in 2015. I am currently a member of the shadow Sponsor Board for the R and R project, and I served on the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), which scrutinised this Bill. Although I have been sceptical of this project, I have approached the work of all the bodies I have served on constructively. I will come to my concerns later, but I will first address the areas of consensus that I think are important.
There is no doubt that this Palace is in need of significant work. It has been neglected for decades by the British political class who call it their home, and it is now this generation of politicians who need to take the difficult decisions about the building’s future. Members will not be surprised if I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), do not hold much sentimentality for the building itself as the home of Parliament because I can see how modern Parliament buildings allow politics to flourish elsewhere. However, I do acknowledge that this is an important listed building and a world heritage site, so action is required.
If we are to insist on Parliament remaining in this building, we have to acknowledge that crowbarring a 21st-century Parliament into a 19th-century building will require compromises and premiums. It will cost more for us to get a less functional building than if we were to look at a new building. That said, we are where we are—that is, discussing a Bill to progress the project. I agree that, should the project go ahead, it can only realistically be achieved if Parliament is fully decanted, as the risk to personal safety, project delays and cost overruns all significantly increase with any form of partial decant. I concur again with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire that we have a responsibility to the safety of staff. I also agree that the delivery model of the Sponsor Board and the Delivery Authority is the right one. As has been said, the London Olympics derived much of their success from their organisation, and this project seeks to mirror that model. However, other factors in the success of the London Olympics were the support of the Government and the support of the public, and there is some work to do on both fronts with regards to this project.
Ever since the first Joint Committee was ready to publish its report, the Government have been lukewarm in their support. It is hardly surprising that while another controversial issue has been at play, the Government would want to kick this one as far away from them as possible, although I acknowledge that this Leader of the House has driven the matter of late. A line of discussion in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was how to bind the Government in—to make them owners and cheerleaders for this project. One way to do so would be to have a Treasury Minister appointed to the Sponsor Board. The Chancellor of the day will be signing the massive cheques for this project, so it would seem sensible to have them as part of the operational decision-making process, but this has not yet been accepted by the Government. In spite of the recent enthusiasm for getting on with the job shown by the Leader of House, that is a point of concern for me.
There has always been a concern about the reaction of the public to billions of pounds being spent on the workplace of politicians, and I believe that our constituents’ scepticism will be most keenly felt the further they are from London. As it stands right now, this project will be another massive London-centric capital project. London and the south-east already benefit from a third of UK capital spending, coupled with all the job creation and economic benefits that come from it. I am a massive sports fan and a former athlete so I was a supporter of the London Olympics, but there is no doubt that we have lessons to learn from that process. The most important lesson is the way in which good causes funding was sucked away from the nations and regions to pay for the Olympics. In Scotland, that amounted to £75 million. We heard just last week—seven years on—that £30 million of that money is to return over several years. In that sense, there is no doubt that it was the London Olympics and not the UK’s Olympics.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We are looking at getting jobs and business from around the country into the project. I hope that the Sponsor Body insists on a proper evaluation to check that that aim is actually being delivered on, and that we do not get charlatan contractors promising the earth and then not delivering for constituents across the country.
Neil Gray
Yes, and that is a line from the report that the hon. Lady and I both helped to author, alongside the right hon. Member for Meriden. The devil will be in the detail as this project progresses. It will be important not only that the Government accept that fact—and that that is clear through the Bill’s progress—but that the Sponsor Body is attuned to it, so that we do not see the same mistakes again. If this project has any chance of gaining political and public support, it must be a genuinely UK-wide project, and that means that we should see discernible benefits across the UK. That was a topic that I and others on the scrutiny Committee were keen to explore. I have a possible solution that I have already discussed and that I hope the Government will take seriously.
Dr Wollaston
I apologise for being absent for part of this debate because I have been chairing a Select Committee. It is on that point that I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman’s advice. Does he agree that the public would be deeply shocked if we were seen to be building obsolescence into such an extraordinarily expensive project by not having the capacity for electronic voting posts in Select Committee Rooms on the northern estate redevelopment, so that at least, if this place got its act together with modern practices, we would not be interrupting repeatedly, and at length, Select Committee hearings by the way that we vote in this place?
Neil Gray
That is a very good point. It is clear from the hon. Lady’s intervention, among others, that the majority view—in this debate, certainly, and in others—has been that we cannot return to a Parliament that is identical to the one that we leave. There have to be changes made; there has to be progress. I hope that that will be borne out in the passage of this Bill and the discussions that follow.
My suggestion for how to make this more of a UK-wide project was contained in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. It was not apparent that the Leader of the House acknowledged it in her direct response, but I thank her for acknowledging it earlier and saying that she will consider it. Alongside a commitment from the Government to ensure that contractors and skills are procured from across the UK, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned, there must be a greater discernible benefit for the nations and regions. I have already explained how London sucks in the majority of the limited capital spending that there is by Government. This project, when it begins, will clearly put incredible pressure on capital spending elsewhere in the UK, and so will compound London’s dominance in those terms.
My answer would be for a nations and regions capital fund to be established as part of the project. This would see money going to all corners of these isles to allow relevant authorities to progress capital projects, boosting economic growth and job creation locally and countering any negative impact from such a massive project going on in London. One way of doing that would be deciding on a percentage of the overall cost of the project and then allocating it to each nation and region on a proportionate basis.
I am approaching this issue constructively and offering ideas in good faith. I just hope that the Government will respond on the same basis.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has proved to be outstanding in this job. Clearly, she has a wonderful commitment to this place and its future.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman); it was a pleasure to serve under her chairmanship on the Committee that considered this Bill. I have to say that as the Committee wound its way through many hearings, I got more worried, not less. As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, we were told that the full decant may now slip beyond 2025—a figure of 2028 was given. There is a real danger of us fiddling while Rome burns. We are told repeatedly, and I am sure it is true, that this building is an imminent fire risk. Mention has been made many times of the fate of Notre Dame. There is no doubt at all that we would be judged very harshly by history if this iconic building, which is undoubtedly the symbol of the nation and recognised throughout the world as the symbol of our parliamentary democracy, was put at risk through our inaction.
The simple point that I have been making is that if we are in imminent danger of fire risk—if we are deploying, quite rightly, these fire watchers—then we have to take action now. Personally, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you told me that matters were so dangerous that we had to decant this very year, I would accept that. I would take professional advice. The safety of this building and the people who work in it is absolutely paramount.
But we are in danger of setting up such a cumbersome structure that we delay too long to undertake this work. It is understandable with a major project like Crossrail, which we plan ab initio and know will take many years, run to many billions of pounds and go through very complex planning procedures, but we have to get on with this now. As I said, I will take any professional advice on how we do it, but it seems that a lot of work can be done. It is a mystery to me why the cloisters have been lying empty for at least 18 months. I have long been campaigning for fire doors. I know that there is an English heritage point about this, but I am pleased to see those doors being put in place. The fundamental issue must be safety.
I agree that Members of this House must take control of the Sponsor Body. I do not want to see a committee composed of the great and the good—so-called experts—starting a project that will end up being a feeding frenzy for architects, surveyors and builders and will cost many billions of pounds. Although the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) swept aside my intervention, I think that the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) are apposite. There is no appetite among the general public for Members of Parliament to spend billions of pounds on their own building. When the public look at their schools and hospitals—
Sir Edward Leigh
I see that I have immediately prompted something. I give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Meg Hillier
We all know that painful balance, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it is not either/or. We need to do both. Does he agree that we all have a responsibility to champion this and to remember that we in this Chamber represent only 650 people who work in this place at any one time? There are 1 million visitors a year and thousands of staff, and we are doing this for them, as well as for the public.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not deny for a moment that the work has to be done. It has to be done properly, but we are in danger of creating a gold-standard operation in building a permanent replica Chamber. That is not just a worry for people like me, who perhaps share my political prejudices about public spending and spending other people’s money in the way we would spend our own. Many others share that worry. Simon Jenkins recently wrote an article in The Guardian in which he excoriated the cost of building a permanent emergency Chamber.
I do not deny that the work has to be done. I accept the vote of the House of Commons. I campaigned against it. It was quite a narrow vote. The debate has not reflected the fact that many Members of Parliament share my views on this, but we have decided to decant if necessary. I have accepted the will of the House. There will come a time when it may be necessary to decant. The point I want to make is that if there is a serious and imminent danger, we have to get on with the work now, and work may have to be done around us if necessary. It is said that this is impossible. I do not know, but so often in the private sector—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise profusely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I hope he will understand.
Yesterday at Defence questions, Mr Speaker made it very plain that, because of all the speculation in the media about changes to the legal protection of veterans, he expected the Ministry of Defence to make an oral statement in the House today. It elected not to do so and instead put a written statement on the Order Paper this morning. I have just treble-checked in the Library, and that statement has still not been made available at almost 4 o’clock. In all the years I have been in this House, I have never known a written statement not to turn up by 4 pm.
This is symptomatic of a three-way war between No. 10, the Northern Ireland Office and the MOD about who is in charge of veterans policy. Could you try to overcome this chaos in Whitehall and use your best offices to find out when today—if, indeed, at all—we will be given the written statement on this critical issue that we have been promised all day?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important matter and, absolutely, the veterans of this country need to know what is going on. Promises have been made to this House, and I do not think it is acceptable that no written ministerial statement has been laid. However, it has now been raised, and I am sure people will look into this as a matter of urgency and find out where this written ministerial statement is. I hope that it will soon be available for all Members—I am hoping it is only seconds or minutes away—because I too do not understand why, at this time of day, it has not been laid for Members to take it on board. I am sure this will now be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House and to you, but because I had come hot-foot from the Library, when I first rose I had not noticed that the Leader of the House was in her place. I do not know whether she could rise briefly to explain to the House the inexcusable delay of this critical WMS that affects veterans across the United Kingdom. Can she perhaps assist us?
Andrea Leadsom
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can say that I am very sympathetic to my right hon. Friend, and I am afraid I do not have an answer, but I will pursue this straightaway.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The message is out there. Let us look forward to an early written ministerial statement.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for not waiting until I had sat down, and I will now try to get back on track.
Chris Bryant
I think the right hon. Gentleman was about to give way to me at the time—before we were so rudely interrupted. Earlier, he raised the issue of the cloisters being vacated, and the fact that there is nobody in there, but no work has started. He is absolutely right, and this is deeply frustrating for an awful lot of Members. We have raised this in the Finance Committee and, I think, in the Administration Committee. One of the difficulties is that we are engaged in roughly 20 major estates projects, including the Elizabeth Tower, the cast-iron roofs and the courtyards—there are many very important projects—and there simply is not enough room on site to be able to house so many staff, feed them, provide them with a place to change and all the rest of it. This is a difficult site on which to be able to do so many major projects while we still have a fully functioning House of Commons and House of Lords.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a fair point about the cloisters. I am just making my own point that the most important risk is that of fire, and I would have thought that we should drop everything else and try to deal with that.
I said earlier that I have accepted the will of the House, and it may well be necessary to have a decant, but I think it would be possible, certainly if we got rid of the September sittings—this point has not been mentioned yet—to make quicker progress. Undoubtedly, some of the problems we have been experiencing in recent years have revolved around the September sittings. I certainly believe that the Leader of the House could take professional advice on this, and if we could break up for the summer recess on 20 July, or thereabouts, and work full pelt until early October, perhaps we could make better progress.
The issue now is no longer about decant or no decant; the issue is whether, in the current economic climate, we can justify knocking down a grade II listed building, which was only completed in 1987, to accommodate a permanent replica Chamber of exactly the same size as the Chamber we are in, with Division Lobbies of the same size. To facilitate that, we will have to knock down a perfectly good listed building, which can be renovated and restored. By the way, this building, designed by Sir William Whitfield, has won numerous awards. The announcement that we were going to knock it down came just as he was approaching his death, and nearing his 100th birthday, and it is a strange way to celebrate the best of British.
When people, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), say that we could circumvent this process by giving ourselves planning powers, I just do not think that washes. I do not think it washes politically, and I do not think it is the right thing to do. We have to go through the normal planning procedure. This is a listed building. There will be long delays. The House must know that, already, campaigning organisations like SAVE are gearing up, preparing for a full public inquiry. Indeed, I have no doubt that there will be a full public inquiry; and there should be a full public inquiry. That could entail years of delay. Also—it is almost relevant to the point of order—there have already been disputes between the House authorities and the Ministry of Defence about the use of the car park. All these things are adding delay on to delay.
I should have thought that in the current economic climate, it would be possible to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and when it became necessary to move, to move to a cheaper option. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned Church House, but there may be security concerns. When the original Committee met, they were simply going to build a replica House of Commons in the courtyard of Richmond House, which would not have entailed demolition. Then they found that the measurements were wrong; but the courtyard is still there. We do not necessarily need a replica the same size as this Chamber. We do not necessarily need to vote during a short period in the way that we do now. As I mentioned, we could use voting terminals in the Lobbies. There are all sorts of ways of doing this job more expeditiously and more cheaply, and equally safely. That is what I would suggest.
I have had meetings with Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect of Portcullis House. He designed the building during the problems with the IRA. It is absolutely bombproof. It is not ideal, but an emergency Chamber could be placed in the atrium of Portcullis House—an infinitely cheaper option. I agree it is not ideal, but actually we do not want to be too comfortable.
The problem I fear is that we may become too comfortable. If we are in a replica Chamber that looks almost exactly like this one—although it seems to have a more IKEA, Swedish feel to it, in a nod to modernism—I think we will become too comfortable. Many Members fear that, as the architects, builders and surveyors get hold of this project, and as more and more asbestos is discovered, and more and more problems, we could be out, not just for five years but for eight or 10. That is a real fear.
I personally believe the Leader of the House; I know that she is absolutely committed to our coming back. Other Members are worried that there will be more and more debate about whether, when we come back, we should change the whole nature of this place—our procedures and all the décor and so on. The Leader of the House has to convince us that every bit of the Barry structure—this iconic building—every bit of the Pugin decoration, which is admired worldwide, will be replaced exactly as it is, so that after five or eight or 10 years, we come back to Committee Rooms, to a Chamber, to Lobbies, that look identical. Of course the electrics, air conditioning and sewerage will be safer and better, but she has to convince Members of Parliament that the building will be exactly the same; because this is an historic building. It sums up what our nation is all about.
Not many Members—I think only three of us, including the shadow Leader of the House—attended an exercise last week in which, within an hour, the House authorities organised the House of Commons moving, in an emergency, to the Chamber of the House of Lords. They can do that within an hour. We went there. The tables were changed around. We sat on the red Benches—probably the only chance I will ever get to sit on the red Benches. It was a very enjoyable experience, I have to say. Lovely décor. Very civilised atmosphere. Much less confrontational than this place. But it can be done. And I commissioned an architect, who worked pro bono, who proved that it would be possible for the House of Commons, in an emergency, to move there and to take services externally if we were dealing with them here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has also mentioned Church House.
It is not widely known that there is a flat-pack Chamber of the House of Commons, which could be set up in, for instance, Methodist Central Hall in an hour if there is an emergency. We really do have to be cognisant of public opinion. Of course we have to spend the money that is necessary; of course we have to make this place safe, but we cannot treat ourselves differently from the way that we would expect, for instance, local authorities to treat themselves in a similar situation.
When my own local authority, West Lindsey, had to move from its old guildhall to the modern guildhall, it used innovative ways of working with the private sector. When it created the chamber, it did not seek to create the old fashioned chamber, surrounded by wood and all the rest of it, which could only be used once a month. It created a room that could be used for other purposes.
The problem with creating the replica Chamber is that once we leave it what will it be used for? It is said that it will be an education centre. We have a good education centre with a mock-up of the House of Commons. I know it is only a temporary structure, but it could be made permanent. Do we really need an entire replica Chamber for 20 or 30 primary school kids? The Leader of the House said we can use it for other purposes. Every other business in the country which has to move a part of its business to another part of its premises makes sure that it can be used for other purposes. We must do the same, otherwise we will be criticised by the public, because it is their money. In creating a space, it has to capable of being used for other things.
Patrick Grady
I was one of those who took part in the contingency exercise—I think I have even less chance of ending up in the House of Lords than the right hon. Gentleman. The temporary Chamber could be used for all kinds of things. We regularly have vastly oversubscribed Westminster Hall debates, usually on important matters raised via petition by the public about how terrible the Government’s policies are, where it is standing room only and Members are not able to speak. The Scottish Parliament Chamber is used much more flexibly, for example for the Festival of Politics and Youth Parliament debates. There will be plenty of use for a temporary space that will hopefully be much more modern and accessible than this one, which he seems to just want to restore to exactly the way it is now.
Sir Edward Leigh
When we create the temporary space it has to be able to be a modern structure that can be used for many purposes—exhibition space, Chamber, Youth Parliament and education centre—but I am not convinced that creating a permanent replica of the House of Commons that is exactly this size, with the Press Gallery and five rows of green Benches, is absolutely necessary. Anyway, I have made my point.
There is one point I would like to raise before I sit down. I was approached by the chairman of the Press Gallery. When we move to Richmond House, the number of offices for the Press Gallery will be dramatically reduced from 150 or thereabouts to 60. We should be aware of that problem. I hope the Leader of the House is also aware of it and takes action on it.
We have a fundamentally sound structure in terms of materials: it is old, but it is fundamentally sound. We have a problem in terms of the mechanics, the electrics and the sewerage. That is solvable. We can undertake an operation that is safe and timely, but our fundamental concern, after safety, must be our taxpayers’ resources. I will end on this point: let us not treat ourselves differently from how we would treat local government. Let us do this job well, but let us do it in a cost-effective way.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I hope what I am about to say will be helpful to the Leader of the House. As I said in an intervention earlier, my history is that I served as a member of the Holyrood Progress Group up until 2004 with two other elected Members of the Scottish Parliament. I therefore know a bit about what it was like to be in a temporary structure, at the top of the Mound, before moving into the new building we created in 2004. The temporary building we were in at the top of the Mound in Edinburgh was the original IKEA Parliament, if ever I saw one. I want to make three points today.
First, when I was a child in my home town of Tain in the Highlands—we all know about the pride of small towns—it was said among the good Tainites that the stone that comes from the quarry behind the town was the second choice for the Palace of Westminster. Sadly, I fear that that turned out to be something of a myth, but it was a lovely myth to believe in at the time. When we came to build the Scottish Parliament, we deliberately went out into the regions of Scotland to use materials. What is used outside and within the building, and in Queensberry House, is Caithness flagstone, a beautiful material. That was a considerable boost to the industry and the economy of that part of Caithness. The building is clad with granite from Kemnay in Aberdeenshire. My point and my plea to the Leader of the House is this: as and when works proceed here, could we make the most strenuous effort not necessarily to use Caithness flagstone —although I very much hope that we would—but to source materials from different parts of the UK? That would be one way of selling the project, if you like, to the people.
Secondly, when I rose to my feet in the temporary Chamber at the top of the Mound, one thing that was very apparent to me—my wife is disabled, and I take on board the very good points made by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—was that the access to the temporary building was frankly appalling. Because I was married to a disabled person, that fired up my passion for making the new building absolutely disabled-friendly. When times got tough, which they most certainly did, that was my guiding light. I was damned if I was going to give way on that. We were going to complete this building and it was going to be the best thing for my wife and all the other disabled people. As I said in my intervention, the flak that we got was unbelievable. I say as a friend to the Leader of the House and to everyone who will be involved in this project in future that there will be flak and there will be trouble. There always is with a project of this nature, but be of good heart.
The flak got particularly bad when I had to announce the winning design for the reception desk in Holyrood. I was chairman of the arts committee—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) nodding; he will recall this. I chaired a small committee and we had the television cameras and the newspapers there. I said, “Ladies and gentleman, I am very proud to say that this is the winning design.” A certain newspaper—I almost called it a rag—called the Daily Mail asked a tricky question of me, which was, “How much did it cost?” I said, “Well, cost wasn’t really a consideration,” and the civil servants whispered to me, “£88,000”—for a desk. At that point, the world fell on my head.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall, I was on the front page of every single newspaper in Scotland—not a place someone wants to be when the publicity is as bad as that. My daughter took one look at the Daily Record, published that Thursday morning, and said, “Oh Dad, you’re finished.” But we pulled through and today, as I said, the building is seen to be an icon of high-quality modern architecture in Scotland. When I say to people, “What about the desk?”, they say “What desk? What are you talking about?”
Pete Wishart
I recall, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s little difficulties with that desk. I am interested in his views on the expectations versus the reality, which was one of the issues with the Scottish Parliament. If my recollection is correct, the cost of the Scottish Parliament was estimated to be £50 million and it came in at something like 10 times that cost. Is it not best just to be honest and up front with people as we go down such routes? We should not suggest that this can be done on the cheap and that it will only cost a few billion pounds when it is not going to be that at all. Be up front and honest and I am sure, if the Government do that, that they can learn from the experience that we all had to go through bitterly in the Scottish Parliament.
Jamie Stone
That is very sage advice. To get the record as straight as I can within what we know, much as I was very friendly with and admired hugely the late Donald Dewar, at some point as the Bill that established the Scottish Parliament passed through this place, I think he said on the record that it would cost some £40 million, and therein lay the trouble, because we were never going to build very much for £40 million.
Neil Gray
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, except that £40 million was for a rebuilt Parliament—a reconstructed building—which was to be opposite St Andrew’s House. The £400 million that the new-build Parliament ended up costing could not be compared as a result, and that is where the hilarity in the press came from.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Nevertheless, that is the way things work in the press. That millstone was around our necks for the rest of time. I say to the Leader of the House, “Be of good heart”, because these things do go away. We now see people coming into the Scottish Parliament, saying, “What a splendid job you did. Well done.”
My third point has already been hinted at by other speakers. When we came to do the fine woodwork in the dining room, the Committee rooms and so on, the sad fact was that we did not have those carpentry skills in Scotland or anywhere in the UK. We had to go to eastern European countries to find them. Sadly, I suspect that that is the same today as we embark on this project. The point was made about establishing apprenticeships. That is absolutely correct: we should take on young people—although they do not necessarily have to be young—who are willing to learn these new trades. If we have to import the skills from other countries, let us do so, but let us build a bank of people who have these skills. I am thinking of the woodwork and, as has been mentioned, the masonry. I doubt whether we have many masons who can do the standard of work that we see in this building. That then is something for the future, and it could be banked as we embark on other projects the length and breadth of the UK to restore what is one of our greatest heritages—the built heritage—right from my constituency down to Cornwall and the south of England.
It is quite correct, as others have said, that we should be open about the price. This issue bedevilled the project. The public will say, “It’s an awful lot of money”, but if they think we are being honest, they will forgive us. If they think we are being a bit clever with the facts, they will not, believe you me. Every few months, the three of us on the committee held a public question and answer session with Members of the Scottish Parliament—and, far more dangerously, with members of the Scottish press—and it worked. People came along and threw us some hellishly difficult questions, and we had to answer them as best we could—if we could not, we took them away and tried to come back. That willingness to be open was part of getting it through. I do not doubt that all involved in what is done in this place in the years to come will be equally open, but it is well worth remembering that.
I will sum up with some appeals. Let us see if we can source local materials. I think about the flagstone of Caithness. When we came to get the oak—one of the main features of Holyrood—we went to the Earl of Cromartie in the county of Ross and Cromarty and bought some splendid oak trees from him. It was very good of him, though he got a good price. When I was in the deepest trouble of all, with this wretched reception desk, when I thought my political career was over—at the ensuing election my majority was slashed, though luckily it rose again in the election after that—the present Duke of Buccleuch stepped forward and, out of the goodness of his heart, gave us free, gratis, the oak to build the reception desk. I have waited very nearly 20 years to put on the record in this place how extremely grateful I am to his grace for his generosity.
In conclusion, I say well done to the Leader of the House. The nettle has been grasped. It was not an easy one to grasp, but future generations will bless the people involved for having had the courage to do what is being done.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and to hear his wisdom. He is right that if we do not start by being open and honest about the challenges, we will be on a hiding to nothing. In that respect, the project has been bedevilled with problems, which I will touch on, but I hope that today, when it seems there is broad consensus for the Second Reading, we will be able to move forward.
I welcome the Bill and the personal determination of the Leader of the House to get it through. Her predecessors, for understandable reasons and the reality of politics, were a bit nervous about taking this forward, and there were challenges in getting the vote through in January 2018, but we are here today, with huge progress having been made, and I congratulate her on getting us to this point.
As the Leader of the House knows, this is just the beginning. I want to touch on the history—though that has been well covered by others; on the very real risks; and on the future plans, including the costs. I have the privilege of chairing the Public Accounts Committee. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was one of my predecessors, and although we do not agree on every aspect of this issue, we absolutely agree that we need to watch taxpayers’ money very closely. As he rightly says, it is not other people’s money; it is the money our constituents work hard for and expect to be spent wisely.
As others have said, we have put this off for far too long. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about 1904; others talked about what happened 40 years ago. We have pushed this problem away for far too long. It is heartening that it was only seven years ago that the former Clerk of the House commissioned a survey to look at the matter. He feels that that is a long time, but in the grand scheme of things he should be congratulated because it has moved things on much faster than at any time in the previous many decades.
I had the privilege of looking at this on the Public Accounts Committee—I will touch on that and the finances a little later—and while serving on the Joint Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I thank her again for her stewardship of that Committee. We saw the shadow Sponsor Body at that time.
Others have talked about the risks. It is worth remembering that there have been 66 fires since 2008, as you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. At any one time, there are eight fire wardens patrolling this building. As the Leader of the House said on the radio this morning, only at the end of last year there was one that could have been catastrophic, not for the whole building, but for a certain section of it. It was lucky that it happened during the week, because the patrol pattern must be a bit different at weekends. If it had happened at the weekend, it might not have been discovered so quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in eloquent fashion, highlighted the “big stink”. The big stink of previous times led MPs to decide that it was time to build a sewerage system for London, but we are now suffering our own big stink in parts of the building. It is not nice, it is not healthy, and it is really pretty terrible for the staff working in, particularly, the basement rooms who have to put up with it. We must keep remembering that it is the staff who matter.
Mice are rife in the building. Unlike the Leader of the House, I have not yet seen a mouse in my office, but men repeatedly crawl into the cavity above my office, which is close to the roof, and often, especially when I am here during a recess, I see men crawling into holes in different parts of the building such as the upper corridors. They are doing excellent work, and I applaud them for that, but I know that it is more expensive for them to do it at times when we are not here than it would be if we could decant. That is another reason why the Bill is so important. Of course, asbestos is also a huge problem, and one whose full extent we do not know at this point.
Future plans are critical, and even given the consensus here, different opinions have been expressed about what should happen next. It was heartening to speak to representatives of the Sponsor Body in the Committee, and I have had an opportunity to meet its chair, Liz Peace, on other occasions. She has made clear that its role must be to make it easier for us to make the decisions about how we work, but not to tell us how to do it. That would include ensuring that the building has a connectivity that will be future-proof. For example, we could, if we chose, have video booths instead of the phone booths that still exist across this place. The body could allow discussions about how we vote and how we operate, but could not impose them on us. A building shapes us, and, as we said in the Joint Committee, it is important that not just MPs and Members of the House of Lords but everyone—including the members of the public who use this building—is consulted about what they want to see.
The pressing issue, of course, is that of the mechanical and electrical “guts” of the building. Dealing with that will involve about 80% of the work, the bit that we shall never see. We shall come back, and it will have been sorted out. It currently costs several million pounds to remove all the wiring from a riser. The riser must be replicated outside the building while people inside, working in asbestos conditions, in shifts, in spaces the size of a small fireplace, remove all the old wiring and other equipment and replace it. That takes more than a year, sometimes two years, and, as I have said, it costs millions of pounds.
There is, however, a huge opportunity for us to renew this UNESCO world heritage site. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough made some important points. Like a number of other Members, he talked rather disparagingly about an IKEA Chamber. I do not think that we are seeking an IKEA Chamber, but I hear what those Members are saying. The “replica” Chamber has been portrayed as though it would be an exact replica of this place, but the plans are actually quite flexible. We have an opportunity to shape its future and decide how permanent it is: whether it can turn into something else later, or whether it can become an overflow, either permanently or as a flexible space. It is important for us to become involved in a positive way, and nail that now, so that eventually the Sponsor Body will be able to take over.
It is vital that we improve access for those with, for instance, mobility issues. The right hon. Member for Meriden touched on the issue of the frankly embarrassing loop system in this place. As a teenager, a member of my family was very embarrassed about admitting her deafness, and would have been mortified by the idea of coming to a building like this and having to wear what is effectively a big necklace with a clunky thing attached to it. She would not have felt able to participate. We need to be sensitive to the way in which we label people, as we currently have to do.
In fact, we were surprised to learn that there was a loop system. It was only because we had the privilege of serving on the Committee with Lord Stunell that we learned about it. Otherwise, we would never have known. I think of all the people who have visited the House during the 14 years for which I have been here, and whom I have never been able to inform about the loop because I simply did not know about it.
We also have an opportunity to use the “dead space” between buildings better. I think of the restoration of Hackney town hall, a beautiful 1930s building. Glassing over courtyards has provided a usable space while preserving the beauty and integrity of the building. When people talk about IKEA, we think of the light wood for which it is famous. When old buildings are restored—when workmen go back to the wood and re-polish it—it often turns out not to be dingy and dark, but a great deal brighter and lighter. However, it is a long time since that was done in this place.
Safety is, of course, critical. I sometimes joke, rather cruelly, that at least I am based near a stone staircase, but the reality of that cruel joke is that many staff are in little cubby-holes a long way from a proper fire exit route, and it is not acceptable that we have left it so long for them to be supported. We need to allow for smarter technology to be built in so we future-proof this building, and we need to think, as we allow the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to get on with it, about our vision for what we would like to see in this place: not tinkering with it every step of the way, not changing the business case and the plans once they are set in stone, but allowing that flexibility to be built in. We must also make it clear at the beginning if there are areas where we do or do not want to see big change.
There are huge opportunities to secure better access for visitors, and to make some money out of this building when we are not sitting. I work in the old Palace now thanks to the privilege of the office I hold; it provides me with a beautiful office. I get to see the House differently from when I was working in other parts of the building, and it is like the Mary Celeste in recess or on a Friday when Members are not around. There is an opportunity if we think flexibly to make sure this place is used more effectively by the very public we are here to serve.
The Bill Committee focused a great deal on the governance aspects. The Sponsor Body is critical because we effectively hold it to account for the money that will be granted for this project. Its chief executive, who is not yet appointed, will be the accounting officer. It is important to get that on the record now, because we might not all be here in future and I hope that future Members will hold that accounting officer personally to account for how the money is spent in this place—and not just here on the Floor of the House when we are discussing estimates but in other forums as well.
The Sponsor Body will set up the Delivery Authority. The people on the Sponsor Body, which has been set up in shadow form, are key figures at the moment. They were appointed for a three-year term and they are less than one year into their term. I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) about the need for continuity. I am absolutely in favour of open recruitment, but given that these people went through a full and open recruitment process for the very same job—albeit that it is in shadow form rather than in statute and were appointed less than a year ago—there is scope to roll their term over to at least the end of their three-year term and then have the recruitment process continue as normal. I hope the Leader of the House will consider that so we can get started now on this project.
As the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said, we discussed in Committee the Government having a Treasury Minister on the Sponsor Body to get Government buy-in. I know there can be issues either way, but we must consider that in Committee to see what skin the Government of the day need to have in the game. Of course, the risk is that the Government of the day could decide to pull the plug; one Treasury Minister would not be able to stop it, but would be able to keep a beady eye on taxpayers’ money, alongside other Members of the House on the Committee.
We talked too about the election of Members to the board, which I naturally support, with one caveat.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some very thoughtful remarks. Has she given thought to how parliamentary questions can be laid and a Minister respond to scrutiny from the Chamber?
Meg Hillier
The Joint Committee gave some thought to this, and the view was that members of the Sponsor Body should come to the House as Members representing the House of Commons Commission and others representing the Church Commissioners do to answer from the Back Benches. We learned from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that the more open we are the better, so I would say that that infrequent appearance might not be enough, and at certain points in the project we might want to have far more open access both to Members of this House and the media, because it is not just Members of this House who need to know about it; this is a taxpayer-funded project that the people of the UK need to know about and they need to know that questions can be asked about it.
We need to make sure we scrutinise this fully and properly. I talked about the election of members to the Sponsor Body. We on the Committee wanted that, but the Government did not accept it. My one caveat about having elections is that we must make sure we have full balance across the House. I will probably want to press this in Committee, because we want to make sure that, for example, smaller parties such as the SNP are not disadvantaged if there is an open vote across the House and Members vote on party lines, as may happen. Given the excellent support and input of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and others, it would be invidious to cut out a Member because their party label meant they would not secure the votes. That must be considered, but of course in principle I support elections for all the reasons that others have highlighted.
The scrutiny of this project is vital. This House will scrutinise it, the Estimates Commission will put the proposals forward and, thanks to the mechanism worked up with the Procedure Committee through the Backbench Business Committee, we can get those estimates and discuss them and the detail here.
We have made sure that under the Bill the National Audit Office will have the powers to audit the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority and the project. The Public Accounts Committee will, as of right, be able to hold evidence sessions on the National Audit Office reports and examine the numbers in detail. I will no longer be the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when all this happens, although I hope to have some input in the early stages. I am laying down a marker for my successors, however, because the length of the project means that at least another couple of Select Committee Chairs will be looking at this.
Jamie Stone
That is incredibly important advice. One thing that assisted us with the Holyrood project was getting public endorsement every so often that the books were fine. I stand full square behind what the hon. Lady has said.
Meg Hillier
The Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office is coming to the end of his term at the end of this month, and one item on my list of things to talk to the new Comptroller and Auditor General about is ensuring that there is a good and thorough process. Of course the National Audit Office does an excellent job, but we need to ensure that this is on its radar in the right timeframe and that we work up a way of ensuring that everything works effectively. We need to get in early to ensure that costs are not suddenly ramped up at the end.
I need to talk a bit about costs, and I will come to that in a moment. Other Select Committees will of course have the chance to examine these issues and, as the Leader of the House has said, there will be a further chance for this House to have a say in 2021. It is important that we build in scrutiny of the evaluation of, for example, the jobs and the money and of where the contracts are being let. In our speeches today, we have all been putting pressure on the Sponsor Body seriously to consider having a mechanism for ensuring that the wealth opportunities from this huge, amazing, international project are shared fairly across the UK wherever possible, and we must ensure that it is held to account for any pledges that it makes. We will hold its feet to the fire on this, and other Select Committees will have a role in that regard as well.
I want to touch on the northern estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is no longer in his place, suggested that it might be better not to glue that project to the main Palace project. However, my Committee believes that it is pretty vital that the Sponsor Body manages both projects, because they are so interconnected. The fact that the cloisters have now been empty for 18 months even though that was an urgent project is not a demonstration of a lack of will—there are many issues involved—but with all goodwill to the Clerks the House, they are not project managers of major projects. The whole point about the Sponsor Body is that it will have the expertise to hold those who deliver these big projects to account and to ensure that they get on with it. It is important that we also hand over the northern estate to a body of people who really have that expertise.
I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence car park issue now seems to be resolved, as it was getting ludicrous. The Committee was horrified to discover that a delay in that area could have meant a three-year delay and hundreds of millions of pounds in extra costs. We will also get future office space and more flexibility over the buildings as a result of any new buildings on the northern estate.
I remember when I visited New South Wales—I was there on holiday; this was not done at the taxpayer’s expense—I went to the head of the Sydney Olympics and was given the opportunity to visit the New South Wales culture minister. They had an amazing project to work with local businesses to help them to get ready to bid for projects on the Sydney Olympics. This helped businesses to learn how to procure and to work out a whole list of everything that would be needed on the Olympics. I would urge the Sponsor Body to adopt a similar approach, so that hon. Members who have already expressed an interest in bringing business, opportunities and work to their constituencies can show their local businesses what will be needed. For example, we will need to know how many wood carvers and stone carvers will be needed, so that the people out there who know how to do those things can gear up and be ready when bidding for that work starts.
I want to finish by talking about the important issue of costs. We need to nail them down, but we must not rush to pluck a figure from the air. The costs that we have been talking about so far—around the £4 billion mark—were indicative figures based on 2014 prices. They are not the true cost of establishing the work necessary to improve this building. That cannot be known until the business case has been worked up and we actually discover what is behind things. There will be a number of known unknowns, because every time we remove a bit of wood panelling there may be asbestos behind it. We just do not know, because the building’s plans are not accurate. There will need to be figures in the business case, but a proper contingency must also be built in that will have to be explained to the Sponsor Body in case the Delivery Authority needs to draw on it, and the relevant bodies need to be held firmly to account. To put inaccurate figures out now would be unhelpful, and we must ensure—the Leader of the House will be on this—that the figures are in the realms of reality.
No matter how expensive the project is, we must be honest with the taxpaying public about what is being spent. However, there will be no blank cheque. The Public Accounts Committee, under my watch or that of any successor, will keep a close eye on things, as will Members of this House, but we need to get on with the project now. We need to get the Sponsor Body in place, and it needs to appoint the Delivery Authority. I congratulate the Leader of the House on, I hope, getting us to a consensus tonight.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am going to bring in the Opposition spokesman for his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since his election in 2001. I see that he has quite an audience. I call Mark Tami.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you say, it is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in 18 years—12 years as a Whip. I nearly got here on a Friday when the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) had a Bill. I was ready and primed, but he did not actually move the Bill, so there we are. Things come to those who wait. I also thank Matt Chorley at The Times’ “Red Box” newsletter for making my appearance his trivia question of the day.
I should state that I am a member of the shadow Sponsor Body, and it is a pleasure to serve on it with several other Members. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s proceedings. The tone of the debate has been positive, which reflects the growing understanding that this project cannot wait. We really must get on with it and establish the appropriate governance arrangements.
Some Members have suggested that this not the right time to be doing this, which I suppose is understandable, but to some extent that is why we are here now. Quite frankly, it has never been the right time to do it. I can understand that Governments of whatever colour could say, “Well, we’d rather leave it to somebody else,” but that is what we have been doing since the second world war, when the roof and various other work was bodged, and we are paying the price for that today. If we had addressed some of those concerns many years ago, we may not be facing the problems that we have today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made some important points about planning, which I certainly have worries about. We must keep a firm eye on planning to ensure that it does not hold up the project, because if the northern estate project is delayed, everything else will suffer and the timescales will slip, as they have already.
The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill, raised some important points, referring to the growing risk of delay. Like several other Members, she mentioned disability issues and the importance of doing whatever we can to make this place as disability-friendly as possible.
Now, where do I start with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? I will be honest with him that he was fairly far down my list of people to vote for to be Speaker, but the idea of making him live in this place is suddenly very appealing.
The right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) spoke in great detail about some of the considerable problems we have to face. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee, stated how important it is to consider how people view this place—not only in this country, but around the world—and that the northern estate project should be placed under the Sponsor Body’s responsibility as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who like me has had the pleasure of serving on every R and R body so far, told us of his desire to have a modern Parliament within the current structures.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) raised his concerns about slippage and what he saw as the complex nature of the project’s governance. I agree with what he and other Members said about the cloisters. Speaking as the Opposition accommodation Whip, moving people out and causing all those problems only for us to walk past it every day to see that, in fact, nothing is happening is a lesson that we should learn for the future.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) told us of his experience in the Scottish Parliament, which is useful, although I do not think we will be taking his advice on buying desks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke of the need for honesty in costs and for getting on with addressing the problems we face.
A number of years ago, many of us believed that we could somehow carry on doing the work around us, but the evidence clearly points otherwise. Importantly, as a number of Members said, it is not just about us in the Chamber or those in the other place; it is about the thousands of people who work here—many of them work longer hours than we do at the moment—and the more than a million people who visit this place every year.
From a health and safety point of view, this building is simply not fit for purpose. We need to restore and renew it to be fit for the 21st century. I would suggest to any Member who has not done so that they visit the basement to view the extent of the challenge facing us. It is not just below ground; it is above ground, too. A number of Members have spoken about how masonry is falling on a fairly regular basis, and we need only look at the netting around the building to understand the threat.
The biggest threat, and a number of Members have mentioned this, is fire. Although a lot of work has been done, we need only look at the terrible events at Notre Dame to realise how quickly a fire can take hold and threaten not only the entire structure of the building but, importantly, the people who work in it.
A key component of the proposed decant is the completion of the northern estate programme, which has perhaps gone somewhat under the radar, with a lot of the focus being on the Palace itself. The public consultation is under way, and I am sure many hon. Members have taken the opportunity to view the model or diorama—I never know the correct term—of Richmond House and the northern estate. I encourage Members who have not seen it to do so.
It is a bold design that will provide a positive legacy, with a building that can be adapted for a variety of uses, as well as office accommodation for Members of this House. There will be a second Chamber that we can hold in reserve, and we could use it for conferences and a whole host of uses that the Leader of the House has mentioned. It certainly will not be a white elephant. I think it will be a very useful part of this House.
I accept that the proposals for Richmond House are controversial and have generated interest. Some have argued that we should go to a different location, but I can assure the House, as the Leader of the House did, that a considerable amount of work went into considering numerous other locations. Again, if purely from a security point of view, Richmond House makes so much sense because it can easily be brought within the secure zone, which is a requirement that is, unfortunately, now far more important than it would have been a number of years ago—it is one of the key things that we have to think about. It is about protecting not only us, as Members, but all the people who work here, too.
We need to press ahead as quickly as possible with the northern estate project, which is central to the whole R and R programme. I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch that the dreaded MOD car park question will hopefully be solved, or has been solved, which should lessen the delay we were facing.
I would like to press the Minister on a key aspect of the R and R programme, about which a number of Members have spoken: legacy. I do not just mean the buildings, although they are important. I mean legacy in terms of the skills and apprenticeships that the programme will deliver—a legacy that should stretch far beyond London and the south-east.
The programme must be open to employees of businesses large and small across the UK. The procurement process needs to be fair and transparent, with companies across the country bidding for work. I hope that roadshows will go around the country explaining the opportunities. We cannot have a situation in which contracts are given to the same companies as always, which those giving the contracts are comfortable with. For all the talk about stretching out there, the rules and regulations can effectively debar smaller companies from entering the process.
This project may be based in London, but it must not be London-centric. Legacy must include better access for the public, improved educational facilities and the creation of new outreach spaces. As numerous Members have said, we must also make sure that the building is made as disabled-friendly as possible. That includes removing small stairways where we do not need them and also relates to the noise within the building. There are also issues that I had not thought about, to be frank. For partially sighted Members, clear glass doors with nothing on them are a major problem—we may think they look nice, but they can be a major obstacle. People across the House should be involved in looking at what we are going to do.
My personal experience as a member of the shadow Sponsor Board is that external board members—including Liz Peace, the excellent chair, who has been mentioned—play a positive and important role. Continuity is so important. I agree with other Members that there does not seem to be an allowance to enable existing members to go into the statutory body; they would have to go back through the process they went through a year ago. The danger is that we could lose that vital experience at a critical time for the project. At this point, I want to put on the record my thanks to Tom Healey, who has served the shadow Sponsor Board as director and is now returning to the House. He is a hard-working chap who has served us very well. I wish him all the best for the future.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) highlighted five key areas to which I hope the Government will respond. The Opposition welcome the Bill today, and I wish it speedy progress. We have put off this vital work for 70 or perhaps 100 years. Let us be bold, let us be brave, and above all let us get on with it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call the Minister, I want to make an announcement. There was a point of order about the written statement from the Ministry of Defence. It is not online, but copies are now available for Members to read.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Kevin Foster)
My thanks go to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on an assured début at the Dispatch Box. As a still relatively new Minister, it is nice to congratulate someone who has served for less time than I have.
The restoration and renewal of this historic Palace of Westminster is our duty to future generations of not just parliamentarians but of all who serve and take part in democracy in this country. The Bill is a vital step towards ensuring that we fulfil it. As many speakers have mentioned, we cannot underestimate this task. We have heard about the significant state of disrepair that the Palace is currently in. Anyone who has taken even a brief tour of the basement will have seen the scale of the project that we need to undertake and the desperate urgency of doing so.
The restoration and renewal programme is and will continue to be a parliamentary project. We will all have the opportunity to engage in the work and put forward our views on what improvements we would like to see for the Palace as a whole. All parliamentarians will have the opportunity to vote on the proposals for restoration and renewal in due course. This debate was an opportunity to hear what many people think, and it is only right that I start with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who just spoke. He was absolutely right to talk about the need for this project to have a legacy. That legacy cannot just be revamped 19th-century buildings or better presented artworks; it has to be a legacy that stretches throughout the whole United Kingdom, in respect of job opportunities, apprenticeships for young people, the revival of skills and the reinvigoration of crafts that may not even exist at the moment.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I have sat through most of the debate and listened to Members talk about the need to start upskilling now. Will the Minister look into contacting, lobbying and working with further education institutions, including in my constituency—
Chris Elmore
And, indeed, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and in the constituencies of all Members from across the House. That way, we can start to look at upskilling and at what FE provision is there now, and FE institutions can start to develop course plans and to introduce lecturers and so on, so that we get those skills ready for when the project happens.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that passionate advert for the skills of residents in Ogmore. I have also heard from the Rhondda, from Bury St Edmunds, from Aldridge-Brownhills, from Bournemouth, from South Northamptonshire and everywhere else. The hon. Gentleman is right: one reason why I am keen to get on with this and get the Delivery Authority set up is that, as we saw with the Olympics in 2012, there will be benefits throughout the country. In 2012, businesses in his constituency and in mine benefited, either through the supply or through direct contracts. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside made the point well that this project might be happening in London, but it should not be a London-centric project. I will certainly be keen to see us extending skills.
Neil Gray
The Minister speaks of his commitment to this not being a London-centric project. I am sure he will have already heard our proposals for a nations and regions capital fund, and I am sure that capital funding would be welcome in Devon and the south-west. Does he agree in principle with the idea of such a fund?
Kevin Foster
Of course, as the Bill progresses, the Government will be interested to hear all proposals that come forward. Let us consider the work that is already going on. For example, the cast-iron tiles on the Elizabeth Tower are being produced in the Sheffield area, and the tiles for the encaustic tile conservation project have been manufactured at a factory in Shropshire. There will be plenty of opportunities for businesses throughout these four nations that make up this United Kingdom to be part of a project that all nations will be able to look to over the coming decades.
Let me turn to the detail of the views expressed today. I shall start with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who opened the debate for the Opposition. I thank him for his constructive approach. He was an excellent stand-in for the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), whose name appears on the Bill in a sign of the consensus we have been able to achieve. I recognise some of his points about opportunities for skills and education arising from the work. It is about making sure that businesses know how to put themselves forward. There are plenty of models—for example, Heathrow airport is currently working on trying to spread its supply chain throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the Delivery Authority will be able to learn from that, although we need to get the thing set up, via the Bill, before it can.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) was an excellent Chair of the prelegislative scrutiny Committee. I pay tribute to the work that she and her Committee did to enable us to bring forward the Bill. She was right to highlight the fact that disability access in this building is from another era. The facilities reflect different attitudes to those with disabilities—not just in the visible examples, such as staircases that are hard or impossible for anyone with mobility issues to climb, but in those hidden aspects that make this building not the place for accessibility that it should be. Let us be blunt: we stand in the Chamber and argue that businesses and public services should be accessible, but we need to make sure that the building in which we do that arguing sets the bar, rather than just meeting a minimum standard.
As the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, it is interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). To anyone who raises the potential for spending on this project, I say that the alternative is not to spend nothing. The alternative is to carry on with a make-do-and-mend process, which is not making do and which is not going to mend the place. Public money will still end up being spent in great amounts on this building, achieving worse outcomes. I would certainly reflect on the contrast between some of those remarks and the role that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has played as part of the commission. Again, this is a choice about how we deal with the pressing issues of this building. There is no question of them not being dealt with at all.
Pete Wishart
When I was making my speech, the Minister was, I think, at an Adjournment debate elsewhere so I am surprised that he is even able to make a comment on these matters. I am not suggesting that at all. I agree that we have to do something with this building, but let us be imaginative about where we decant to and what we come back to. We do not always have to do the same things again and again and again.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course I take an interest in the remarks that have been made. These works have been looked at on many occasions by professional advisers who are coming up with appropriate things. We can all talk about being imaginative, but the reality is that there has been a great deal of analysis that has gone into this project. Come 2021, the House will again be able to scrutinise the detail of business cases, to take votes based on real estimates and to scrutinise the estimates to ensure that everyone has the information that they need to make a decision.
Nick Smith
On this topic of possible cost overruns, a number of colleagues have talked about the possibility of the northern estate being delayed because of planning problems, which could be very expensive indeed. Can the Minister tell us more about that possibility and how we are going to reduce that risk?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On planning, he will be aware that this project will follow the usual planning rules. We do not intend to make Parliament a special case; we will still liaise with Westminster City Council. On the detail in relation to the northern estate, I am happy to write to him and also place a copy of that letter in the Library. That would enable me to give him a detailed reply to his concerns. I am conscious though that, when we engage with the city council, we will do so as any other applicant would. We must be very clear that we are not setting ourselves in a special place because we are the UK Parliament.
Let me move on now to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin). He quite rightly pointed out that, if this building were in private hands, we would insist on its repair via the law that we pass. That also applies in terms of conserving its heritage. I also pay tribute to the role that he plays on the shadow Sponsor Body, bringing his considerable experience of Parliament to bear in doing so.
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I know that, like me, he also managed to nip into the other debate to make a contribution, showing his passion for his work. Again, mention was made of his work on the Joint Committee of 2016. It was almost as if we managed to duplicate ourselves to ensure that we could achieve the feat of being in two places at once. We appreciate the comments that were made, especially the ones around planning, but again I have to say that there is a difference between these works and the works of the Olympics in terms of not having four different projects and of not having four different planning authorities. Again I say, it would be a low step for Parliament to look to put itself above other procedures and other organisations dealing with similar buildings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about the iconic nature of this building and the vast scale of the task—no one can underestimate the vast scale of the task. On the nature of this building, I sometimes make the point on a tour that this is probably one of the few places that literally has history attached to a broom cupboard because of what happened on the night of the 1911 census. Again, it rams home the fact that every part of this building has a history.
Let me move on to the comments of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) who gave us his considered thoughts. I note that he said that he wanted a Treasury Minister on the Sponsor Body. The point that I make is that we are clear that this is a parliamentary project, not a Government project. I also noted the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who said that we can explore that matter in the Bill Committee. The Government’s view is that, while there will be some engagement with the Treasury, a Minister being on the board could confuse the roles and may not necessarily be the best way of ensuring that this project progresses.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as always, gave a passionate speech showing his great knowledge and skill, and making very clear the risks that we are running if we decide not to grasp this nettle. He talked us through the options. I know he has been a passionate proponent of particular outcomes for this project, but it is right that whatever option we look to take—whatever our thoughts on particular aspects of the project—we move on with this Bill and set up the Delivery Authority to allow it to happen.
It was interesting to hear the experience of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) with the Scottish Parliament building. I actually saw the desk to which he referred only last week when I visited my opposite number in the Scottish Government. The hon. Gentleman is probably right to say that there will be some flak along the way in this project; that is almost inevitable. However, he is also right to say that this needs to be a project across the whole Union, not just one for the normal contractors, and that it should be something in which we can all take pride.
I found the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch particularly interesting, as she outlined the role that the Public Accounts Committee will look to play in overseeing this work. As she reflected, it was the work of the hon. Lady and her Committee that persuaded many Members to vote for the motion, given that the House supported her amendment by a majority and then supported the substantive motion that has brought us to where we are today. I am sure that many Members of the House will hope that such an approach will continue.
It is extremely important that we make progress with the restoration and renewal project so that we can secure this historic Palace for future generations. That is why I am pleased that the House passed the motions in 2018 voting for a full decant, and why I am pleased that this Bill is being debated today. As the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster said in its report, the Sponsor Body will need to set clear timelines for completing the vital works. It is very much my hope that we move back into this historic and iconic building as swiftly as possible afterwards. Indeed, the Bill provides for this. At the point that we vote on the design and funding for the project, we will have a better understanding of the timescales and will be proceeding—if it is the decision of the House—based on that timetable. If the timetable or costs shift significantly, the House will have the opportunity to vote again.
Concerns have rightly been raised about the cost of this project, and we are determined to ensure that the R and R programme represents best value for money for the taxpayer. That will be the guiding principle as we take this Bill forward. We are confident that the governance arrangements set out in the Bill can and will deliver the necessary restoration works while guaranteeing value for money for the taxpayer, as there is not an unlimited amount of available funds.
The Bill puts in place a number of core financial safeguards that have been signed off by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. To mention just a few: Parliament will be given an opportunity to vote on the annual expenditure of the Sponsor Body; the Estimates Commission will have the power to reject draft estimates if the project is going over budget; the Comptroller and Auditor General will conduct annual financial audits in relation to both the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and of course has the relationship with the Public Accounts Committee that the Committee’s Chair touched on in her speech; and finally, Parliament will vote on the cost of the substantive building works. The Government are clear that the work must represent good value for tax- payers’ money, and the programme needs to be delivered on time and on budget.
The R and R programme is at its heart, and will continue to be, a parliamentary project. That is why the Bill ensures that parliamentarians have a clear voice as members of the Sponsor Body, and establishes a specific duty on the Sponsor Body to consult with parliamentarians on strategic objectives for the restoration and renewal works. Parliament will also have a significant role in approving the proposals for the works, including the scope, delivery method and cost.
The importance of engaging the public has also been mentioned, and I completely agree that the public need to have a clear voice in this historic project about the Parliament that represents them. This project will provide an unparalleled opportunity to get the public to engage with Parliament and democracy—both during the programme and through providing a lasting legacy. How we engage the public in R and R is ultimately for the Sponsor Body to define, working alongside the Delivery Authority. However, the Sponsor Body will have the chance to engage innovatively with the wider public about restoration and renewal, and I would expect that to be across the entire United Kingdom, as I touched on earlier.
If I may sum up, this Bill ensures that we establish the governance bodies that will be able—
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I want to put to him the point that has been put to him by several members of the Sponsor Body. The Bill says that we will have to undertake a new recruitment process for the new Sponsor Body as opposed to the shadow Sponsor Body. I realise that he may not be able to give me a definitive answer at the moment, but may I ask him to understand the concern that has been expressed in all parts of the House about this particular clause, bearing in mind that the people who are taking on this role at the moment, and will continue to do so, were recruited only after a proper process in 2018? Those of us who feel that this is important would like them to carry on with that job for some time. I think that to go through the whole appointment process again would be a mistake.
Kevin Foster
I hear the point made by my right hon. Friend. The Government remain open-minded on this and will clearly consider the comments made as the Bill progresses through the House. I hear the strength of the representations that he has made, and they will certainly be taken on board as the Bill progresses. As I say, it is ultimately a matter for the House to determine.
This Bill ensures that we establish the governance bodies that will be able to deliver on this project in a timely and cost-effective manner. This will enable our return to this Palace to conduct parliamentary business, ensure continued and more inclusive public engagement through increased accessibility, and fulfil our responsibility to secure for future generations this historic grade I listed building—a building that has seen moments of history take place within it. Ultimately, the Bill ensures that the proper mechanisms are in place to enable the restoration and renewal works on the Palace of Westminster to be conducted with the expertise and safeguards that are necessary for a project of this magnitude both in size and historical significance.
It is a privilege to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I look forward to working with colleagues in Committee to take it forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister is giving a speech outside Parliament. Can you give me guidance on why it is not being done in this Parliament? Are we now just going to have a social media Parliament?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand the point he makes. He will have heard, as the House has heard many times, Mr Speaker insisting that any important announcements that are made by Ministers should be made first here in the Chamber and not elsewhere. But it is my understanding, having listened to the Prime Minister’s press conference this afternoon, that she has every intention of coming to this House tomorrow and making a statement when all Members will have the opportunity to ask the appropriate questions. I hope that sets the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11 June 2019.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— (Mr Jack.)
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under or by virtue of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mr Jack.)
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 June 2019 - (4 Jun 2019)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome, everyone. Please switch electronic devices to silent. I remind colleagues that teas and coffees are not allowed in the room—unless you are offering me some.
Today we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Our first item of business is to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, before beginning line-by-line consideration of the Bill itself. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 4.30 pm on Tuesday 4 June) meet—
(a) at 7.30 pm on Tuesday 4 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 June;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clause 3; Schedule 2; Clauses 4 to 8; Schedule 3; Clause 9; Schedule 4; Clauses 10 to 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 11 June.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
That means that the deadlines for amendments to be considered at the Committee’s line-by-line sittings today and on Thursday have passed. The next deadline is the rise of the House on Thursday for amendments for consideration at our final line-by-line sitting next Tuesday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on amendments are taken when we come to the part of the Bill the amendment affects. New clauses are decided at the end. In this instance, that means new clause 1 will be debated early on in proceedings with the existing clauses to which it is connected, but a decision on it will not be taken until later.
Clause 1
“The Parliamentary building works”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. You and I go back some way in our political journeys, having first met back in 1992, when you were still Councillor Streeter. It is safe to say that we also have to look back over a long period of time—decades—as we start to look at the Bill and the maintenance and repair works that need to be done.
Clause 1 defines what the Bill is about: looking to tackle the numerous problems with the Palace of Westminster, including falling masonry, fire risks, water leaks, sewage leaks and toilet closures. We all agree—the Bill’s Second Reading was approved unanimously, without a Division—that the restoration and renewal of this Palace is an urgent and pressing requirement that needs to be progressed. Following the passage of motions on R and R by both Houses in early 2018, the former Leader of the House made swift progress, publishing a draft Bill in October 2018 for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill published its report in March 2019, and we took on board many of its recommendations before introducing this Bill on 8 May.
This is a short, sensible Bill, which will put in place the necessary governance arrangements with the capacity and capability to oversee and deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace. The Bill will also put in place a number of financial safeguards to ensure that the R and R programme represents the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Clause 1 outlines the parliamentary building works to which the Bill relates. It sets out what works the Sponsor Body will be responsible for as part of the R and R programme. We know the Sponsor Body will be responsible for the works to restore the Palace, as well as certain works connected with the restoration of the Palace, such as the arrangements for decanting the House of Lords. However, the clause also allows for the scope of the works the Sponsor Body is responsible for to be widened if the House Commissions decide, with the agreement of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, that it should be. Crucially for many Members, the clause also requires this work to be undertaken with a view to Parliament returning to the Palace of Westminster
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,
in line with the resolutions passed by both Houses.
For the reasons outlined, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair today, Sir Gary. I do not wish to delay the Committee much longer, and certainly I do not have time to pay tribute to the fraternity of MPs from Devon, much as I would love to be a part of what is presumably a beautiful county.
Obviously, we very much support the terms of the Bill, and we have already made that clear on Second Reading. Clause 1 sets out the basis and the terms of reference for the Bill. We recognise the intrinsic value of this historic site, and there is no question that there is a long overdue need for restoration and renewal. Indeed, a constituent contacted me over the weekend who had been involved in surveying the building and some of the utilities attached to it 20 years ago. He told me that his report at the time, which obviously was not acted on, indicated that there was an urgent need even then to undertake works. Those works have not taken place and therefore we are where we are now.
The project will clearly cost money; we are talking, after all, about a UNESCO world heritage site, which in part has stood continuously since the middle ages. We cannot reasonably ignore this issue any longer. We support clause 1, and we do not seek to amend it. It lays out clearly the scope of the parliamentary building works, and we would hope to see that progress through to the next stage.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Naturally, one of the concerns about this building—we saw this in Paris, of course—is about what would happen if there was an emergency and the building was badly damaged in the interim. Who, once the Bill becomes law, will be responsible for dealing with remedial works before the restoration commences?
The Chair
Does the Minister wish to respond to that question? There is no obligation for him to do so; it is up to him.
Kevin Foster
Certainly our intention would be for the Sponsor Body to take responsibility for the full process of the works on the estate, and, again, the way that clause 1 is drafted allows that to be extended if necessary.
The overall push of the Bill is to create the legal mechanism for delivery of the project, and I will be clear that the alternative to not having clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and indeed to not having this Bill, would be that the House Commissions would try to deal with things separately, in a way that would neither deliver value for money nor provide clear accountability.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think that what the Minister was probably moving towards suggesting is that there is no intention to hand the building over until such time as a full set of plans has been produced, the House has approved a budget and all the rest of it. In other words, that is some considerable way down the line. In the meantime, surely we have to do what patching and mending we still need to do to make sure that our staff are safe and that we can continue to do our work as effectively as possible.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. He is absolutely right that passing the Bill does not hand over the Palace of Westminster immediately to the Sponsor Body. That will happen after a further stage of parliamentary approvals, when we will look to approve estimates and budget plans, and also make choices, bluntly, about what we want to spend and what we want to get from the Sponsor Body. That is when the Sponsor Body will take responsibility for the building, subject to the plans to bring us back to it in due course.
I will make one point, and I know the hon. Member for Rhondda will agree. He talks about our still having to spend money to patch and mend, and, yes, money is still being spent every day. I am very clear that doing nothing is not a choice. The choice is either to do something that might put this building into fit use for the future, or to continue to patch and mend, knowing that we are not mending the building and that it is getting worse every day.
In particular, the potential for a serious fire, or a disastrous fire at the level that we saw at Notre-Dame, cannot now be ruled out. Although the building is life safe—we can make sure that we can keep people safe—we cannot give any great guarantees about what would happen. If anyone takes a visit down to the basement, they only need to look at the many decades of wiring, pipes and other things passing over, plus some of the voids within this building, and the design of it from the Victorian era, to know that that would not be how we would build a fire-safe building today.
With that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(f) to require the Delivery Authority to ensure that contracts for construction work in connection with the Parliamentary building works must not be awarded to construction companies who have been found to have blacklisted construction workers from employment and who have subsequently failed to enter into a Trade Union Recognition Agreement with a registered UK trade union.”
We fully support the creation of a Sponsor Body as a single client body working on behalf of each House with overall responsibility for the programme. The body will make strategic decisions relating to the carrying out of the works and consult with Members of both Houses when performing their duties.
The Bill requires the Sponsor Body to form a company limited by guarantee, the Delivery Authority, to formulate proposals relating to the Palace restoration works and to carry out the parliamentary building works. With the inclusion of the Delivery Authority, these two independent authorities are able to operate effectively in the commercial sphere, bringing the expertise and capability needed for a project of this scale. This two-tier approach was used successfully to deliver the London Olympics.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Sir Gary. I wish to seek clarity on whether there will be a clause stand part debate separate to the debate on the amendment.
The Chair
It partly depends on how the debate unfolds, but if it is of particular interest to the right hon. Gentleman, I am happy to give him that guarantee at this stage. Is he looking for that?
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Sir Gary. Rather than several of us making four speeches, might it not be better to have just one debate on all the amendments to the clause and vote on them at the end? Might that be a little briefer?
The Chair
That is a very good point. We have a number of amendments tabled by different individuals. I look to Meg Hillier. Are you content?
The Chair
Why don’t we do that? Let’s be grown up about this. We will discuss all amendments to clause 2 at the same time. Christian Matheson, are you happy with that?
The Chair
As well as amendment 2, we will therefore consider:
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(h) to require the Delivery Authority to ensure that opportunities to bid for contracts for the Parliamentary building works are promoted across the United Kingdom and that a yearly audit is carried out of the location and size of the companies awarded contracts, with the aim of ensuring that the economic benefit of the Parliamentary building works is spread across the United Kingdom and across companies of different sizes.”
New clause 1—Report on construction contracts—
“(1) The Delivery Authority must publish a report once every six months setting out the construction contracts awarded or let as part of the Parliamentary building works.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the number and type of contracts awarded;
(b) the location of the firm awarded the contract; and
(c) anything else the sponsor body deems necessary.
(3) The Delivery Authority must lay each report under subsection 1 before both Houses of Parliament”.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability” and insert “need”.
Christian Matheson
Thank you, Sir Gary.
Clause 2 gives some directions to the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body about the way it might exercise its functions. Amendment 2 is on the subject of blacklisting and I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is that I am proudly a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions and have received support from both in the past. I bring forward this amendment on blacklisting not at the behest of any trade union but on my own initiative and that of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, because it is the right thing to do.
Blacklisting is pernicious. It destroys lives and it is dangerous, and I must tell the Committee that it is still going on. Skilled tradesmen, electricians, plumbers, heating and ventilation specialists, steel erectors, mechanical and electrical contractors, all with full qualifications and experience, suddenly find that they cannot get taken on for work on any construction site, or they are given a job, they turn up to start and are suddenly told they are not needed anymore. The secret network of the blacklisters has kicked in and a worker’s card is marked. They are marked down as a troublemaker or a militant.
I have represented construction workers and, sure, some are difficult or what might be termed less than politely in the industry as arsey. I challenge hon. Members to look around the Committee. Here too, on both sides, we have our own awkward squad. In every walk of life we find people of different types. Let us be clear: this is not what blacklisting is about. That is simply a cover.
The people who are blacklisted may have done nothing at all to deserve to be ostracised. A site manager might simply dislike an individual. The result: he is blacklisted. More likely, though, they are people who stood up for decent conditions, fair pay and, critically in the construction sector, for strong health and safety standards. Construction is a dangerous business and corners cut might mean costs cut, but it also means lives put at risk or even lost. Too often, the men who have been willing to stand up for their fellow workers and challenge lax health and safety regimes are the ones who have been marked down as troublemakers, when the truth is that, in many respects, they are doing their employers a service.
Earlier blacklisting bodies included the Economic League and the Services Group. The Consulting Association is the most recent example of an organised blacklist that we know of; its offices were raided in 2009 by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and it was found to have been running an organised blacklisting operation with 3,300 names. An idea of the scale of operation can be judged from the fact that in the 2008-09 financial year subscribers spent £87,749 on name checks. That means that, at £2.20 for each check, 39,886 names were checked.
Tom Brake
I know that the hon. Gentleman has pursued the matter assiduously, and I commend him for that. He has rightly set out the scale of the problem. He will be aware that if a policy of employing no companies that had blacklisted workers had been followed, there would have been difficulties delivering contracts. Does he know how many of the largest players in the construction sector have entered into a trade union recognition agreement?
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is that blacklisting was prevalent in the industry for many years, and the danger is that it is still prevalent. The truth is that I am not quite sure. Most of those companies will not have done that at this stage, but this measure is a way of encouraging that. I will come back to that point.
In the decade since the 2009 raid on the Consulting Association, trade unions fighting for their members would have found it easier to get blood from a stone than to get justice for their members. Compensation was received from only some of the culprits, after lengthy legal battles. One such construction company was Sir Robert McAlpine. Last December at the commencement of yet another legal action, the company said that
“Blacklisting in construction was, until 2009, an industry-wide issue…most of the largest British companies in operation today were involved in the past when there was no legislation in place to outlaw the practice.”
In other words, they would still be at it now if the minimal legislation had not been in place, which incidentally is mostly to do with data protection laws. Since the founding chairman of the Consulting Association was a director of Sir Robert McAlpine, we can hardly be surprised. Yet many firms are still at it now, and many have not admitted their guilt or paid compensation. Parliament cannot be allowed to be associated with the practice, or with firms that have undertaken the practice and failed to make good their crimes and misdemeanours.
First, the reputation of Parliament is at stake. We cannot be seen to be enriching businesses that carried out these crimes and have not been held responsible or admitted liability. Secondly, this is a prestigious contract, and these will be prestigious contracts. It is not just about the money. The companies will win new business on the back of this globally high-profile work. Thirdly, it is also about the type of culture we want working on projects on this estate: one in which safety is paramount and where concerns are listened to; one in which workers are respected; and one in which discrimination is not permitted. We need to be clear that blacklisting is a form of discrimination. If such a culture is permitted, and if workers are too scared to raise concerns for fear of losing not just their job but their ongoing livelihood, then the reputational damage to Parliament should someone suffer injury or death on our site would be horrendous, not to mention, of course, the responsibility we would bear for the victim and his or her family.
The amendments before the Committee instruct the Delivery Authority not to consider applications for contracts from firms that have been found to be involved in blacklisting, and that have not subsequently entered into a trade union recognition agreement. To touch on the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, Members on this side have considered different forms of words to encapsulate the demonstration of progress away from blacklisting made by construction firms. We considered whether it would have been sufficient to have paid compensation arising from the court cases. I remind the Committee that some implicated firms have not even done that—I cannot name them yet because they are involved in ongoing legal cases, but there are several of them.
We decided that it was insufficient, as it did not clearly demonstrate a change of behaviour. The amendment calls for the Delivery Authority to proscribe any of the firms found to have been involved in blacklisting, for example through the loss of a court case, reaching an out-of-court settlement, or having been a member of a blacklisting body such as the Consulting Association and having not since entered into a recognition agreement with a UK trade union. A recognition agreement is a way of demonstrating a change of culture: a determination to work together to resolve problems and a commitment to treating employees and their representatives with respect. In other words, it is about not just apologising for blacklisting in the past but taking clear and concrete steps not to undertake it again. I am sure that workplace safety would be at the heart of any such agreement, with which no hon. Member could disagree. If we insist on the measure in this place, it will send a signal to the industry for the first time, and we may see the beginning of the end of this dreadful, mean, discriminatory practice that has downright dangerous consequences. We missed the chance in offering the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben contract to McAlpine, which had previously been up to its neck in blacklisting; we cannot miss it again. Above all, it is right to make a stand against blacklisting, so I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Following your guidance, Sir Gary, I will move on to new clause 1.
Christian Matheson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, who has also tabled amendments on the subject. The project is of national significance and is relevant to every part of the UK. Regions and nations across the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to benefit economically from the parliamentary building works. Work should be spread across the United Kingdom and across companies of different sizes.
The project provides us with a wonderful opportunity to invest in people’s futures by upskilling them and by working with small and medium-sized enterprises as well as larger businesses. It is incumbent on the Sponsor Body to ensure that all areas of the country benefit from the programme, including businesses outside London and the south-east. Market engagement and involvement must begin early and reach as widely as possible to include geographically diverse companies.
In particular, the project gives us the opportunity to work with people in the heritage and conservation sector, with the potential to create training opportunities in that sector. Those skills may have been lost or might not exist in some areas of the UK economy, so this is an opportunity to bring them to the nation for the first time, or for the first time in many years. There is a real risk of a skills shortage in this niche sector. The Joint Committee recommended that the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority consider how apprenticeships and other training schemes could be delivered as part of the R and R programme to increase capacity in the area and to provide a lasting legacy of skills from the programme.
The new clause asks the relevant body to provide a regular report that details its work and how it has met the requirements of spreading the work, wealth and skills around, so that can be scrutinised and progress can be monitored. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Christian Matheson
The new clause does not seek to prescribe how the Sponsor Body or Delivery Authority spreads those benefits around, although the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is more than sensible. It seeks to lay out a regime in which the scrutiny of the success of those proposals can be undertaken, so we can make sure that progress is being made. In this day and age, it would be absurd not to put those contracts and work opportunities online. I would also like to think that the bodies concerned would be proactive in going out and finding skills.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
We need to do more than just say, “It’s online”, and think we have somehow ticked a box. We need the equivalent of roadshows, or whatever, to go out and speak to the companies, and make them aware that this project is for the whole country and not just for London.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In many respects, this is an opportunity to promote the work that is being done in Parliament. There has been criticism of the programme in the past—the Minister and other hon. Members referred to it on Second Reading—but it would also be an opportunity to promote exactly why the work is needed and would promote the benefits as well as the actual contracts themselves.
Amendment 3 is about the Joint Committee’s recommendation concerning the renewal of Parliament’s education centre, which the Government have so far overlooked. Under clause 2(4)(g), the Bill states that there is a need to confirm
“the desirability of ensuring that educational and other facilities are provided”
in the restored Palace. However, the Joint Committee recommended that the Sponsor Body should take account of the need rather than the desirability of such facilities. The current wording of the Bill does not provide a concrete commitment to guaranteeing refurbishment of the vital education services. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that the education centre has been a huge success in bringing the work of Parliament alive to the many schools that visit. I pay tribute to the staff who work in the education centre for the fantastic work that they do.
As I say, the current wording of the Bill does not provide a concrete commitment to guaranteeing refurbishment of vital education services. The Opposition strongly support mandating the restoration of those services. Our education facilities are a core part of the parliamentary estate. Everybody has a right to learn about their parliamentary democracy, and educational facilities form the background of parliamentary engagement. The programme provides us with an opportunity to renew and enhance the education centre to allow for wider engagement, particularly with younger audiences. The education centre should be part of the legacy of the programme of restoration and renewal to encourage greater awareness of an involvement in Parliament. Such engagement with parliamentary politics is perhaps more important now than ever.
Although the cost of renewal will be high, the benefits will be great. We could create a newly refurbished education centre with accessible modern resources for those wishing to visit the building and engage with the work of the Houses. The new facilities that are built could be used for educational purposes once the House no longer needs them when the decant is finished. The restoration and renewal process is a project of national significance and it will be a mistake to overlook the opportunity to create a new and innovative education and learning centre and the wider educational facilities across the estate that are at the heart of Parliament.
Furthermore, the amendment links closely with the Joint Committee’s recommendation for consideration of public engagement in the restoration and renewal to be included in the Bill. It recommended that the Sponsor Body should promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament. The Sponsor Body has an important role to fulfil in engaging the public with its work and the ongoing works. The process should involve full and open engagement with relevant national and local bodies and with individuals. In that way the public are involved in their Parliament at all stages and are aware of the progress.
The former Leader of the House stated that it would not be
“appropriate that this should be part of the Sponsor Board’s role”,
and that responsibility should lie with Parliament. However, it seems that public involvement should be intrinsic to the process of renewal, as Parliament belongs to the people and should adhere to their input.
Mr Prisk
I agree with much of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but, without wanting to appear a pedant, would it be better not to have the word “need” and simply delete the first three words of clause 2(4)(g) so that the clause would read,“the Sponsor Body must have regard to ensuring that educational and other facilities are provided”, rather than having regard to the “need”? Might that be a little stronger and more effective?
Christian Matheson
It is now a matter of sadness—it sounds facetious—that I did not consult the hon. Gentleman when I tabled my amendment, because his proposal is a lot simpler. I often wonder about the simpler the wording, the better the wording, but I am most grateful to him for that. Perhaps we can return to his proposal at some point.
The education centre provides a crucial lifeline for public engagement with parliamentary activities. We have a duty to protect and renew this UNESCO world heritage site, but we also have a duty to ensure that it connects with the next generation and future generations in a way that is exciting, attractive, vibrant and entirely relevant. I hope members of the Committee will bear that in mind when considering voting on the amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Before I call Meg Hillier to speak, for clarity I remind Members that we are debating amendment 2 to clause 2, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, new clause 1 and amendment 3. Because we are taking the group of amendments together, I will reverse my previous ruling on the clause stand part debate: now is the time to make your most excellent speeches. I call Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary and finally to be here debating this Bill. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee that produced its excellent report in 2016; it is just a shame that it has taken so long to get this far, but we are here now with a common purpose.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for the blacklisting amendment that he has tabled; it is an excellent opportunity to enshrine in law something that will change habits. In the Committee that I have the privilege of chairing, a challenge when looking at Government contracting is often that Government are a big purchaser of services, but they have power that they do not choose to use to set parameters. This is an opportunity for a project of this size—many billions of pounds—to set the parameters and establish and push a better method of practice in a sector that has had problems in the past. Certainly, any business that wants to take part should behave in the way that my hon. Friend suggested.
My amendment stems partly from my experience as a Member representing part of the Olympic site. When the 2012 Olympics were proposed, one of the things that excited my local residents was the opportunity for them and their friends and family to get jobs on the site. Despite much pressure for that to happen, we discovered during and after the Olympics that there were a number of issues with local businesses and individuals getting work on the site. A lot of promises were made, and sometimes they were genuinely made but people found ways of getting around them. For example, a local resident could be somebody renting a room for a few weeks, who therefore became a local resident and qualified in the resident targets for those jobs, but they were not local. Local businesses did not get enough of a look in because the contracts were very large.
In preparation for the 2012 Olympics I visited New South Wales—not on the taxpayer’s pound as I was on holiday—and I met the Culture Minister for New South Wales. In preparation for the Sydney Olympics, they went through every contract that was going to be let in the Olympics and broke it down to every single item that they might need to procure—every chair was broken down into its nuts and bolts. If there were companies that produced something in not quite the way required for the Olympics, they were given the advice and opportunity to learn to produce something different to meet the needs of the Olympics. Those contracts were laid out clearly. Added to that, the Government of New South Wales made a concerted effort to work with their local businesses to make sure they were contract-ready, so they could bid for the scale of contracts that the Olympics might require.
Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to that.
The point of that experience is that it is not for us to prescribe how the Sponsor Body might do this, but a body managing a project of this size, with this range of work, can seek out and assist and support others to do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside talked about having roadshows; there are Members in this House who will be the best advocates for their local businesses. I am sure that people who know that we are on this Committee and have an interest have come and told many of us about how their constituency provided elements of the existing building and could provide them again.
Meg Hillier
I think we will hear from the ceramics sector in a moment. There are an awful lot of opportunities for our local businesses. I am sure that local authorities and business organisations in different areas will be champing at the bit to prove that their organisations can do it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside made a valid point about contracting. The Government have moved on with things like G-Cloud to make it easier for smaller businesses to contract, but the rules can be challenging. I would not want to prescribe anything in the Bill because I think it is challenging to prescribe in law, but I hope that the Sponsor Body—I will put it on the record, and I hope it will read or hear this—makes sure that the contracts are broken down into the right size. Often, for those procuring large contracts, it is simpler to secure one big one and to let the subcontractors to the big contract take up the work. The danger with that is that they are not subcontractors.
One of the things that we need to have in place is an audit system. With the Olympics, after the event no proper audit was done of the jobs that were supposed to be created locally. The National Audit Office could have direct access to those companies, which would be a great way forward, or the Sponsor Body could commission its own audit. As we have a National Audit Office serving Parliament, however, I think it would be an excellent place to do that. The outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and his team were keen on that. I have not had the chance to speak to the new incumbent, who started his job—very nobly—on Saturday. It is early days for him, but I am hopeful that the NAO team is still willing to take that on, as I had that reassurance from them.
Unless we measure and monitor what is happening, games can be played—people and businesses can lose out. This measure does not need to cost more if the preparatory work is done, so that such businesses can apply. Think of the skills that this place could use—stonemasons, wood carvers and a huge range of other skills and niche businesses—some of which we might not have in the UK, but if we start planning now and thinking about what we might be doing, some businesses could adapt their production processes to provide some of the things that this House needs. The prospect of a big contract might make it worth their while to take that risk. Of course it is a risk—we cannot just give those companies a contract; they will still have to bid for it—but if they are willing to do that, we should give them every opportunity.
That yearly audit is vital, and the benefits will not happen otherwise. If the Sponsor Body goes down the route of having subcontractors, we have to have a way to ensure that the big companies really subcontract to specialists, not just to subcontractors they already know and work with, but opening things up more widely. The risk is that that will not happen, but I do not want to prescribe it in law because it is challenging.
If the amendment is adopted it would require the Sponsor Body to think about big project integration. Often with big projects—most recently with Crossrail—the challenge is to integrate the smaller contracts at the time just before delivery. Some of the bits of work will have to finish at around the same time, or in sequential order, to work properly, so the Sponsor Body would be required to think that through carefully in the early days. That is why I would like to get this in the Bill, so that the body has no excuse—in law, it would know what it has to do.
Mr Prisk
I envisage that this will be a digital project and that building the information modelling will be at the heart of the way in which it is done. That naturally undertakes what the hon. Lady just described. Is that her expectation of how this contract will be delivered?
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is one of the things that could happen, but as we have seen—I had the privilege of visiting Crossrail a couple of times, most recently in the past few weeks—sometimes nothing beats having eyes on the ground, seeing what is happening and checking with contractors what is happening. That is a skill of project management, which of course uses digital tools to deliver. Who knows, but let us hope that a British business delivers such tools and will be able to help the Sponsor Body and win such a project. A good project manager will still be needed on the ground to ensure that all the smaller businesses work together.
This measure does not need to cost more money; it just needs to be planned from the beginning. The process cannot be added at the end, suddenly, when someone says, “Oh, we have had a lot of noise from MPs who are concerned that their companies have not got the business.” It must be planned from the beginning. The Minister is very committed to his region, and he was a great advocate for Devon when he served nobly on the Public Accounts Committee, so I am sure that he is with us in spirit. I hope that the Government are willing to accept the amendment. I will accept a change of wording if they feel that the drafting is amiss, although I had good advice from the Clerks.
Tom Brake
I am in some difficulty in asking questions, given my role on the House of Commons Commission, but I have established that I am allowed to speak and to express views. As the hon. Lady knows, the northern estate programme is very large and is already under way. Contractors can email that programme to express an interest in the works. That seems to me to be a good testbed for what she is arguing for—all the work that she wants to happen to audit the restoration and renewal project.
Meg Hillier
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to start now and make it a mission of this place to set a tone for how other large projects should be run, to ensure that we support our thriving and exceptional small business sector, which, even with Government attempts to try to send more money in its direction, sometimes still feels cut out of large Government contracts, which are not broken down to a small enough scale. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
I want to comment on the education centre. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford suggested an elegant manuscript amendment—I am not sure what the procedure would be, Sir Gary, or whether that would be accepted—but the general principle raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester is right. We must not forget that the current education centre is a temporary building. It had planning permission only for a decade, it did not get built straightaway, and where it is now will have to be a space for heavy plant, so that building will be gone during—if not before—the restoration.
With the prospect of a new temporary Chamber or facility in the northern estate, there is every opportunity to plan in education from day one. It should not be an optional extra. I am often in and out of that building with schoolchildren from Hackney South and Shoreditch—it is very close by and easy to get here—and the building has had a major impact in helping them to develop their political understanding and skills. I will have plenty of successors from Hackney South and Shoreditch, and there will be heavy competition when I hang up my shoes and move on, because they have been inspired by coming here.
I pay tribute to the education team. In fact, I have also looked at their value for money, and pound for pound they provide extremely good value for money in what they deliver. We must ensure that education is a definite part of the future, not an optional extra. The danger is, if there is a budget problem—with proper audit we hope there will not be, and we will consider audit later—it could be dropped if we are not careful. I hope the Minister agrees that it needs to be written in more firmly. The Government did not accept points on this in the Joint Committee’s report, but I hope that, in the light of the debate, the Minister, who is a reasonable fellow, will consider a change of heart. In the end, it does not affect Government; it affects this House, this country and all the young people of the UK who come through it in future.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I want to speak briefly about amendment 14 in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, with whom I served on the Joint Committee. The amendment is on all fours with the Joint Committee’s conclusions. She is right that the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament will be one of the biggest and most important public works projects in the country, and it should, as the Joint Committee’s report mentions, emulate what was done for other large public works. She mentioned the Olympic park, and its aquatic centre was partly constructed by Welsh companies. Similarly, when Heathrow had two terminals either constructed or reconstructed recently, its owners went out of their way to ensure that companies throughout the country benefited from such large-scale public work. Again, I was pleased to see that at Heathrow a number of Welsh companies had the opportunity to contribute.
The restoration of this Palace will require a huge number of diverse skills, which may already be possessed right across the country. It is important that the Government remember that this is the restoration of our national Parliament building, so it is entirely appropriate that each and every part of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to benefit.
The hon. Lady’s amendment accords entirely with the Joint Committee’s conclusions, and I very much hope the Government recognise that this is an issue for this House rather than for them. There is much support across the House for the proposition that companies right across the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to tender for the work and benefit from it, with skills and businesses created that will endure long after the restoration of the Palace of Westminster has been completed. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.
Tom Brake
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I rise first to express my support for the amendments set out so far. The point I raised with the hon. Member for City of Chester was about whether adopting his approach would preclude any substantial work being done, because of the number of companies that, unfortunately, were involved in blacklisting and that might not have taken the action that he rightly wants, so far. I hope that the Minister will give us some clarity on that.
The main point that I wanted to make was about the written evidence, which Members will have seen, submitted by Professor Flinders, Alexandra Meakin and Dr Alexandra Anderson, principally regarding clause 2. The evidence addresses the Sponsor Body’s duties, which were referred to earlier, with regard to ensuring perhaps a greater degree of public involvement, and having a public conversation about the future of the building. I would certainly welcome that. I do not know whether it would have to be done through the Sponsor Body, or whether Parliament could do it, but clearly it must happen.
We must ensure that there is proper engagement and public understanding, as the writers suggest, especially with regard to the regions of England and the devolved nations. Clearly there will be people around the United Kingdom who, looking at how much money is being spent on the Palace of Westminster as well as on other things such as infrastructure in London and the south-east, will feel that at the very least an explanation is needed for such a level of investment. Therefore, engaging the regions and the devolved nations—including ensuring that they get involved in the project and the large amount of work that will be available—will be very much part of the process.
The contributors of the written evidence also suggested that there is a need to look at the relocation accommodation to test alternative ways of working. That would mean using the temporary Chamber in Richmond House—which may indeed end up not being temporary, if it is decided to retain it as a permanent Chamber—as an opportunity to test alternative ways of working, which presumably could include electronic voting. Clearly, that is not the direction given by the Joint Committee, but I certainly hope that there may be scope to investigate it. The Scottish National party has, in questions, pushed hard on the issue. Clearly, if it were to be successful in a trial in the alternative Chamber it could perhaps be rolled out more permanently in the new Chamber, when the restoration and renewal project is completed.
The amendments also highlight the need for a diversity and inclusivity-sensitive Parliament, which is essential. I know that work is already starting on that, particularly in relation to accessibility. That is not just from the point of view of mobility. It also relates, for instance, to accessibility for people with autism. As I understand it, people with autism would not feel particularly comfortable sitting in a room like this one. I know that those issues are being addressed. I think that the Minister has cooled down after his exchange with a number of Members of Parliament, including me, on the urgent question on EU citizens’ voting rights, and he will clearly get a much gentler ride here as I think there is broad consensus on where we will go, but I would like to hear his assessment of the written evidence I have been discussing. There are some good concrete proposals in there.
Mr Prisk
When I first intervened I should perhaps have drawn the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
I very much welcome, as a number of Members have, the principle underlying amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. It is right that this Parliament should, in its restoration, benefit the whole UK and the smallest of firms. It is absolutely right as a point of principle, and in the debate about the restoration of the building we have naturally been concerned that the public will worry about the amount of money we are spending on our workplace. Yet it could and should be seen as an investment opportunity of several billion pounds in future trades and crafts—I am sure Opposition Members will spell those out in great detail; ceramics for example—that benefit every part of the United Kingdom and every firm, large and small. Those sentiments are very welcome.
Mr Prisk
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about one of my particular frustrations with all public buildings, which is that we throw money at the capital cost, never put in money for the long-term maintenance, and wonder why the damned thing costs as much as it does—if “damned” is an acceptable word, Sir Gary.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my two concerns about the amendment. First, as worthy as the amendment undoubtedly is, as for any condition that we set, there will be some form of cost, whether in expression of time or in process. In this instance, I happen to think that we should establish that cost at the start. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is absolutely right to say that if one does that at the beginning and then has the discipline not to tinker and meddle thereafter, one can avoid the spiralling costs of other public projects.
Secondly, there is the nature of the audit envisaged in the amendment, which the hon. Lady addressed to a degree. Going by what she said, she does not wish to have a strict audit in the sense of trying to have a rigid quota, in which one part of the country must have a certain percentage and so on.
Mr Prisk
The hon. Lady is nodding. That is extremely encouraging, because my worry is that we might get into a game between the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority and hon. Members from across the House about who gets what quota, which would then ratchet up the cost and distract from the central purpose.
Those concerns notwithstanding, the principles under- lining the amendment are good. There may be a good argument for tweaking it, about which I am sure that the Minister will respond. It is crucial that we talk about and show this to our constituents as something for the whole of the United Kingdom, for every trade and craft, and for every business, large and small. That is why the sentiment of the amendment is commendable.
Chris Bryant
I wholeheartedly support the fact that the Bill is finally before Committee, and regret that it has taken so many years, not only under this Government, but under previous Governments, to get to this point. I wholeheartedly support the idea in the clause of handing the work over to a Sponsor Body, which in turn has an arm’s length body—a Delivery Authority—because that is probably the only way to stop us lot from continually meddling with the project.
Every building contractor always says that they want a good client. A good client could mean one of two things. Either it is someone who continuously changes their mind about what they want, which means that the price goes up and up—that is good for one end of the equation—or it is someone who makes up their mind at the beginning, decides what they want and sticks with it right through to the end, and ends up with a project delivered on time and on budget.
I desperately hope that we will end up as the latter and not the former. I fear that we, both individually and as a House, may find it far too tempting to keep on meddling with the project, which is why it is really important that we do it this way. If someone ever wanted to know why handing over to an arm’s length body is particularly important, they would simply have to look at what happened after the fire in 1834. Caroline Shenton’s book on that is masterful in showing how terrible self-opinionated and self-aggrandising MPs can be, of which I am glad to be a fine example.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for City of Chester on their amendments, which are important for different reasons. I will address only amendment 14. I completely agree that, in delivering the work, which will be one of the most important infrastructure projects in the country for many decades, costing many billions of pounds, we need to ensure that there is a benefit for every part of the country. I am not denigrating the pros—I think it important that the project goes ahead for all sorts of different reasons, which have been referred to elsewhere.
However, the single biggest difficulty will be having enough people with the skills to be able to do the work. I simply do not think that, if we just hope that that will happen, these people will materialise from nowhere. I am not going to use the B-word in this debate, but I simply note that the building industry in this country has been heavily dependent over the past 15 years on workers from other countries in the European Union. We will want to make sure that we still have access to those people in future.
The bigger point is that when Wembley was rebuilt, large numbers of workers from the Rhondda worked on the project. Crossrail has large numbers of people who travel up every week. They come up very early on a Monday morning and go back on a Thursday evening. I want to make sure that that happens on this project as well, but that means several things.
First, some kind of parliamentary building academy is needed in many different parts of the country to make sure that we have the specific skills that we need for this project, especially considering the fact that Buckingham Palace will be going through a similar project at a similar time. Some of the skills that we will need simply do not exist in the main in this country any longer. If you want somebody to build a drystone wall—we will not need them here—you will pay over the odds because very few people now have that skill and it will take a long time to get 100 metres done, unlike 100 years ago. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Clwyd West is offering to come and mend my drystone wall for me, not that I have got one.
Chris Bryant
They are not very useful for this project, but there may be stonemasonry skills that could be very important for this building. It is interesting that the recent work on the cast-iron roofs and the stone courtyards has drawn in pretty much all the skilled labour in this field in the country. If we are to deliver this project on time and move out in 2026 to 2027, we will have to train people by that time. That is why the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is as important as any other tabled today.
My final point on the clause relates to the education centre. One of the problems is not only that the building has to come down in a couple of years—it has permission for only 10 years and that piece of land will probably be a major part of the building site that will be needed for the project—but that Victoria Tower is no longer fit for purpose for the Archives centre. The photography room in the Archives centre has never worked, which is why a lot of the really valuable photographs are now in danger of decaying—because they are a fugitive technology. We are not keeping the historic rolls well. They are in the right order, but they are not kept separately, which is why they are jumbled on top of one another.
All that is a good reason why there must be a serious legacy at the end of this project. I very much hope that that is an education centre, which retains the Archives here on site so that people from our constituencies and from around the world can fully understand how democracy has been advanced on this site since 1258.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am pleased to represent the SNP on the Committee. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda, with whom I served on the Joint Committee. He eloquently put forward some of the arguments that we heard in evidence and that were reported on three years ago in relation to the warnings about access to skills. I hope the Government will look at that at this late stage and take heed as the project continues.
I wish to be brief this afternoon—particularly on this group. I should say that I am also a member of the shadow Sponsor Body. I support the amendments. I will not reiterate the fine words that have been spoken in support of them, particularly by the hon. Member for City of Chester, who put forward the case on blacklisting very strongly, except to say that the parliamentary authorities took some heavy criticism on the letting of the Elizabeth Tower contract, because of that particular company’s history on blacklisting. Parliament should not be seen to condone such despicable employment practices again.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I very much welcome the move forward that this Committee represents.
I want to address amendment 14. As a country, we are getting better at large infrastructure projects—that may seem an odd thing to say, but I truly believe it. I look at Crossrail. In terms of its tail-end, we await the report that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is about to publish, but the early stages were a model of the way in which we see development. The construction was basically done to time, but things were done to time in another way as well—in terms of promoting what the project was across the country and getting many companies involved.
My only fear about amendment 14 is that the hon. Lady talks about a yearly audit being carried out. My worry is that that is too late. This should really be in the roots of the project; it is not something that happens once the project has gone above ground. It must be part of the project right from the very start, not from the time the work starts.
I was involved in the early stages of High Speed 2. We ran a number of conferences around the country showing businesses what would be involved and telling them how to start to apply to be considered for that work. That has got to be the way, and that work needs to be done right now. It should be part of the very early work of the Sponsor Body. I am sorry—I forgot to declare my interest: I am currently serving on the shadow Sponsor Body. I know everyone there will be following the words spoken here in Committee closely.
We should be talking about that aspect now. It is of great pride to me that, whenever I have constituents down and show them Portcullis House, I can show them the stone from Birchover quarry—the Ann Twyford quarry—in my constituency. That sort of work was done on that project, and it has to be part of these projects. It is also a way of selling why we have to do this work. We are not doing it out of some desire to improve the facilities here. Yes, we want to make them better, but it is also a matter of restoring one of the premier buildings in not just the United Kingdom but the world. That is why I am slightly concerned about the yearly audit, because by the time we get to that stage, it will be too late. It has to be part of the work of the Sponsor Body and one of its early jobs.
Gareth Snell
Thank you very much, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Before I touch on ceramics, as predictable as I am becoming in this place, I want to lend my support to amendment 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. We know that trade union-recognised bodies tend to be safer and that their staff tend to be happier and to get jobs done more quickly and on time, because they have a reputation to work with. We also know—this is linked in part to new clause 1 and amendment 14—that where trade union bodies are involved in the construction industry, modern-day slavery is less prevalent.
I mention that because the construction industry will freely admit that it still has a problem with tackling modern-day slavery through gang labour. The best intentioned commissioning and procurement cannot guarantee what the layers of sub-procurement down the chain will deliver. A trade union-recognised employer would be able to work with supply chains to ensure that we do not unwittingly propagate modern-day slavery through the procurement and commissioning of large-scale infrastructure works linked to this place. There are already recorded instances of public bodies, without prejudice, finding themselves receiving services from people in modern-day slavery because of the way contracts are subcontracted out.
I support my hon. Friend’s amendment 2 because, by involving trade unions with employers at an early stage of large projects, we can ensure not only that we put our money into the fabric of the building, but that we put our values into the building. That has to be an important part of how this building moves forward.
I turn to the ceramics industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned the sums that are already being spent to keep the building going. Many hon. Members will have seen that the Minton tiles in Central Lobby, which were originally made in my constituency—in fact, by one of my predecessors, the Member for North Staffordshire in the 1870s—are being replaced, one at a time, by a wonderful company called Craven Dunnill. Where we already have skilled people on site doing remedial work, they ought to be involved in conversations now so we can work out what skills they can bring forward and how the procurement and commissioning process can be best placed. I do not mean that in the sense of helping them on a commercial basis, but they will be able to tell us what they can and cannot do and what the scope of the industry is. Because we already have a contractual working relationship with those companies, we have nothing to fear about the credibility of the advice they give.
That is why amendment 14 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is so important. The ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent can make us pretty much anything we ask for, but I would wager that very few people know that. Yes, it can make tiles, teapots and tableware, but advanced ceramics is now a wonderful way of replacing metalwork—not that I have anything against metalwork, but ceramics are longer standing and have a greater tolerance for stress. There is an opportunity to build in—[Interruption.] Well, I am not quite on commission—if I were, I would declare it.
My point is that there are sectors of the UK economy doing wonderful work that many of us do not know about. Unless we ask them up front what is possible through the procurement process, we may end up doing what, I am afraid to say, often happens with the military: they decide they want something, so they buy that something. What they actually want is something that can do a certain thing, but they do not think about what else is available. Considering what we hope to achieve at the end rather than what we want to buy may create greater scope—
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the problems in the building is that nobody has yet managed to count correctly the number of brass windows we have—it is either 4,800 or 7,200, depending on who we believe. Nobody makes those windows today, so somebody is going to have to start training people soon to try to replace them. It is the same in ceramics.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If we want something in the wall that will let in light, and that will let in cool air when it is hot and keep out cool air when it is cold, does it have to be a brass window of that design? Is there some other way of doing things? [Interruption.] We could do it in ceramics, but that might be slightly dark in daytime. We have not quite got transparent ceramics yet. The way we think about the outcomes will be important in shaping the procurement process. That is something that the Sponsor Body ought to be considering now, but with the industry alongside it, because nobody is better able to tell us what it can do than the industry itself.
I want to make a brief comment in support of amendment 14. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 is a wonderful piece of legislation. It started as a private Member’s Bill, and it has allowed procurement and what we are actually paying for to be revolutionised. I urge the Government, when it comes to the point of working with the Sponsor Body, to frame how procurement should work. Yes, the cost—the value of the things that we are buying—is important, but the additional value that we can derive through the Act in the procurement process, in terms of opening up this vast investment to skills, new technologies, and research and development in different parts of the country, may have a lasting legacy beyond the jobs and employment contracts, which are very transactional. It may genuinely root changes in communities, which will benefit from this place. I will therefore be supporting the amendments.
Kevin Foster
This has been a fascinating debate, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members have made passionate points. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central strongly endorsed the ceramics industry, as always, and spoke about the quality of its products.
Yesterday, I had the joy of having a tour of the basement. If any member of the Committee has not yet had the opportunity to do so, I would strongly recommend it; they would be helping to make progress with this project. I saw the innovative sewer ejectors, which were put there in the 1880s. They have “Chester” on the side of them. The hon. Member for City of Chester will be delighted to hear that they have been such a functional part of this place for so many years.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am delighted that Chester is represented here, even if it is only in the sewers.
Kevin Foster
Of course, Chester is not just represented in the sewers; it is represented by the hon. Gentleman, who is sat here in the Committee doing his job, as always.
It was useful to hear the comment about putting our values into this place physically. Certainly, that is one of the things that the Sponsor Body will need to do. It was also interesting to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales about the quarry in Derbyshire that provided the stone for Portcullis House. Again, that shows that, although this is a project in London, we do not want it to be a London-centric project. With all respect to hon. Members who represent Greater London constituencies, we want it to be a project that reflects the entire Union that this Parliament serves, and we will seek to spread the prosperity.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I want to build on a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales made about having not just contractors but materials from across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, Chinese and European steel was used for the £1.3 billion Queensferry crossing. This is not simply about cost, although we need to keep within budget; we must also look at the jobs, skills and businesses that we are supporting.
Kevin Foster
I recall my hon. Friend referring to that bridge project in a couple of debates in the Chamber about the UK steel industry. It is important that we use materials from across the United Kingdom, and create jobs and skills. The steel casting on the Elizabeth Tower—a project that has already been referred to—came from Sheffield, and the encaustic tiles in Central Lobby were produced in Shropshire, so there is already a spread across the country.
Gareth Snell
Three-quarters of the encaustic tiles were made in Stoke-on-Trent. Unfortunately, the top quarter—the bit that everyone sees—was made in Telford, but it is rooted on a solid foundation from the ceramic city.
Kevin Foster
I am reassured, knowing the quality of the product that comes out of the Potteries. I still have a set of plates made in Stoke-on-Trent that I won in a raffle. I have had them for about 25 years, but they are still doing their job to this very day. That speaks to the quality of product from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that the Minister’s argument may be strongly supportive of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. Clause 2 already lays out several things that we consider to be so important that we put them in the Bill, such as disabled access and the fact that we will return to the building. Why should this not be one more?
Kevin Foster
Most of the things in the Bill are statutory, but we do not go through in detail each piece of environmental legislation or health and safety practice that we would expect. That is where the statutory obligations need to be complied with.
I am conscious of the comments about the ability to secure contractors; at this stage, this amendment is not one to put in the Bill. We believe there are other more appropriate ways to ensure, via the Sponsor Body and with strong parliamentary representation through the three members present in this Committee, that these areas come in. Again we could look at, for example, subsection (4)(b), which stresses having
“a view to ensuring the safety and security of people who work in Parliament”,
but does not go on to specify individual areas.
I suggest that this would be better picked up through the parliamentary relationship agreement and the programme delivery agreement, with other areas that may be items where Parliament might not necessarily have statutory responsibility, but would not wish to see the works associated with it, given the obvious impact—I accept that if Parliament was engaging with contractors who were engaging in blacklisting, that would have a strongly negative impact on Parliament and its reputation.
I come on to new clause 1, requiring a report once every six months. The Government consider that unnecessary. Under schedule 1, the Sponsor Body is required to produce for Parliament, at least once a year, a report on the progress of the parliamentary building works. Ultimately, the content of those reports would be a matter for the Sponsor Body, but we would expect them to include details on what contracts had been awarded.
As with the previous amendment, we feel that the programme delivery agreement would be a better place to specify such requirements, rather than the Bill. Not only the parties to that agreement, the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, but I am sure hon. Members across this House—in terms of how we hold to account the parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body—will be interested in how that process works and in ensuring a regular flow of information.
The Bill puts in place the necessary governance arrangements to undertake the parliamentary board works. Given that the governance arrangements create a stand-alone body, we consider that matters such as the reporting of contracts should be for the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to consider, rather than being prescribed by Parliament in primary legislation at this stage.
Moving on to amendment 3, I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for having good educational facilities on this parliamentary estate. They are part of what we are and part of ensuring that a future generation can find out about Parliament. We will not necessarily prescribe in this project that we rebuild exactly the same facility as we have now; there are some incredibly exciting opportunities to create spaces, for example for the Youth Parliament, which at the moment can only realistically meet on the estate when we are not sitting in one of the Chambers. What opportunities might be provided by having had a decant period that creates a new facility that the Youth Parliament and other citizens might be able to use, and by generally having a better facility?
However, while I hear suggestions of future amendments that I would not reject the Government’s considering on Report, the way the thing is structured is that “need” relates to those things for which there are statutory responsibilities, such as health and safety, security or disabilities. There is no concept of Crown immunity applying to this project. The project will be required to make reasonable adjustments for disability access—again, within the confines of working within a building that is Grade I listed and where virtually every corner has a moment of history associated with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and I were reflecting earlier on the cupboard where the suffragette hid in 1911, which, it is safe to say, is not in its greatest setting at the moment and does not allow for any particular use of it for educational purposes, despite its significant role in history.
Kevin Foster
We can’t move it, but I understand it has a computer server in it; it is hardly the most fitting compliment to shove a computer server in the room. Those are the sorts of areas where we can look at how we expand the wider role in education.
I cannot imagine that Members of either House would endorse a programme of works or an estimate that did not include a clear provision for educational facilities in the final building and in the decant option. In the wording of this particular clause, however, by using “desirability” for this and other facilities, it is the Government’s perspective that the Sponsor Body has a direction, but also some flexibility. The other facilities that we might have considered sensible 30 years ago may not necessarily be the other facilities that we consider sensible today. For example, 30 years ago it would have seemed sensible to put in a large number of public phone boxes, but a facility to charge a mobile phone would have been completely irrelevant to all but the wealthiest of people visiting the House. Now, we would take the view that the balance would be the other way round.
Meg Hillier
The Minister is making an eloquent argument against the word “need”, but we have an elegant amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, which talks about taking out the words “the desirability of”. My concern—I think some other hon. Members input their concern too—is that if it is not on the face of the Bill, we will have already lost the education centre and there will be a risk that it might fall off the edge, at the end of the project. I think it is important to have it on the face of the Bill.
Kevin Foster
That is why the face of the Bill is balanced. While these are not statutory obligations—there is no statute saying or implying that we have to have it—having it down as desirable reflects that. I am looking in Sir Gary’s direction, but the amendments before me are the ones on the amendment paper and the ones we are considering. There is no manuscript amendment or any other proposed amendment at this stage, but I would not rule out looking at this issue again on Report, if a proposal is brought forward. We would be happy to work with colleagues if there is a feeling that this provision should be strengthened.
To respond to the question about relevance, it is on the face of the Bill—it reflects desirability. I accept that ultimately some of the facilities—not the educational ones—will depend on balancing many competing priorities, including the very pressing need to preserve the heritage of this building.
Chris Bryant
I think the Minister is saying that if the amendment that was suggested as a potential manuscript amendment were available to us, then he would be in favour of it. Can he commit to bringing that amendment forward himself on Report?
Kevin Foster
While I thank the hon. Gentleman, I am clear that this is a parliamentary project. The Government will seek to defend their interest as this Bill goes through, but it would not be our intention to bring forward Government amendments, except to deal with matters specifically relating to the Government’s role. However, we would look kindly at something a bit later. If a Back-Bench amendment were brought forward—particularly if Parliamentary Counsel were involved—we would not inherently move to object, but that is something upon which to take advice.
At this stage, the wording of the Bill as it stands gives Members what they are looking for; the desirability of ensuring that education and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster, after the completion of these works, is clearly on the face of the Bill. The Sponsor Body must have regard to that and it would be on the front page of primary legislation. We are all clear about the goals we wish the Sponsor Body to achieve, despite our discussion on wording.
Meg Hillier
I seek some guidance from the Minister. He is the Minister presenting the Bill. The law was drafted by Government, because that is the way that Bills are drafted and the Sponsor Body cannot draft the Bill itself. Therefore, the Minister is the custodian of what this Bill will say. Yet he has just said that it is not the Government’s role to add to the use of the Bill because it is not ultimately a Government responsibility. Is he saying that he will go away and talk to the Sponsor Body about what it would like to see, and then he might consider a Government amendment, or is he saying he would only accept a Back-Bench amendment but he would seriously consider one along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, amending the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester?
Kevin Foster
The Government have been clear in their wish to facilitate Parliament in its desire to complete restoration and renewal; that is the position we have strongly adopted. If a Member wished to engage with Government, before Report, about particular wording then obviously we would wish to make sure we had had advice from Parliamentary Counsel. We do not want to find that the Bill has an unintended consequence, or that an amendment has been made that will make the Sponsor Body’s job more difficult; I am sure the hon. Lady does not want that either. I say again that I do not think that anyone reading the face of the Bill would take it to mean that there is not a clear and strong push towards having educational and other facilities in this building. That would be on the face of primary legislation.
Mr Prisk
I feel slightly embarrassed by being called elegant on two occasions; that is something that my former rugby colleagues would not necessarily recognise. The Minister is right to say that he needs to take careful consideration with Parliamentary Counsel and he is absolutely right to want to talk to the Sponsor Body. I am guided by that. I have not heard anyone on the Committee say that they do not believe that educational facilities should be there. The answer is to find a truly elegant solution, and I have confidence that the Minister will do so.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have outlined the position and, as I said, although we are not prepared to accept the amendment today, I am happy to have further conversations before Report. What is on the front page of the Bill is obvious, and few would doubt that that gives a clear indication of our intentions.
I turn to amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. It is clear that we want the project to be delivered across the entire United Kingdom, with all companies and those who can bring skills and talents to the project able to do so. The clause establishes a Sponsor Body for the purpose of having overall responsibility for the parliamentary building works and sets out the duties placed on the body and a number of factors that it needs to have regard to in exercising its functions.
It is important to remember that the clause, as well as the Bill as a whole, establishes the necessary governance arrangements and accountability to oversee and deliver the parliamentary building works. While we wish to see such delivery, we ultimately believe that it is for the Sponsor Body to look at how best to achieve that, again with representation from Members who represent seats across the United Kingdom. I can look for example, at how we are doing other projects. There was a reference to Heathrow holding roadshows around the United Kingdom; I wish to see the Sponsor Body doing such engagements.
I guess that every Member of this House will be only too keen to let the Sponsor Body, and particularly its parliamentary members, know about opportunities for development of skills and creation of new crafts. We will have to balance that against some challenges. There is only a limited number of suppliers of certain heritage products; in some cases, there may be only one or two. I was given the example of bronze windows, which only two suppliers make today. I suggest that, at this stage, accepting the amendment would not be appropriate, but the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority will need a strong regard to the desire that the project reflects the entire United Kingdom when contracts are being let. The Bill is about setting up the framework and the legal body that will look to deliver the contracts; it is not about agreeing those contracts and the programmes of work, which will be voted on by the House at a separate time.
Neil Gray
Is this not exactly the point at which we should be ensuring that this is a UK-wide project? I say, as a current member of the shadow Sponsor Body, that if this issue is left until further down the line, other cost or time pressures may be applied to the project, and the Sponsor Body may, for whatever reason, see this as being superfluous. Unless we do this right now at the outset, we may lose that element of opportunity.
Kevin Foster
While I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, I do not agree. I have every confidence that the Sponsor Body will look for good value, and that will mean contracting with companies across the whole United Kingdom. We see this in the experience of other projects and major events. Of course, we can have confidence that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong voice in pushing the Sponsor Body, as he has been on the shadow body, to look at working across the United Kingdom. I suggest it is not appropriate to put such a requirement into the Bill at this stage.
Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. However, I refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said. The clause already sets out specific criteria. Although the amendment may not be so elegantly worded, I was careful in drafting it to ensure that it would set the principle in train at this early stage, while not prescribing how the Sponsor Body would go about things. Members of the Sponsor Body are here, and others will no doubt be watching. As the Minister knows, they are only on for three years at a time, so it is important that this issue is enshrined in the Bill and not lost in the mists of time. Many of us will not be here when we actually move out of the building, by which point many of the contracts will already have been let. I urge the Minister to give us some comfort that he will at least go away and consider this. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, on the basis that we need to set down a marker in the Bill for the principle that we should make this a UK-wide project. I need more words of comfort from the Minister before I will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Kevin Foster
We would be happy to take this away and look at how we can provide further reassurance to Members. The intention is that the Delivery Authority will look for work across the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that if the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government will have to resist it at this stage, despite the fact that we all seem to have the same objective.
Things such as the yearly audit of the works will mean that the Delivery Authority remains accountable to Parliament, and parliamentary members will be on it. There will be appropriate discussion to be had about exactly how they face questions and how they can be held to account on a day-to-day basis, including by the Public Accounts Committee, which I cannot believe for one minute will not take the opportunity of regular reports and examinations of how the authority is spreading its work, contracting and making sure that this a project for the entire Union.
Mr Jones
I have heard what my hon. Friend has to say, but as he will know, subsection (4) provides steers as to how the Sponsor Body shall exercise its functions. If my hon. Friend is not willing to allow the amendment, is he prepared to consider, maybe on Report, moving this provision into subsection (4), so that the Sponsor Body has to have regard to the need to spread the work around the United Kingdom? That compromise may be of assistance.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. Given that it is constructive, I would be quite happy to offer to do that. We could look at this, perhaps on Report, if an amendment was brought forward. Again, if Members wish to work with Parliamentary Counsel to deliver something, we will be happy to consider that and to see if we can reach an appropriate compromise on Report and insert it. However, the way my right hon. Friend suggests may be a better option.
Chris Bryant
I am getting a bit confused. The Minister seems to say that this is not a Government project, so the Government will not table amendments. However, they will resist amendments, so they clearly have some kind of Government view. I presume that, as on Second Reading, this is un-whipped business, because it is business of the House, unless the Government Minister tells me differently.
Kevin Foster
Obviously, whipping arrangements are for each party. Again, I make the point that this project is being fundamentally driven by Parliament, for Parliament. The Government are facilitating the Bill to provide the legal framework for that, via the mechanisms that we can use, in terms of time and support. I am entitled, as the Minister, to take a view on amendments that are brought forward; the shadow Minister is bringing amendments forward and taking a view as well.
At this stage, my advice to the Committee is that we do not believe that this amendment should be put in. I am happy to pick up on the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West and other Members of constructive engagement before Report, as I have offered on the other area, to see if we can find a form of wording that is acceptable and that Parliamentary Counsel would also be comfortable with, in terms of its not having unintended consequences for the Bill.
With that, I think I have concluded my response to the amendment, and I thank hon. Members.
Tom Brake
I am sure it was not a deliberate omission on his part, but the Minister will be aware that I quoted from the written evidence supplied to the Committee—evidence PBB01—which made a number of suggestions, including, for instance, ensuring that the public are fully engaged in the process and that the relocated accommodation or temporary Chamber is tested for alternative ways of working. I was hoping for a ministerial view on that submission, which I am sure the Minister would like to give the Committee now.
Kevin Foster
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for prompting me back to his query; the contribution from the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield was a welcome one to read, with a number of thoughts, suggestions and ideas on how the project could be enhanced. I would not necessarily propose that the amendments suggested in its contribution be made—the right hon. Gentleman has not tabled those amendments, so I suspect he takes a similar view about not amending the Bill to reflect them—but it is certainly welcome to see that positive engagement and thought in terms of what could be done.
I hope that, as the Sponsor Body is established, it will look to those types of submissions in thinking about how we can make this a project that reaches out and hopefully changes people’s perceptions of Parliament, as well as one that restores and renews this building physically. It was a welcome piece of correspondence to receive, and one that the Sponsor Body could well read and learn from.
Christian Matheson
Listening to the debate on this first group of amendments, and having come somewhat late to this party, I am reminded of the expertise among hon. Members on both sides of the House on the detail of the work to be done and the challenges we must face. I am most grateful to hon. Members for their contributions.
I will respond to the debate in reverse order. First, on amendment 3, relating to the education centre, I confess that I was not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford had tabled a formal manuscript amendment, and had to seek advice, but, in a saner sense, of course he had not. He made a straightforward suggestion, and the Minister was positive in his response not only to my amendment and to the case for maintaining educational facilities, but to the suggestion that we might look at this again on Report, perhaps with a simpler amendment that would nevertheless still embed into the heart of the legislation the importance of the educational facilities. I would like to go down that route, if I may.
Although I would never look a gift horse in the mouth and would not like to turn down the opportunity, I am not quite clear why we would need the Parliamentary Counsel’s advice on an amendment that would simply delete two words; that might be a bit of overkill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and to the Minister for providing support for the amendment on the educational facilities. I do not intend to test the views of the Committee by putting it to a vote at this stage.
Let me move to new clause 1 and to amendment 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, which were considered together. By the way, I hope the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are aware that he is known so well throughout the House that even before he stood up we all knew he would talk about ceramics, such is his dedication to representing that great industry in that great city. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made a fantastic point that this is not necessarily an investment just in a UNESCO world heritage site, but in the future of the country. That is certainly the message that I shall be using and taking out—if he will permit me, of course—whenever I talk about this.
I urge hon. Members to look around the room: we know that there is some work that can only be undertaken in situ, but I ask them to look at the wallpaper, the wood panelling, the brass windows and the electronics. All those materials and components can be sourced and produced elsewhere, so the work does not all have to be done in London, only the installation. The Minister talked about where there might only be one or two suppliers, and the effect that would have on cost. He is of course right, but there is a responsibility incumbent on those one or two suppliers to grow the skills base, and hon. Members have talked about that.
What I would say about new clause 1, and particularly the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, is that this is not a complicated proposal. It is a fairly innocuous suggestion to ensure that we monitor that the work is going out and about across the country. It is not prescriptive. It is not saying to the Delivery Authority or the Sponsor Body, “You must allocate so many contracts to so many parts of the country.” All that the new clause and the amendment do is to suggest that we should be able to monitor just how well those bodies are spreading the work around. They are not directing them in a particular way, and I cannot see why the Minister would not want them, other than the general concern—which I understand—about not wanting to put too much in to the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 2. As I have indicated previously, I am not minded to allow a stand part debate, so I will put the question immediately.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jo Churchill.)
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 June 2019 - (4 Jun 2019)
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 11, leave out “appointed from amongst both” and insert “elected from”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 10, line 12, after “and” insert “appointed from”.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) The number of members of the House Commons and the members of the House of Lords must be equal.
(5) At least one member referred to in sub-paragraph 1(c) must be a HM Treasury Minister.”
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 11, line 19, after “appointment” insert “or election”.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 11, line 20, after “appointed” add “or elected”.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 11, line 23, after “Minister of the Crown” insert
“other than a HM Treasury Minister”.
Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 11, line 27, after “appointment” insert “or election”.
Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 11, line 29, at end insert—
“4A (1) The Parliamentary members from the House of Commons must be drawn from a range of parties in the House of Commons and must include a representative from a party that is not one of the three largest parties in the House of Commons.
(2) The Parliamentary members from the House of Commons are to be elected by Members of Parliament from their own party, or, in the case of the Parliamentary member who is not from one of the three largest parties, by Members of Parliament who are not from one of the three largest parties.”
Meg Hillier
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
I tabled amendments 8 to 13 partly to explore how we could make sure that the membership of the Sponsor Body would reflect the make-up of the House, to note the importance of having elections, and for consequential purposes. We now have elections for Select Committee Chairs, and for Select Committee Back Benchers. That reform has swept through the House, but it was not proposed for the Sponsor Body. The main point is to enshrine balance and the principle of election in the Bill.
I recognise that if there were an election it would be a challenge for smaller parties to get representation. That would be one of the benefits of going through the usual channels. However, there is of course a benefit in elections, because people are held directly accountable by the electorate, whether it is their party group or a wider electorate. I did not have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the usual channels, who, I am sure, have views, and I should be happy to hear the Minister’s views. However, an important principle is involved, about election and being held accountable, and that is the reason for my proposal. The other point is the involvement of a smaller party, and the mechanism for that.
The amendments may not be the perfect solution, but they enable the Committee at least to probe the idea of an election from among the smaller parties for their representative on the Sponsor Body. The reality is that in the time available I did not have the opportunity to gauge wider opinion and it may be that some Members in small parties would not want to devote a lot of time to the Sponsor Body. I recognise that the amendment is exploratory but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the general principle of elections and balance.
We had an interesting discussion in the previous sitting, and there was a lot of talk about UK-wide representation, and getting that reflected in the works. There is a benefit to party-wide representation as the project goes forward, partly to tie in knowledge about what is going on, in each party grouping, so that people are aware. It will give a clear view that this is a cross-party parliamentary matter.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.
I, too, support the idea of elections to the Sponsor Body. One of the most positive things that has happened since I became an MP in 2001 is the election of Select Committee Chairs. That means that Members from different political parties have to reach out across the whole House, and I think that that would be a positive measure in the present case.
I understand that there is some anxiety about how we would end up with the precise numbers from the different political parties. The fact that the Liberal Democrats have appointed from the Lords adds a further problem, but I still think that that should not detain us too long. It should be perfectly possible to have an election.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hanson. I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that the election of Select Committee Chairmen has made a difference. The slight difference in the case of the Sponsor Body is that there will be members from both Houses. Elections to appointments do not take place in the other place, so under the amendments House of Commons members would be elected, or a procedure would be introduced into the other place that it did not have before.
I recognise the need for members from across the United Kingdom, and representing the parties, on the future Sponsor Body. With appointments made so far to the shadow board through the usual channels, it has of course been for each political party to decide how to come to a nomination. Some parties, including mine, use the votes of Back Benchers to decide how to fill vacant slots on Select Committees, but those are submitted to the House for approval, as of course appointments to the Sponsor Body will be.
I would not support the amendments at this stage, given the fact that they could create a difference between how Lords and Commons members were appointed. They would give the impression of the body being more like a joint Select Committee when it is not; it is a legal body constituted in its own right. It is ultimately up to Parliament to decide how it establishes and appoints to this organisation, which should essentially be about making sure that Members who offer the most to the Committee are appointed, rather than those who might be the most popular among Members.
On party allocations, I recognise what has been put in the amendment around making sure that smaller parties are represented. Of course, if these positions were elected across the whole House, the larger parties would clearly benefit, given their weight of numbers.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I point out to the Minister that a larger party today may be a smaller party tomorrow.
Kevin Foster
I take the view that, whatever the political situation, the constitution should be able to cope with it, respond and adapt.
Kevin Foster
Indeed. That is very unkind from the right hon. Gentleman, to be fair. I did not necessarily wish to point out that the party that for many years was the first party here no longer holds that position due to significant seat losses in the 2015 general election. However, we think there is a lot to be said for appointing the right people, rather than electing the most popular. I will give way to someone who has many years of experience.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Before he takes any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about how this system works, it is worth reminding them that on no occasion have any of their Select Committee Chairmen, so far as I can remember, been elected by the whole House. They do deals within their party to only put one candidate forward on the Committees where they have the chairmanship, so the House has therefore not had the opportunity, for those particular Committees, to have the vote that the hon. Member for Rhondda talked about. That is a bit of failure in their system.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for sharing his encyclopaedic knowledge of how this place works. Although I understand the thrust of the amendments, they would create the unusual position of electing Members in one House and appointing them in another. On ensuring party balance, as I say, the Liberal Democrats have chosen to appoint a peer, rather than a Member of the House of Commons. It is for them to choose the person they feel most appropriate to represent their party; it is not necessarily for the Government or for other Members to do that.
This is not about electing people to a post where they would necessarily function for the whole House. For example, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch acts for the whole House as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—she is very distinguished in that role—and, as the only one, she therefore has to work for all Members. I agree that that has been a worthwhile and useful innovation in our constitution. It has helped to solidify the independence of Select Committee Chairs and has probably led to people being elected who would not necessarily have got through the usual channels under the old system.
However, I think it is appropriate that we reflect in the House on the fact that such elections would be an innovation and would set a precedent for the House of Lords; they have not had them for these positions before. I suggest that to introduce the amendments would not necessarily be helpful to the spirit of how the Bill has moved forward. I point to the three Members in the room who have been strong members of the shadow Sponsor Body, which shows that we can appoint the right people to this group once it is founded in law.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair tonight, Mr Hanson. I apologise for not seeking with sufficient vigour to catch your eye earlier and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak now.
I will first speak briefly to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, which would bring elections in for the House of Lords. To challenge one aspect of the Minister’s statement—that that is something the Lords is not used to—their lordships are used to the bizarre elections of hereditary peers. I am afraid that, when they happen, they are often a source of bemusement when we see three candidates competing for one post, all from a hereditary position.
With your permission, Mr Hanson, I shall speak briefly to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 4 is about achieving an equal number of representatives from each House, and amendment 7 is about a Treasury Minister playing a role on the Sponsor Body. As the Opposition have said, we fully support the creation of the Sponsor Body. A programme of such immense size and complexity requires clear governance and an effective system of administration. The Sponsor Body must be accountable and representative, including representatives from both Houses, Government and, potentially, experts with a heritage or construction background.
Under the current plans, there is an extra peer on the Sponsor Body, leaving unequal numbers of peers and MPs. We would like to see that rectified. I fully respect the right of the Liberal Democrats to choose who they think is fit, although I have to say that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington answers with aplomb on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. He has demonstrated his ability to serve on committees such as this, and whoever is chosen, they will have a high bar to hit in order to match his contributions.
To rectify the imbalance—we want equal membership from both sides—we support the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a Treasury Minister sit as an ad hoc member of the Sponsor Body, attending when necessary. That brings me to amendment 7. That Committee stated that
“a Treasury Minister should be an additional member of the Sponsor Body.”
It said that that would
“underpin the hierarchy of decision making and…provide clarity to those delivering the project”.
The Government rejected that recommendation, instead insisting that the Estimates Commission consult Her Majesty’s Treasury on the annual estimates for the funding of the R and R programme. The Estimates Commission is instructed to “have regard” to any subsequent advice given by the Treasury.
In my view, a Treasury Minister should be tied in throughout the process by membership of the Sponsor Body. Although we agree that the Treasury should be subordinate to Parliament in shaping restoration and renewal, we believe that the presence of a Treasury Minister within the Sponsor Body would allow for sufficient buy-in by the Government throughout this lengthy process. It would also provide someone from the Government side to drive forward the process. Hon. Members have referred to the role that Tessa Jowell played as a Minister during the London Olympics project. She, too, performed her role with excellence.
The Government would be directly consulted and responsible at every step of the project. That would allow for ongoing and tough scrutiny of the costs of this huge project. Accountability and transparency can only be improved through the inclusion of a member of the Government. Given the magnitude of restoration and renewal, a Treasury member could be instrumental in responding to financial queries about the project and speaking on behalf of the Sponsor Body in Parliament. A culture of transparency and open communication will be critical to the success of the project.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful for the chance to respond to these two amendments. The first deals with the balance between the two Houses. It could be possible to have an additional member, if Parliament wished to do that, and they could be from the House of Commons, if it wished the usual channels to appoint them, but again, this comes down to the point that we have given an opportunity for a party to choose who it believes is the best person from its parliamentary members; we are clear that it could not be an individual who is not a Member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. And the party in question has opted to pick someone from the House of Lords, which gives a balance of four to three. I do not think that that is necessarily a negative, given that that party clearly has representation in the House of Commons. We have seen one of its very able Members making a number of very useful and constructive contributions here. I do not think that the point should necessarily be specified in statute, given that parliamentary members have to be approved by a resolution of both Houses. If Members of the House of Commons were concerned—for the sake of argument—that a party had decided to appoint more members from the House of Lords, it would be open to Members of the House of Commons to block that, and similarly, if there were an attempt to remove membership from the House of Lords, it could move to ensure that a fair balance was maintained.
That is why I suggest that the amendment would not be appropriate. This is about allowing the body to have the parliamentary members who can contribute the most but who are answerable to Parliament and have to be appointed by Parliament as well. Democratic oversight ultimately is there in the fact that we, as the House of Commons, could decline appointments if we felt that they were not appropriate or the balance was being got wrong.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I remember that, when we published the Joint Committee report, there was some concern about the ambiguity of the Government’s position regarding restoration and renewal. It seems now that, with the former Leader of the House driving the project forward, the Government’s position has been more supportive. However, can the Minister understand the criticism being levelled at the Government? Not accepting a Treasury Minister on the Sponsor Body might well be seen as the Government once again trying to distance themselves and not being foursquare in support of the project?
Kevin Foster
It is safe to say that the Government fully support the project and will facilitate the will of the House to take it forward, hence the introduction of the Bill and the role played by the Leader of the House.
If we look at the structure of the Public Accounts Committee, technically a Treasury Minister is a member and gives a speech once a year which is a 10-minute statement of support for the audit process. If that Minister took part in the actual inquiries and the debates of the Public Accounts Committee, I do not think that would enhance its work, and I speak as a former member of that Committee. It could inevitably inject a party political element to its work. The Public Accounts Committee is very strong because it is seen as a resolutely cross-party body.
I do not think the Government’s position shows a lack of commitment. It shows our desire to have the Sponsor Body, the client, working towards instructions Parliament has given it. The Treasury will play a role in engaging, defending the taxpayers’ interests and providing comments, so that it can give a view when the House decides on the estimates process. It would be rather strange to say that Members would think it better for a Treasury Minister to be part of the body that they were commenting on, rather than being enabled on behalf of the Treasury to comment on the Sponsor Body’s work. Again, Members from the governing party will be on the body, and we can see the commitments we have made. The Government see clearly that there is a need to take forward restoration and renewal, and I think that Opposition Front Benchers take exactly the same view. Carrying on patching this place up is not an alternative, because each year the bills are getting bigger and bigger and the taxpayer is having to pay more and more to achieve a worse outcome. No Government would wish to endorse or support that.
I understand the reason for amendment 4, but the Government feel that it would be better were the Treasury to engage with the Sponsor Body through the clear relationship and link set out in the Bill. Treasury Ministers will be open to questions in the House about the Government’s work and commitment throughout the life of the project, rather than having to give a caveat, along the lines of, “Today I am answering as an HM Treasury Minister, but tomorrow I will be answering as a Sponsor Body member.” That would not sound or look right to me; it would create a conflicted role, or a position in which the Treasury Minister was almost an honorary member of the Sponsor Body, rather than taking part in its work in detail.
The Government’s strong preference is for the amendment not to be made. That does not in any way diminish the commitment and the strong links that the Treasury and Parliament will need to have with the Sponsor Body as it takes the project forward.
Meg Hillier
I will not press my amendment to a vote on this occasion. I hear what the Minister says; the Sponsor Body is an unusual body. In the time that I have had available, we have not yet settled how we will deal with election, but I think I have laid a marker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda says, we believe in elections; I get the impression that Conservative Members do, too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) A person who has already gone through a fair and open competition to be appointed chair of the shadow Sponsor Body will be deemed already to have met the requirement in paragraph 2(2) above.”
This amendment would allow the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body to be appointed chair of the Sponsor Body without the need for a new recruitment exercise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has already gone through a fair and open competition to be appointed as an external member of the shadow Sponsor Body will be deemed already to have met the requirement in paragraph 3(2) above.”
This amendment would allow the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body to be appointed external members of the Sponsor Body without the need for a new recruitment exercise.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I do not want to take long over this; I very much welcome the Bill making faster progress than I thought it might while discussions were taking place. It has moved up the Government’s agenda as other things have been taken away, but we do not need to discuss that further.
A glaring omission in the Bill concerns recreating the Sponsor Body. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the shadow Sponsor Body, but I would not be covered by my amendments, which are aimed at those members who only last year went through a full and open process and were selected to do their jobs. At a stage when the shadow Sponsor Body has only just started carrying out its tasks, I think it would be wrong to put a question mark over those members.
Amendments 5 and 6 simply reflect the fact that last year the chairman and the other members went through a full and open process, and I would like them to be incorporated into the new Sponsor Body for some time. I accept that terms will end naturally and I am aware that there will need to be discussions about how their replacements should be appointed—I fully support that, but it would be wrong for the Bill to put a question mark over those members so quickly.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for co-sponsoring the amendment and showing the cross-party feeling, and some people have already sat on the shadow sponsor body as a result of the House’s decisions. I think I am suggesting a reasonable way forward, but the Minister may have other ideas, which I am happy to consider.
It is right that we make progress and that we do so in an orderly way. Any appointments must be made in a proper, fair, robust and orderly manner. Things that are happening at the moment with the Bill, which I welcome, mean that we are perhaps progressing at a faster rate than originally imagined.
Christian Matheson
Briefly, I welcome the remarks of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales in support of his amendment, and I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside also put his name to it. It is a common-sense amendment that Labour fully supports, and we hope that the Minister will consider it fairly.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales on finding such consensus. I hope the Minister will add to it.
Kevin Foster
When the Bill was drafted, automatic transfer was considered, but there were concerns about whether it could be implemented in practice. There were also thoughts about the possibility of permanent appointments and the clear need to have a performance review in other areas. Having listened to the representations and comments made, I suggest that, rather than accept the amendment today, we should work on an acceptable form of wording for a motion that we will be happy to support on Report. We take on board the principle, but we must ensure that we do not set up a system in which the appointments of all the external members come up for renewal on one day. We must ensure an appropriate transfer.
We have listened to the representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts who are on the current shadow board. Having had a recruitment process last year, it would be strange to look for reappointments this year, especially because of the potential impact on continuity. As I have said, the House will take significant decisions, potentially in 2021, about moving the project forward. We must consider whether it would be sensible to do that with a clean slate of external members, or to put people through a reapplication process when they are just bedding in and starting to get into the complex detail of the role. I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee if we take away the principle behind the amendment, which I am happy to support, and work it into a motion that we can support on Report.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am prepared to accept the Minister’s assurances, and will not seek to push the amendment to a vote. There is a practical way forward, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s suggestions for the parliamentary draftsmen. As someone who has sat in his seat on other occasions knowing that the drafting is inappropriate, I now look forward to receiving the new drafting and getting an amendment ready for Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
The Delivery Authority
Meg Hillier
I beg to move amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 22, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The Comptroller and Auditor General must have access rights to allow him to examine the preparedness of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to undertake the Parliamentary building works.
(11) In exercising the power in sub-paragraph (10), the Comptroller and Auditor General must have particular regard to procurement practices and the need to ensure that small businesses have sufficient opportunity to participate in the Parliamentary building works.”
One might expect that I would want to see good auditing of this project, not only because I chair the Public Accounts Committee but because, like all of us, I represent taxpayers, and it will be taxpayers who ultimately fund it. It is also important that the proper audit arrangements are in place to make sure that everybody working on the project is aware that the eyes of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office are on them—that is what I am proposing as the best approach to audit. That approach also brings in parliamentary scrutiny, because under the arrangements of Parliament, the National Audit Office’s reports can automatically be taken up by the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, other Committees can look at the project too, but it means that we would have numbers.
For those who have not been on the Public Accounts Committee, I will set out the process. When the National Audit Office produces a report, the figures are agreed with the audited body. That enables the members of the Committee to focus on the detail rather than arguing about the numbers. The report is an accurate record of what the costs are, but the National Audit Office also looks more widely at the efficiency and effectiveness of programmes, including how business cases are set up and so on. It is really important that we build that in from the outset. A new Comptroller and Auditor General took office on Saturday 1 June; I have not had a chance to discuss this with him in detail, but I have been in touch with the National Audit Office.
In some respects it is possible to do this without an amendment to the Bill, but it is still discretionary. Until this Bill is passed, under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, the CAG may be appointed an auditor of a body to which he has not been appointed by statute
“by virtue of any agreement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, between that authority or body and a Minister of the Crown.”
An appropriately worded agreement would trigger the CAG’s economy, efficiency and effectiveness powers, but of course, we do not know if we can get that. While I would hope the Sponsor Body would embrace that, it would be helpful and not detrimental in any respect to have it in the Bill, so that it is very clear. Of course, in so far as is possible before the Act is passed, the CAG can enter into an agreement that would hopefully mirror his statutory rights.
I am very concerned, though, that we have this in statute—in the law—to embed the National Audit Office’s embrace of this role at an early stage. My amendment proposes that that happens with both the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and that it starts now, so that the National Audit Office is not looking at this project in 15 years’ time, perhaps when something has gone wrong; we build it in from day one. It would ultimately be for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide how often he looks at this, but I would suggest an annual approach. Obviously, the National Audit Office would annually look at the accounts, if that were agreed, and would have the ability to produce individual reports on aspects of the project. That would be within the properly independent powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My amendment does not directly prescribe what the CAG does, because that would be wrong: he is an independent person, representative of this House and of the tax-paying public. However, it is important to set this out in statute.
There is another element that we may want to consider, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it. Currently, it is not easy for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office to access a company’s records. They can look at a contract between Government and another body in the private sector or wherever, and will then be able to see certain elements of what is going on with that private company, but the NAO does not have access rights to those companies’ accounts. For the purpose of value-for-money examinations, it might be helpful for the CAG to have unequivocal access to relevant information that contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority have. I have not put that in the amendment, because I received late advice on how we might approach it, but I would be interested in the Minister’s views.
If we are really serious about ensuring that we are watching taxpayers’ money and that this does not spiral out of control, that level of audit would really hold the feet of the companies working on this project to the fire. They would know that everything they did would be available. I should be clear that under audit rules, that would not necessarily be public information; the National Audit Office would have access, but there would still be considerations about whether it was published. It would not be an open and published document, but the National Audit Office would have access rights, as it has with the BBC and the Bank of England, two recent additional audits that it has done.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I understand the point about the Comptroller and Auditor General. As I understand it, he reports to my hon. Friend’s Committee, the Public Accounts Committee. I just want to be clear in my own mind about the relationship between the PAC and the Sponsor Body, and whether there is a risk that two horses might be running at one time, particularly in the scrutiny process.
Meg Hillier
I am very happy to explain. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House and accountable to Parliament. His role—it is currently a he—is to make independent decisions about value for money. He also undertakes, as he is doing right now, audits of over 700 public bodies that fall within the purview of the National Audit Office.
In constitutional terms, the Public Accounts Committee has been in existence for more than 150 years and has the first right of refusal if the Comptroller and Auditor General produces a value-for-money audit report or carries out an investigation. Other Members and other Committees of this House can ask the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General to do some work on an issue, and it is entirely a matter for his discretion whether he chooses to do so. whether the request is from the Public Accounts Committee or from any other Committee or individual Member of this House. There have been occasions when individual Members of the House have asked the National Audit Office to look at something and it has done work that has led to some interesting outcomes. The Comptroller and Auditor General is very much a servant of the House.
The Public Accounts Committee, as the Minister highlighted, is a cross-party Committee, reflecting the balance of Parliament at the time and always chaired by a Member of the Opposition. Our job is to examine, through the audit process, what has happened. It is not to direct policy; we strictly do not discuss or make a judgment on whether a Government policy is the right thing. We are looking at the execution, efficiency, effectiveness and economy of that policy.
It could be that there is a policy that I, as an Opposition Member, vehemently oppose, but as Chair of the PAC I am looking not at the policy, but at the effectiveness of it. It has been the case for more than 150 years that members of the Committee take a clear and balanced view based on the facts presented by the National Audit Office. One of the benefits of having the National Audit Office involved is that the figures it produces in a report must be agreed with the body on which they have done a value-for-money study, so once that report is taken by the Committee, the Committee is sure that the numbers are correct and accurate and there is no argument about the figures. Those figures then become a matter of record for the House.
Of course, that does not preclude any other Select Committee investigating; we could, for example, have the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee looking at some of the craft skills, or the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looking at some of the industrial impacts of the work. Constitutionally, any Committee is free to do its own work, but that is how things stand for the Public Accounts Committee. There is absolutely no conflict there.
It is important—I hope the Minister agrees—that even if this is not perfect yet, we seek advice from the National Audit Office and others about how we can ensure we get the most effective scrutiny of this multibillion-pound taxpayer-funded project, so that after the Committee stage and once the Bill is passed, we can reassure our constituents that we have written into the Bill the strongest possible audit of the value for money of this project.
Kevin Foster
I welcome the spirit of the speech and the hon. Lady’s approach. From my perspective, we believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has a range of powers over this, and it is worth noting that the role he would play is specifically referred to in schedule 2 at the bottom of page 21, where, again, it says that the Comptroller and Auditor General “must” send a copy of the statement of accounts—it does not say “may”.
At this stage, including the amendment is not necessarily the approach I would suggest we adopt in this Committee, but certainly, once the Sponsor Body is up and running and has agreed on engagement with Parliament, it is almost unimaginable that, as a project having a large amount of public funds spent on it, it would not look for strong engagement from the Comptroller and Auditor General, and look, bluntly, to how its own existence came about. A strong Public Accounts Committee report was exactly what persuaded the House to support the decant option, against the arguments of several hon. Members who were not too fond of that option, but who understood the logic. Certainly what persuaded me to vote in a free vote for the full decant option was reading the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusions, which were based on the NAO’s work on which option would represent the best value for money. Making the amendment to the schedule at this stage might not be the most appropriate thing, but I am more than happy for us to take it away and reflect on the structure.
When it comes to agreeing the relationship between the Sponsor Body and Parliament, it is almost inevitable that we will need to consider closely the relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General, especially in terms of when the estimates come forward. It would be hard to imagine that many Members of the House would not look to the quality of the assessment done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and then the conclusions the Public Accounts Committee has drawn in relation to his or her work.
Kevin Foster
Certainly. I will briefly finish referring to the issues around the Comptroller and Auditor General, and then, with the Chair’s permission, I will perhaps make some brief references to amendment 1 in the context of procurement practices and spreading things out.
The Chair
I should tell the Minister that amendment 1 was not selected. If he wishes to comment, he may want to reflect on the issue without mentioning the words “amendment 1”.
Kevin Foster
As always, I will be guided by the sage advice on procedure that you provide, Mr Hanson.
There is a view that making an amendment that gives additional powers and functions to the Comptroller and Auditor General would be unusual. It would not normally be considered an appropriate change, but I hope the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch will take from my comments the value that is definitely placed on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr Prisk
To be clear, from what I have heard from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, there is the option, where the Sponsor Body has concerns about a particular aspect, for it to approach the Comptroller and Auditor General and commission certain works—whether he takes them on or not—and the Comptroller and Auditor General would then report directly to the Sponsor Body or through the PAC to the Sponsor Body. We need to be clear about who is talking to whom and who is commissioning what from whom.
Kevin Foster
To be clear, at the bottom of page 21, at line 40, the measure states:
“The Comptroller and Auditor General must…examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts”—
supplied to him by the Delivery Authority—
“and…send a copy of the certified statement…to the Sponsor Body as soon as practicable.”
It is almost unimaginable that that work would not then be subject to questioning in Parliament and via the usual processes that the Public Accounts Committee can use to oversee the work of the NAO.
Kevin Foster
As I am referring to the Committee, I will let its Chair intervene.
Meg Hillier
Any parliamentarian can ask the National Audit Office to do a value-for-money study on anything. It is unusual for Departments to ask for work to be done, but it would be normal that the Comptroller and Auditor General made his own decisions. It might be that the Public Accounts Committee requested that. My vision is that we would have regular value-for-money studies on every aspect along the way. A responsible Sponsor Body, which I believe we have—members of it are represented here—would welcome that scrutiny.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and laying that out. As she rightly says, it would not be for the Government to direct the work of the Public Accounts Committee; that is for the Committee itself. Turning to page 22, it is worth noting that the measure states:
“The Sponsor Body must, in respect of each financial year, lay before Parliament a copy of the certified statement and report sent under sub-paragraph (7)(b).”
It would not only be internal to the Sponsor Body; it would be laid before Parliament as well.
Briefly, in terms of looking at how we achieve value for money, many people across the United Kingdom would be keen to see all the UK involved—I know you, Mr Hanson, will want north Wales to play a firm role. However, people will obviously think, “Is this just about spending money in London?” I am conscious that some people have suggested there should be a mechanism to divide the work across the country, but that would slightly miss the point of the project. When the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were built, there was not a divvy-up of money across the different parts of the United Kingdom. It reflected the fact that that was a unique project.
The Chair
And the Comptroller and Auditor General having access rights to examine this issue in detail, as in the hon. Lady’s amendment.
Kevin Foster
I thank you for your comments, Mr Hanson. As I say, that is where we are regarding that area.
I fully appreciate the spirit of the amendment and what it is driving at. There will clearly need to be a very strong process of parliamentary scrutiny, including by the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General, but there must also be an ability for individual Members to question and hold to account the Sponsor Body on behalf of their constituents. However, at this stage, this would be an unusual amendment to accept, and therefore it is not considered to be the most appropriate course; that is certainly the advice that the Government have received.
Meg Hillier
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw this amendment now, but with the right to return to it, perhaps in a simpler form, at a later stage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
The Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I will not delay the Committee long, Mr Hanson, I promise you, but I want to raise a couple of issues that are important to clarify.
As Members will know, schedule 3 lays out how the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission will operate. It has only four members and its quorum is two, as long as one Member of the House of Commons and one Member of the House of Lords are present. It makes no provision for who the Chair of that Committee should be, but the Commission is able, if it so chooses, to reject entirely an estimate at any stage through to actual delivery of the project.
I want to know what happens if there are only two people there who have different views and there is no Chair. How will it be decided whether they have agreed or rejected an estimate? Also, does the Commission operate according to House of Commons rules or according to House of Lords rules, because those rules are different in respect of what happens on a tied vote? For that matter, they are also different as to whether the record is kept in Latin or in English.
These may sound like light-hearted comments, but they are important, because it may come to a point where the Sponsor Body is happy with an estimate, but only two members of the Commission turn up, with one of them against and one in favour of the estimate, and we have stalemate, with no means of deciding whether the estimate is to proceed.
I think that setting up a new Commission is unnecessary. What we have done with the Members Estimate Committee is that that is now the House of Commons Commission. It has the same membership; that is laid down in statute. I am ruminating on this subject, and I may table amendments to that effect on Report, but I just wonder whether it would be better for the body that makes this decision to be a Joint Committee of the Finance Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Then, there would at least be a broad range of views from both Houses and an established process, whereby there is a Chair and decisions are reached, even when there is an equality of voices.
Kevin Foster
I have listened, with interest, to the hon. Gentleman’s points. I will certainly be happy to hear more on this point and perhaps I will reflect on the issue, and have some conversations about it, before we get to Report, to see whether there is an appropriate way that we can consider the matter. As always, that is subject to my usual caveat, which is that we want to make sure that this is a practical Bill that provides a framework for the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body to get on with delivering the work, which I know the hon. Gentleman is also passionate about achieving.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for City of Chester wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?
Christian Matheson
We had a discussion and a Division on a similar amendment earlier, so I do not intend to press new clause 1 to a Division at this time.
New Clause 2
Report on disabled access to the restored Parliamentary estate
“(1) The Delivery Authority must publish a report setting out what steps it will take to ensure that the Parliamentary estate, including the restored Palace of Westminster, will be fully accessible to—
(a) Members of Parliament with disabilities;
(b) Members of the House of Lords with disabilities;
(c) visitors with disabilities;
(d) staff with disabilities; and
(e) any other person with a disability.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) reference to accessibility solutions for those with physical disabilities; and
(b) reference to plans to provide facilities and access for those with non-physical disabilities.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Christian Matheson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Christian Matheson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have made excellent progress today and I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. Nevertheless, the question of access to the restored parliamentary estate for people with disabilities is important and deserves consideration. New clause 2 is similar to a couple of the amendments we discussed earlier, in that it requires a report to be published by the Delivery Authority setting out what steps it would take to ensure accessibility to the parliamentary estate.
The new clause is solely focused on ensuring that direct attention is paid to disability access within the restored Palace. Parliament needs to be an accessible and welcoming place for all people, including those with physical and non-physical disabilities. We are pleased that attention has been paid to supporting those with disabilities within the legislation. However, we believe that requesting a report will ensure that disability access is properly investigated and taken into account at every stage of the restoration and renewal process.
I particularly want to look at the question of hidden disabilities. Disability would not necessarily be as grave, in many respects, if we lived in a society that was designed around every ability. In the last 20 years, we have made progress through the Disability Discrimination Acts, but there is further to go. I want to focus on plans to support those with so-called invisible disabilities, but I by no means wish to ignore the accessibility challenges for those who rely on wheelchairs or other forms of mobility assistance.
The parliamentary estate is increasingly accessible, but there is still a long way to go to ensure that that the whole estate is open to everyone. Indeed, we know that easier access will benefit almost all of us at some stage in our lives, whether as a parent pushing a buggy, during pregnancy, or as an older person who is finding steps difficult to manage. We all value effective design for our access needs.
This is an historical building and there will be areas where we simply cannot manage to make physical adaptations to overcome access problems for people with disabilities. To blow the trumpet of my own constituency, Chester is an historical city with Roman, middle ages and civil war history. Much of the city centre is protected as a scheduled ancient monument. Nevertheless, Chester won a European Access City Award, as the most accessible city in Europe, despite those historical constraints. So changes and improvements are possible.
Physical disability access must not be overlooked in the Bill. We hope that the report would allow for a direct and constant focus on the issue. Crucially, it would allow for external experts, such as disability charities, to scrutinise the plans and suggest improvements as we proceed through their development and implementation.
The report would also highlight accessibility issues faced by individuals with non-physical disabilities. It is all too easy to identify an individual with mobility needs, if they have a wheelchair or mobility device, but many common disabilities, such as dyslexia and autism, are unrecognisable by sight. I will be honest with the Committee: I have made that mistake in the past. I have seen somebody coming out of the disabled toilet and thought, “Why have you gone in there? There is nothing wrong with you.” I admit that with great shame. There are disabilities, illnesses and impairments that are not immediately apparent but are just as debilitating and require adaptations as much as those that are immediately evident.
Invisible or hidden disabilities—any physical, mental or emotional impairment that goes largely unnoticed—can include: cognitive impairments; autism; chronic illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue and chronic pain; levels of deafness; impaired vision; anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress disorder; and many others.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before I started scrutinising the Bill, that would not have occurred to me. Only from listening to the debates was that example brought to my attention. The relevance of the amendment is that the proposed report would demonstrate that we are looking at such issues, and allow external bodies to audit, perfect and improve our proposals.
I emphasise invisible disabilities because they are commonly overlooked when planning for disability access, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Specific investigations are required into how we can make the Palace of Westminster and surrounding sites sensitive to disabilities that are not necessarily obvious. For example, architectural consideration must be given to people with learning disabilities or autism. The noisy and busy halls of Westminster can present a challenge to many individuals. We need to be imaginative in working out how this place can be accessible. For example, specific quiet areas could provide a space for individuals with such needs to learn about Parliament in a comfortable setting.
As I walk around the Palace of Westminster, particularly on non-sitting days, when both Chambers are open to guests, there is a clear lack of seating for those suffering from chronic pain or fatigue, or older guests who might need to rest a little bit more often. Perhaps that could be rectified in the renewal of Parliament. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment, should I decide to press it to a Division.
Access considerations for every form of disability must be at the forefront of our minds throughout the restoration and renewal process. By preparing a report, we can focus our minds and the minds of those on the Delivery Authority. It will give an opportunity to external bodies, which are experts in these areas, to help and guide us, and to provide new thinking, as thinking develops on how we support people with disabilities.
Tom Brake
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Hanson. I rise to encourage hon. Members to participate in the different consultative sessions that are taking place for the northern estate programme on issues such as disability. That can feed into the wider considerations on disability that the hon. Member for City of Chester has raised. There are many opportunities for hon. Members to take part. I am afraid that on occasion the response is not overwhelming. It does provide a fantastic opportunity for Members to raise disability issues. Members will be aware that even in Portcullis House there are still issues—for example, for people in wheelchairs there are major problems going through doors. I encourage all Members to participate in the opportunities that are currently available.
Christian Matheson
I want to do the best for disabled visitors, Members and staff, but I do not have that expertise, as I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Would not publishing such a report allow us to call upon the expertise of external bodies to help us with our thinking on the design?
Tom Brake
Absolutely. With or without the report, I hope that such engagement will be very much at the heart of the project. We should seek the views of and engage with not only Members, who know how the building currently operates on a daily basis, but those organisations that are specialists on mobility issues or autism, for instance. I am sure that they would want to do that.
Chris Bryant
I agree with the thrust of what everybody is saying, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is a wholesale set of issues, down to the fact that the annunciators are in red and green, which colourblind people will not be able to differentiate between; the lighting in the room is nowhere near good enough for the majority of people who are partially sighted; and the wallpaper and carpets make it very difficult for many people with particular forms of personality disorder.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely. Indeed, in many places in the building some Members are not audible to others. There is a whole range of issues. Some rooms are used for large public events, where people at the back of the room are very unlikely to hear what the person at the front is saying. At the heart of this project, all these issues have to be addressed, which provides Parliament with an opportunity to design a building that is an exemplar in all those respects. I am sure that the Minister will seek to ensure that is the case.
Kevin Foster
I could not have put it better myself. We heard passionate speeches about ensuring that this is a Parliament for all; not only for Members with particular needs, but for those who want to come and be part of the democratic debate that happens here. We can be candid that the vast majority of our facilities are from another era, with regard to disability issues, and not just visible disabilities. The example was given of someone with a wheelchair trying to come through the doors of Portcullis House, or of a child with autism.
One of the most pleasurable experiences I have had here in the past few months—we have all had some perhaps not so pleasant experiences in this place over the past few months—was bringing a group from Combe Pafford School in my constituency, all of whom have autism, and thinking about how we could appropriately have a question and answer session and how we could see around the building. I must mention the look on one staff member’s face as we went on to the Terrace and I had to give the briefing that climbing on the wall was probably not the thing to do, given that on the other side is a straight trip to the Thames. However, the joy on those kids’ faces as they saw where I could hang my sword, where the Chamber is, where decisions are taken and when they got literally to stand where the Prime Minister stand when answering Prime Minister’s questions was an absolute joy to behold. Hopefully we will see more of that in the new building, as well as more accessibility.
I have been very clear that, although this might be a Royal Palace, there will not be Crown immunity from the standard rules on ensuring disabled access; there will be a requirement to consider the legal need to make reasonable adjustments. There will of course be challenges in a grade I listed building, where virtually every corner has history where something significant happened. We will have to balance that against what costs may be attached but also, like anywhere else, what reasonably should happen. We should aim not just to meet legal minimums, but to create an exemplar for accessibility, as was touched on.
Neil Gray
I am heartened to some extent by what the Minister is saying about his expectations for the accessibility of Parliament, but I am concerned, following discussions at various levels, that there will need to be compromises between heritage and accessibility. Surely if our Parliament is not accessible by all, it will struggle to be representative. How far does the Minister expect that the project needs to go to ensure that it complies and can be a fully representative Parliament building?
Kevin Foster
The details will come from the Sponsor Body, but I would expect, when public business is being transacted, that someone with a disability should reasonably be able to observe proceedings, hear them and be part of them. They should be able to get to the room concerned, and not by being taken up in a service elevator, which—let us be blunt— is one of the pretty basic arrangements we have had to make to allow some access into the current building.
However, as with other heritage projects, that must be balanced with the fact that, for example, those steps in the Great Hall of Westminster are where Charles I was sentenced to death—they are historic in their own right. There are parts of this building that would be incredibly difficult to alter, but we will not put ourselves on a special pedestal. We will have to make reasonable adjustments, based on the law that exists. I think that getting the maximum level of accessibility possible, while working within the inherent constraints of a grade I listed building, some of which dates back to the middle ages, is something that all hon. Members are passionate about.
I would not describe it as compromising; it is about ensuring that we can balance the needs in this building, so that heritage does not always trump disability and disability works within heritage. As the hon. Member for City of Chester will know, there are some amazing heritage buildings that have found some amazing solutions to provide access to heritage that was not possible before, without compromising its protection. Again, I think we all hope that this project will be the exemplar.
In paragraph 26 of schedule 1, the Sponsor Body is required to produce a report, and I would expect the report to cover matters such as how it is taking forward questions of disability as part of meeting its legal and moral duties. In terms of getting the expertise that hon. Members particularly wished to refer to, the Sponsor Body can establish committees and sub-committees in undertaking its work. Once the Bill has become an Act and the Sponsor Body has been established, it would be a sensible decision for it to look at establishing a committee on disability. Finally, if the Sponsor Body chooses, it can also look to enhance that work with those with outside interests. Although I fully appreciate and support the sentiments that the hon. Member for City of Chester has expressed, I do not think that introducing the new clause would not be appropriate, given what is already in the Bill.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It is not my intention at this stage to put the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Christian Matheson
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. The Committee’s proceedings have gone very well today. I am most grateful to all hon. Members, and particularly to the Minister for the way he has handled this. We have continued largely in a vein of bipartisanship and a desire to get this through. I particularly thank the hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber tonight; I have come to this fairly recently, but it is clear that they have built up a real expertise over a couple of years of this long process, and I know that will be put to good use as the process continues. I thank you, Mr Hanson, the Minister and other hon. Members for helping us to proceed so smoothly.
Kevin Foster
Further to that point of order, Mr Hanson. I echo the thanks of the shadow Minister to all who have served on the Committee this afternoon. It has certainly been an interesting experience for my first Public Bill Committee as a Minister, particularly given the passion and interest—
Kevin Foster
In many ways, I hope they are, because it is quite right that Ministers face challenging questions from hon. Members who are passionately interested in the subject being debated. We may not necessarily all agree on every point, but certainly in this instance we are all very much agreed on the purpose, the direction and the overall desire, through this Bill, for this to be a project that really takes a Parliament that looks to represent all to being a building that is suitable for all, and that is fit and, crucially, safe for the 21st century and the centuries of history that will be created in this building long after today, as our forefathers and mothers have done.
For me, it has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee; I thank you, Mr Hanson, for your chairmanship this afternoon, and Sir Gary for his chairmanship earlier. It has certainly been an experience, and I look forward to when we next debate some of these issues on the Floor of the House, on Report.
The Chair
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members, and I shall pass on their thanks to Sir Gary Streeter for his chairmanship.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Wednesday 19th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Amendments as at 19 June 2019 - (19 Jun 2019)
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 132 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 117 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(f) to require the Delivery Authority when allocating contracts for construction and related work to have regard for the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment.”
Amendment 6, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(h) to undertake, and publish, an annual audit of the companies that have been awarded contracts for the Parliamentary building works, with a view to establishing their size and geographical location.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability of ensuring” and insert “need to ensure”.
This amendment requires the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster (rather than requiring it to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that such facilities are provided).
Amendment 4, page 2, line 46, at end insert—
“(h) the need to ensure that economic benefits of the Parliamentary building works are delivered across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, in terms of contracts for works and in any other way the Sponsor Board considers appropriate.”
Amendment 5, page 2, line 46, at end insert—
“(h) the 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.”
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) See also paragraph 7A, which makes provision about the appointment of the first external members.”
This amendment signposts the new paragraph 7A inserted by amendment 9 (which deals with the appointment of the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body).
Amendment 9, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“Appointment of initial external members
7A (1) The person who, immediately before the commencement day, was the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as the chair of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 2.
(2) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is to be treated as being for a term of 3 years.
(3) A person who, immediately before the commencement day—
(a) was a member of the shadow Sponsor Body (other than the chair), and
(b) was not a member of either House of Parliament,
is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as a member of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 3 (external members).
(4) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) is to be treated as being for a term ending with the last day of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the shadow Sponsor Body was established.
(5) An appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 1 month beginning with the commencement day unless, before the end of that period, the appointment is confirmed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 do not apply in relation to a member who is appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3).
(7) In this paragraph—
“the commencement day” means the day on which section 2(1) comes into force;
“the shadow Sponsor Body” means the body, established in July 2018 in connection with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is known as the shadow Sponsor Body.”
This amendment provides for those who were external members of the shadow Sponsor Body immediately before clause 2 comes into force to be appointed as the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Mark Tami
I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendment 6 on my behalf and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and to amendments 8 and 9 on my behalf and that of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).
New clause 1 seeks to give statutory powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the preparedness of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to undertake the parliamentary building works required. Importantly, that power would come now, rather than looking at the project in the years to come. The new clause would not mandate the Comptroller and Auditor General to do it, but it would give him the power and the opportunity to do so if he considered it appropriate. For public confidence, it is vital that this project delivers and is seen to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. There is clearly uncertainty about what exactly we will find when we start the work on the building. As we have already seen with the Elizabeth Tower, we can actually find some quite large increases in costs.
It is not currently easy for the CAG and the National Audit Office to access a company’s records of contracts. They can look at a contract between the Government and a body in the private sector, but the NAO does not have access rights to such companies’ accounts. While that is not detailed in the new clause, I hope the Government will look at it. Greater access and transparency is vital in this respect. In saying that, we do not want to put extra burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises and other companies looking to tender for work. In fact, as I will explain, we have to do everything to ensure that they actually tender, but I ask the Minister to look at this issue, because it will be important in the future.
Amendment 6 is very straightforward. It calls for an annual audit of all the contracts awarded under the programme so that we can see both the size of the companies and, importantly, where they are and where the money is spent around the country. This project, by its very nature, is based in London, but it should not just be a London-centric project. This is a national Parliament, and the work needs to be spread across the whole of the UK. I know that other amendments also look at that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I entirely agree that where work has to be done, it should be spread around the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman envisaging that the audit should take into account the policy issues? For example, will it look at whether it is good value to move MPs out of this building, or whether there is some easier way of doing this without something so fundamental?
Mark Tami
As someone who has been involved in this from day one, I would say that we have looked at this very carefully, and the decision to decant from here was not taken lightly. A lot of work went into that, and I think we have made the right choice.
The two amendments in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales provide that the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body, including the chair, will be automatically transferred to the statutory Sponsor Body on the creation of that statutory body. As a member of the shadow board, I can say that I greatly value the work and experience that the external members of the shadow board have brought to bear, and I think it is important that that carries on. The amendments cover the members who only last year went through a fair and open competition, based on merit, to be appointed to the shadow Sponsor Body. Given that the shadow Sponsor Body has only recently commenced its work, it is important to retain these members, for now, for the continuity of the restoration and renewal programme. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing in Committee to work with the right hon. Gentleman and me on these amendments, which I hope the Government will accept.
These amendments will transfer all the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body to the statutory Sponsor Body. The chair will be appointed for a term of three years from the date the Sponsor Body is established in statute. The terms of the other external members of the Sponsor Body will be three years from the date the shadow Sponsor Body was established in July 2018. Once these terms have expired, the chair of the Sponsor Body will be responsible for setting the members’ fixed terms, which cannot exceed three years. The Bill provides that, in doing so, the chair must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that appointments do not all expire at the same time. These amendments are a practical way forward, and I hope the House will accept them.
John Redwood
I am very happy that there should be proper audit and review, and I think the right spirit was struck by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) in speaking about his proposal. However, I would like to raise the bigger policy issue. The underlying Bill he is seeking to amend says that the Delivery Authority is
“to formulate proposals relating to the design, cost and timing”
of the works, so it is not a done deal. I am very pleased it is not a done deal, because I think a lot of work needs to be done before committing to the plans that this House has not had a great deal of time to consider in this forum. It has been considered elsewhere, but perhaps other MPs have views that ought to be taken into account before we decamp from this important part of the Palace and embark on such fundamental works. When the audit looks into these matters, I hope it will take into account the wider issues of value for money and convenience, and the functions of this building.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because the Elizabeth Tower works are going on while we are sitting here, we could somehow remain in parts of the Palace of Westminster while the works on it are carried out? Will he reflect on which parts of the Elizabeth Tower are used for parliamentary business and which parts we are hindered from accessing as the works are going on?
John Redwood
Of course, when the works need to move on to parts of the Palace that MPs use more often and more directly, alternative arrangements will need to be made. However, I do not think that means that all MPs need to move out of the old Palace for a long period of time, when it has been shown that bits of work can be done around the historic Palace without everybody having to decamp.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way. To support my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), in my 14 years in this Parliament, I do not think I have been in the Elizabeth Tower once. I think that strengthens the argument that has just been made from the Scottish National party’s Front Bench.
John Redwood
I do not think it does at all, because I have also pointed out that there are a lot of roofing works going on. The hon. Gentleman is using the parts of the building that are being reroofed without being interrupted in his work. Again, I pay tribute to those who are carrying out the works without the need for fundamental change.
If we want value for money, we need to ensure that before any full plans are adopted, the Delivery Authority has done a proper job of analysing the options.
I also make a more fundamental point about our democracy. I know that there are many Members here who do not want to restore a proper independent democracy in Britain and are doing their best to ignore the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. It would be doubly ironic if they not only had their way on that, but said that we cannot use the historic Palace in the way that was intended for a long period. That would be a symbol that the public’s wish—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need to keep to the Bill and the amendments. I know that a man of great stature like the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to lead the House where it is not supposed to go. I think that he was giving way to Mark Tami.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Hence I am sure Sir John will now go back to where he wanted to be.
John Redwood
I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.
Neil Gray
I will speak to amendment 4, which appears in my name and those of colleagues not just in the Scottish National party, but across the House. The amendment would insert something that presently does not appear anywhere in the Bill, but which is critical for the project to enjoy not only political support, but the support of the public, particularly in the devolved nations.
Nowhere in the Bill is there a commitment that the project will see benefit derived outside London. However, clause 9, which is about spending issues relating to the project, extends and applies to Scotland. That means that taxpayers in Scotland will pay for their share of these works on a project in London but, with the way the Bill is currently drafted, will get nothing in return. We have had warm words, but according to what the Bill actually says, which is what matters, this will be another massive capital project in London, which already enjoys a huge share of UK capital spending—a third of it goes to London and the south-east.
Why is this important? Of all spending, capital spending derives the greatest economic benefit, bringing higher growth and employment to the areas where it occurs. Right now, London and the south-east benefit from a third of all UK capital spending. This multibillion-pound project will widen that gap and, as it has been designated a UK-wide project, there will be no Barnett consequentials. I think that this project should go beyond Barnett and that there should be a capital investment fund, proportionate to the total cost of the project, to be allocated on a shared basis to the nations and regions. Perhaps it could be a requirement that the money is spent on restoring and renewing old buildings in those areas.
If amendment 4 does not pass, there will be nothing in the Bill to mandate the Sponsor Board or the Delivery Authority to ensure that any spending, any procurement or even one single job is gained outside London, where the project will obviously be based.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some £400 million of common taxpayers’ money was spent on the Edinburgh Parliament, and no equivalent English Parliament has been granted? This is the Parliament of the Union, so we all share in it. His fellow countrymen and women voted to stay in that Union and are proud of their Union’s Parliament.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman on his amendment. I will be happy to support it if he presses it to a Division. If we are really serious about dealing with the huge geographical wealth inequalities within the British state, surely we should debate moving this Parliament outside London and the south-east.
Neil Gray
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He will be aware that I pushed that idea when I sat on the first Joint Committee that reviewed the options appraisal. Unfortunately, I was outvoted 11 to one on that occasion, but it is something that the SNP has looked on favourably in the past.
Obviously I do not expect any kind of quota system for a nations and regions fund, which would fall foul of procurement law, but I do want something that ensures that the Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority have to at least be cognisant of discernible UK-wide benefit.
Why do we need to have this debate now? Look at what happened with the London Olympics. I am a massive sports fan and a former athlete, although I did not get to such heights as the Olympic games. However, I was a supporter of the London Olympics. As a fan, I watched it with interest. It was a fantastic event. However, it took a massive fight by my colleagues who were here at the time to ensure that there was even a semblance of UK-wide benefit. The Scottish Government received a fraction of what they should have had in Barnett consequentials, and the lottery good causes funding for Scotland was raided to help pay for the games. Only now, seven years on, are we starting to see some of that charity money returning, but it will be spread over several years and many groups needed that money years ago. Estimates at the time put the Scottish contracts won from the London Olympics in the tens of millions, when £7 billion of contracts were up for grabs.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My colleague and good friend is making a powerful speech. In describing the raid on the Scottish lottery budgets at the time of the Olympics, he is highlighting that what is happening here is another not very well disguised London subsidy from the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. This is why the Union is creaking. I say to Scottish Tory MPs who acquiesce in this: “You are not Unionists if you are doing this; you are submissionists. You should be making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any subsidy that goes to London.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Come on—let’s stick to what the debate is about.
Neil Gray
Returning to the London Olympics, at the time, 4,200 Scottish companies registered their interest in providing services, while fewer than 200 actually secured any business. Most galling of all was that £135 million of legacy funding was made available for grassroots sport, but to be distributed by sports governing bodies south of the border. No extra funding was made available for Scottish sports governing bodies. There is no doubt that that experience left a bitter taste. We are not here to debate the London Olympics, but that is the last major infrastructure project similar in status to the restoration and renewal project, which is London-based, without full Barnett consequentials and with a similar delivery model—I will come back to that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I was there during the London Olympics and remember only too well the wrangling that went on because of the Barnett consequentials issue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to want something on the face of the Bill that assures the rest of the UK that it will get some sort of benefit from this project. If it does not, we will have years and years of the type of wrangling we had over the London Olympics, and what a waste of time that was.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making the case that there is too much capital expenditure in London and the south-east on this project. I remind him of the massive expenditure on the two aircraft carriers built in Rosyth in southern Scotland, at enormous expense for the Union’s taxpayers, for the benefit of Scottish companies and Scottish labour.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a debate on amendments and Members are meant to be speaking to those amendments. I am not going to let the debate drift wherever people decide they want it to drift to. We will now go back to Mr Neil Gray. We need to get back to where we should be.
Neil Gray
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been referring to a relevant project, which was similar in status to the one under discussion today and one from which we should have learnt lessons. My colleagues and I have done our very best to be constructive in all our dealings on this issue, but there will come a point where we will have to ask for how long we can be ignored on an issue of fundamental importance to us, which is the fair share of resources. I fully expect this project to go beyond £10 billion, when all is said and done. If the project is Barnett-ised, that would mean a transfer just shy of £1 billion to Scotland. Right now, the Government are unwilling to contemplate not only some form of capital investment spin-off, but even a subtle instruction to the Sponsor Board to ensure contracts are secured across the UK. That is not acceptable and there must be a revision of that approach.
On the other amendments, we will support Labour’s amendment 1 on blacklisting companies. Amendment 5 is a little bit concerning for me. I understand the intention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but 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.
In conclusion, I intend to press my cross-party amendment 4 to a Division to test the willingness of the Government to do more than just talk about this being a UK-wide project. We have seen what happens in the past: they are no such thing. We need concrete action to confirm that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I will do the rather unusual job, Mr Deputy Speaker, of talking to my amendment, which is amendment 5. I am delighted that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), added her name to it. I am sure that will help to persuade the House that it would be a worthy addition to the Bill.
Amendment 5 adds an additional consideration for the Sponsor Body to have regard to. It is a probing amendment, but if anybody annoys me I will press it to a Division and see what the House thinks. I speak with my hat on as the chairman of the all-party group on archaeology and as a proud, sometime jobbing archaeologist.
Tim Loughton
There are certainly a lot of fossils on the Scottish National party Benches. [Laughter.]
John Redwood
These are very important considerations and I am glad my hon. Friend is raising them. One of the problems in dealing with a building that has 1,000 years of history on its site, as a royal palace and as legal and government buildings, is to know which era or eras one is most concerned about, what one is trying to conserve, and what one can hope to re-use or conserve. Does he have any thoughts on that complexity when there is so much history on site?
Tim Loughton
I will come on to that in a minute. It is said that all archaeology is destruction, because when you take something out of its context you cannot return it to that context. It is therefore absolutely essential that the context of what we find—part of archaeology is what you do not find and might have expected to—is absolutely respected and recorded in order to fit together the jigsaw puzzle, particularly for such an important building over so many centuries, and, most likely, over 1,000 years.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I reassure my hon. Friend that at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, which I had the privilege of chairing, archaeological significance was indeed touched on. A number of members of the Committee had the opportunity to tour these premises and it became very clear to us that there is great deal more than one can actually see. The deeper we go in any excavation work the more unknown are the important artefacts that may remain below. There was also the rather tragic but true fact that about 17 chimney sweeps are unaccounted for. When we come to deconstruct and reconstruct the building, we need to be very mindful that there may be human remains deep down or within the building—[Interruption.] It is a fact and we need to be very respectful in how we go about these works.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I had not considered the prospect of mummified chimney sweeps as part of the archaeological excavations. I am pleased to hear that this issue was considered in pre-legislative scrutiny, which makes it even more surprising and even more of an omission that it did not make its way into the Bill. It is absolutely crucial.
My right hon. Friend and I entered this House on the same day back in 1997 and I have travelled around an awful lot of it, but there are still parts of it that I have not explored. I was privileged enough to go right up into the roof of Westminster Hall during repair work on the beams. I saw the original graffiti when some of them were restored and the ways they had been put together. However, there was a great sadness at that stage. We lobbied through the all-party group on archaeology for a dendrochronology investigation of the beams, because it is likely that when their last major restoration took place in or around 1820, many of them originated from the hulls of ships broken in Portsmouth dockyard, as happened in many cases—an old part of my house is made from beams of ships that, it is thought, came from the 15th century. It is highly likely that some of the ships used here took part in the Battle of Trafalgar. We might have a major part of this country’s long history within the confines of this Palace, yet despite our entreaties no investigation took place when the work was going on, even though that would have made it much easier and given us yet further explanation about how this place was put together. It is really important that we do not miss such opportunities, which we will not have again.
Neil Gray
I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and I understand what he is trying to achieve. However, one of the great conflicts in this project will be between the need to restore heritage and the need to deliver greater access, particularly for disabled Members and disabled members of the public. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his amendment, as it stands, tips the balance in favour of heritage, and where does he feel the balance needs to be struck?
Tim Loughton
I absolutely do not accept that—the two are not mutually exclusive. The list of considerations that the Sponsor Body must “have regard to”—not “have a veto on” or “be a more important consideration”—includes “value for money”,
“safety and security of people”,
the protection of the environment, being “sustainable”, ensuring that it is accessible to visitors, accessible to people working here with disabilities—absolutely—“improved visitor access”, and ensuring that
“educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting”.
I absolutely agree with all those—they are exceedingly crucial and worthwhile—so why is there a problem with adding that the Sponsor Body should “have regard to” the fact that this is a unique building?
It is not just a UNESCO world heritage site. Probably uniquely among UNESCO world heritage sites in this country, it is a working building where history is still being made. The history of the fabric of the building still has relevance to the ongoing organic development of our constitution and the way we govern this country. That is why it was so important that when people said, “Why don’t we just turn this into a museum and have Parliament move into a purpose-built building?”, the point was made that that would completely ignore the importance of the heritage, history and cultural background of this place, which we could not repeat in a soulless, characterless, heritage-less, new, modern building. It would completely change the whole character of what we do here.
John Redwood
Again, 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.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is dealing with the really modern stuff—I will go back a bit further in a minute.
As you know more than many, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Palace of Westminster is one of the United Kingdom’s most famous landmarks for UK citizens and it attracts thousands of tourists every year. The reason Parliament is committed to investing billions of pounds in the restoration and renewal programme is to protect the Palace, which is falling down, and its historical legacy for future generations. Considering that this could well be the whole nation’s most ambitious and costly restoration project ever undertaken, it seems remarkable, extraordinary and bizarre that heritage is not listed as one of the matters to which the Sponsor Body should “have regard to.” It should not “take precedence”, but it should just “have regard to”. That is why my amendment inserts, as an additional regard:
“the 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.”
What could be controversial about that? I am not trying in any way to impede disabled access. I want disabled access to work in a complementary way so that people, whether they are disabled, come here as tourists or are UK citizens, can continue to appreciate this building’s historical importance. By putting an historical and archaeological consideration in the Bill, it would and should mean that people with disabilities have equal access to be able to appreciate the archaeological and historical features of the building. It would not just be that the lift cannot go somewhere, so they will not see some of the building’s features that they might like to.
As I said, this is a living piece of history. Great things have happened in this building, which still shapes our constitution. Last year we celebrated the centenary of women at last getting the vote. The cupboard in which Emily Wilding Davison—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could have a little bit of attention from other Members on these Benches. The cupboard where Emily Wilding Davison hid on the night before the census, in 1911, was one of the most significant wheezes of the whole suffragette movement. It happened here, and the significance of that is that she was able to put the address of this place on the census form. Women were not able to stand for election or become MPs, and they were not even able to access the Public Gallery, bizarrely. That happened in this place, but that cupboard was completely neglected. It was only some years ago when Tony Benn pointed out that that was a really significant part of our history, yet it was just a cupboard full of computer servers. It is still just a cupboard full of computer servers, but at least it has some historical narrative next to it, and it did feature in a rather louche BBC drama, “Apple Tree Yard”, which probably got more interest in it than anything else we might say in this place.
Neil Gray
In some ways, the hon. Gentleman is making the point that I referred to about the balance that will have to be struck between what he wishes to see in heritage being protected and people being able to access the building. He will know that access to that particular cupboard is by stairs in Westminster Hall. It will not be easy to provide step-free access or a lift facility to get there, so where does he see the balance being struck in preserving heritage—the steps in Westminster Hall and that cupboard—and allowing access for disabled people?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman does not know. Access might be provided through the cloisters if there were some compromise between access and—[Interruption.] That is what it is all about. It is impossible to compromise between two things if one of them is listed in the Bill and the other is apparently inconsequential. That is the whole point.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The explanatory notes are quite helpful. Page 3 states:
“Parliament has a clear role in approving the…cost and timing of the R&R Programme.”
However, it also states that Parliament has a clear role in “approving the design”. Does the hon. Gentleman not take any comfort from the fact that all his concerns—and, indeed, the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) about access—can be addressed when Parliament as a whole is considering, and having an input in, the design of the final project?
Tim Loughton
What is the downside of including the archaeological and historical significance of the building on the face of the Bill as an equal consideration? For some reason, the hon. Gentleman wants to discriminate against the uniqueness and the constitutional historical importance of the building. If anyone is guilty of discrimination, it is him. I just want to see everything on a level playing field because of the significance of the building.
Great things have happened in this building. The hon. Gentleman may not agree about this one, but in 1305 the trial of William Wallace took place here, and we all know what happened to him. In 1649 there was the trial of Charles I, which absolutely changed our constitution. The fact that we are where we are today, and the fact that the only person not allowed into this Chamber is the sovereign, results from an event that took place a few yards from this Chamber. The trial of Thomas More in 1535 is integral to the relationship between England and the Church of Rome, and to the supremacy of the monarch as the head of the Church of England.
Then there is the discovery recently—I say recently; it was in 2005—of the remains of the King’s High Table. I think it is a disgrace that that table is not on display in the Palace of Westminster. In 2005, some work was being undertaken in Westminster Hall because of subsidence on the steps. In the course of an archaeological excavation, people took up some of the flagstones —quite rightly, to explore what was going on—and discovered some table legs, made of perfect marble from Dorset. It transpired that they were part of the sovereign’s High Table, which features in mediaeval tapestries showing the king seated at it, in his High Chair, presiding over banquets in Westminster Hall. That was one of the original purposes for which the Hall was built.
Tim Loughton
We do not know that for sure, and I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise, but it is a good story—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It might be more helpful to the Chamber if the hon. Gentlemen had this discussion afterwards.
Tim Loughton
If the hon. Gentleman turned up to meetings of the all-party parliamentary archaeology group more often, we could have the discussion there.
Mr Deputy Speaker
It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, or listening to, in respect of the Bill.
Tim Loughton
That table is part of the heritage of this place. It is thought that it may have been broken up by Cromwell to symbolise the fact that the monarchy was over and the new rule had begun. It is a really important part of the Palace’s heritage, and I think that it should be brought back from the museum and displayed here, with a considered explanation of where its origins and historical significance may lie.
If we look at the façade of the whole Palace, we see, for instance, the inspiration that came from the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, going back to the late 15th and early 16th centuries.
It is remarkable that what I have described in those few vignettes has made this such an important building, and continues to contribute to its importance. People come here not just to see the building with all its wonderful statues, carvings and other features, but to see the living embodiment of a Parliament that is working and doing its daily business in this place. Much of what we discuss is relevant to what we can see in the basement, in the roof, in Westminster Hall or in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
After detailed evidence sessions, the Joint Committee concluded that the Bill should
“recognise the significant heritage which the Palace of Westminster embodies.”
The Government welcomed that recommendation in principle, and said that they would look into it further; but alas, since then—as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—we have heard no new arguments for not listing heritage in the Bill.
I know that the Minister will argue that the considerations that I am trying to insert in the Bill are covered by planning law, and by the various agencies—English Heritage, as was, and others—which will have an input. However, things that have happened in the past have led to the neglect or destruction of major features in the House. I think it is crucial—and sensible—that when the Sponsor Body is carrying out all its other important functions, someone should be able to ask, “And how does that preserve, or promote, or make more accessible or available or better explain, the archaeological, historical and architectural importance of this building?” That is all I am asking. I do not think it unreasonable, and I think that many others, in another place, will advance a similar argument. Many of them have, perhaps, been in the Palace for many more centuries than I have, and will talk with more authority.
Tim Loughton
Quite.
I think that mine is a reasonable amendment. I think it is an oversight that it has not been included in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will come to his senses, agree with the amendment, and add it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has just said. If his amendment were incorporated in the Bill, I would have no worries about it. However, I am not sure that he should have as many worries as he has articulated. I served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Those who are involved in this project or have taken an interest in it may disagree on many things, but one thing on which they are absolutely agreed is that we must preserve, 100%, the historical and architectural integrity of this building. Indeed, my approach to the renewal and restoration of Parliament is based on that premise. I hope that when we return to this place after the work has been done, we will notice hardly any difference. No doubt there will be better disabled access and no doubt computer systems and lighting systems will all work much better, but in the architectural significance to which my hon. Friend refers, we should notice no difference.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a valid point and I think we all agree with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is wrong on one point, however. It is possible at the moment to get a wheelchair into the Crypt chapel and into that cupboard he was talking about through the Cloisters. Incidentally, the Cloisters have lain empty for a long time. They were used just as offices, but they are an extraordinarily interesting part of this building. That area is not on the line of route; the public are totally unaware of it. It is a medieval remnant; it should be open to the public, and should be used as public open space. We could have done that years ago; instead, the Cloisters have been empty since—I think—Conservative or Labour researchers moved out.
Tim Loughton
I would have mentioned that. The Cloisters are rather interesting because of the bomb damage during the war. The Labour research unit was there, and in one office—I doubt its occupants realised this—is the medieval altar of one of the early Plantagenet kings from when this was a royal palace. Nobody ever sees it; it is not appreciated, and it is not in the guidebooks at all. That sort of thing needs to be flagged up and made accessible.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend has done a service in flagging up these historical vignettes, because they are extraordinarily interesting. I think everybody agrees with him that this place is not a museum; the whole point is that it is a living building. History is being made at the moment in our debates, at a most interesting political time, and all these little historical facts need to be incorporated into the restoration and made available to the public. I am perfectly happy with the amendment. I suspect that the Minister might say that it is not necessary, but this issue has been flagged up and it will be an important part of the debate.
You, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not want me to engage in past controversies about whether we should decant or associated issues, but—this is particularly relevant to new clause 1, and I refer to my days on the Public Accounts Committee—I have long thought that this will be the biggest feeding frenzy in the Exchequer for years and that there is a real risk it will get out of control. This is where the SNP has a valid point. The public will not forgive us if we allow this work to become a feast for the architects, surveyors and all the rest. Without getting into all the controversy over whether we should decant or not—I accept that we have to decant for a time—what has worried me is that once we leave this building and we lose control, it will be possible for the Delivery Authority to become a sort of self-perpetuating institution, spending taxpayers’ money without our having any adequate control, as guardians of the taxpayer. We should always spend this money not as if it is somebody else’s money but as if it is our money. We should always think, “What would we do if it was our money? Would we do this work in this way?” The SNP has a perfectly valid point.
I do not agree with the SNP plan to make this place a museum, however. Even if it became a museum, we would still have to do all the work, because this is a world heritage site. We have to make this building safe from fire and flood and to repair the general dereliction that comes with time. We as parliamentarians should not worry too much about whether we should decant; we should worry instead about the taxpayers and about doing a good job. We are repairing this building and not trying to create anything new and fantastic. I am very happy to improve disabled access and so forth, but that is where we should start, and we should constantly take control of costs, which is where new clause 1 comes in.
Craig Mackinlay
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the Comptroller and Auditor General having access to the records under new clause 1, but I am concerned that there is not a sufficient value-for-money assessment and that we might be, to put it in general language, taken for a ride with this project.
Sir Edward Leigh
Value for money is what the PAC and the NAO are about. That was a very good intervention.
I hope the Minister can convince us that his No. 1 concern is safety—this is a world heritage site and we do not want it burning down or flooding—but the No. 2 consideration must be value for money. That is what worries me—again, without going into past grief—about many of the present plans. We have heard about architectural significance from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and I am worried about the proposal to demolish Richmond House. It is an important modern building that has won architectural awards, but I am worried not just that we might be knocking down a listed building but that this would again create an opportunity for waste. I will always look for the cheapest option, and I have been arguing that if we have to leave the Chamber—I accept the decision of the House that we will leave for a time—we should use the courtyards to build a temporary Chamber rather than knocking down large parts of Richmond House.
Unfortunately, we have told the Delivery Authority that there has to be an exact replica of where we are standing, with the same size Chamber, the same height and the same width in the Division Lobbies. I am not sure that that is entirely necessary—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is shaking his head. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I am saying that if we can have a cheaper option with a narrower temporary Chamber that can be used for other purposes afterwards, and if we have to have electronic voting and not go through wide Division Lobbies, we should consider all those options. This is not a matter for today, but it all comes down to value for money, and it is important that we highlight these matters in these debates.
John Redwood
New clause 1 seems to imply, in answer to a question I was asking earlier, that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have a duty to examine policy value for money with regard to how much work is done, the timing of the work, whether we need to move, and so forth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely fundamental that that should be part of the process, because the way in which the most money is likely to be wasted is through policy error rather than through contractors slightly overdoing a contract?
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes; my right hon. Friend has made a worthwhile intervention, and perhaps I have been too unfair on contractors. My experience of public sector contracts over the years is not so much the importance of those in the private sector who work for us, as that it is our fault for treating these projects like a Christmas tree. We have our own prejudices and policies, we constantly change personnel, and we add things on to the Christmas tree. The private sector—either correctly or incorrectly, depending on the way we feel—then takes the opportunity to charge us more and more. We have to grip this now.
I am slightly worried about amendment 9, and perhaps the Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) who tabled the amendment, can reassure me that there is nothing in it that takes away the democratic right of us in this Chamber to elect the members of the Sponsor Body and to dismiss them if necessary.
Mark Tami
The intention is to avoid a cliff edge, because we could lose their experience at a crucial time. That is why it was felt that we really need those people to carry on and then have a system where they are subject to elections and are replaced. We did not want to have a cliff edge at the start of the project.
Sir Edward Leigh
I take some reassurance from that. I was trying to understand the amendment. I have no problem with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, who is doing a good job, but I do not want us to give away our democratic right to elect the people we think should be on the body.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
Just to clarify, the amendments cover only the external members, not the parliamentary members, so parliamentary members will be appointed in the usual way and will not transfer in that way.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do apologise. I am glad that I raised this matter, however, because that has reassured me that we will constantly have control over who we send on to this body. I think I can end there. I hope the Minister will reassure me that even if he cannot accept new clause 1—I accept that that is often the default position of Ministers—he will be able to argue that the Comptroller and Auditor General really can drill down into all these contracts, because that will be absolutely vital.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, and with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to talk briefly about some of the other amendments. Before I do that, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has conducted himself during this process. I accept that this has not necessarily been a party political process, but he has sought to engage with me and colleagues on my side of the House at every stage of the process. We have not always agreed, but he has always been there to consult, and I am most grateful for the way in which he has conducted himself.
I want to speak briefly to amendment 5, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke so admirably that it has the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House. I also want to speak to amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), to which the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just referred.
We believe that these amendments are self-explanatory and straightforward. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned, this is a world heritage site, and the intrinsic value and history of the site must be in our minds throughout the lengthy process. We therefore believe that amendments 8 and 9 are common sense, and I will certainly be supporting them.
Moving on to new clause 1, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—I am unsure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said this while moving the amendment, but I believe that she is currently chairing the Public Accounts Committee and is therefore unable to be in the Chamber—for her work. In basic terms, the new clause aims to ensure that this multibillion-pound taxpayer-funded project gets the most effective scrutiny possible. The hope is to highlight to the public that the utmost efforts have been made to ensure that the strongest possible audit of the project’s value for money has been carried out. Given the value of the contracts involved—we have heard suggestions of a total project spend of between £5 billion and £10 billion—it is particularly important that we set up the necessary scrutiny.
The new clause would ensure that effective access arrangements were in place to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to scrutinise the relevant information held by contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients of the bodies. To date, there has been no clear commitment that the CAG will be granted value for money access. The current uncertainty could be overcome through the provision in the Bill of a suitable right of access for the CAG, which would be helpful and not at all detrimental
New clause 1 is not prescriptive in defining what the CAG would do, because that would undermine his independence; it simply ensures that appropriate scrutiny is recognised in statute. By writing the new clause into primary legislation, companies would know that the eyes of the CAG were on them and that all their work would be available. That level of audit is vital to ensure true value for money and to keep a lid on overspending.
Amendment 7, which is in my name, relates to the provision of the education centre. Again, the Minister has shown an interest in that particular area. The amendment focuses on securing the future and developing the capacity of our fantastic education centre in the renewed Palace. The Minister made some important points in Committee about allowing a degree of flexibility within the Bill to prevent prescriptive legislation from hindering the creation of future innovative facilities. Indeed, as he stated, facilities that
“we might have considered sensible 30 years ago may not necessarily be the other facilities that we consider sensible today.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2019; c. 27.]
The same logic could be applied to the creation of future facilities, so the amendment is intentionally open, allowing for future ideas to develop with the renewed Palace.
However, there is no question but that the creation of an education centre must be unambiguously defined within the Bill. Let us not forget that the current education centre is a temporary building that will no doubt be removed during the restoration works. The education team does a brilliant job of engaging young people in Parliament and politics, and that success must continue on the renewed parliamentary estate. It is therefore crucial that a concrete commitment is made to guarantee the refurbishment of our vital education services. The education centre cannot be an optional extra. It plays a vital role in helping schoolchildren to develop a political understanding and in engaging the politicians and public servants of the future.
Indeed, as we have already heard, the intrinsic value of the Palace of Westminster stems from the history that has been made within its walls. The educational opportunities of experiencing the history created in this place at first hand are invaluable, so education facilities must take centre stage in the planning of the restoration works. We have been presented with a unique opportunity to enhance the education centre and to allow for wider engagement, particularly with younger audiences.
I am sure that Members throughout the House will agree that awareness of and political engagement with Parliament is a vital part of encouraging people to become politically active and politically engaged. The education centre should be part of the legacy of this programme of restoration and renewal, to encourage greater awareness and involvement in Parliament. Such engagement with parliamentary politics is more important now than ever.
The restoration and renewal process is a project of national significance, and it would be a mistake to overlook the opportunity to create an innovative new education or learning centre at the heart of Parliament. While the cost of renewal will be high, the benefits will be great. We could create a newly refurbished education centre with accessible, modern resources for those wishing to visit the building and engage with the work of both Houses.
Amendment 7 would secure the creation of an education centre while allowing flexibility within the Bill, which the Minister called for in Committee, for the creation of future unforeseen facilities. Such flexibility would keep the door open to new ideas and changing technologies leading to new demands on facilities. Again, I thank the Minister for his positive engagement in this area.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for her work on amendment 6 and to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for his work on amendment 4. Both amendments cover the important area of spreading work around the United Kingdom, and I moved a similar amendment in Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have signed amendment 6, the key part of which is the annual audit of companies. My experience, from a distance, was that Wembley started as an important national stadium—admittedly for England—but the endgame was that many of the companies involved did not have any local accountability. I am afraid that the Football Association lost control of the project, so it is important that this place has an annual audit to know who is building the project, what they are doing and whether they are doing it properly.
Christian Matheson
As a trade union official during the construction of Wembley, I have mixed memories of the conduct of that project, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point. Amendment 6 is not onerous, and it would allow for an audit that gave us the opportunity to keep a handle on where the work was going and how much of it was being spread around—no more, no less, but at least it would give us an opportunity to see what was happening.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The point I was trying to make in Committee was simply that, yes, this is a substantial investment—many billions—but, equally, if we get this right, it is a huge investment in trades and crafts right across the country. My only problem with the audit notion is that it is post decision making. If we are to make sure that there is a reasonable sharing of the procurement process, the policy needs to be set before the contracts are issued, not afterwards.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman is right that this could be a bonus for the whole nation. That is covered by amendment 4, but if the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority and the main contractors know they will be audited and under scrutiny, I hope that will help to focus and concentrate their minds on where they give the contracts.
Sir Edward Leigh
This is an important point. Of course we must not tell the Comptroller and Auditor General what to do, but in recent years we have tried with the National Audit Office not just to do this post hoc, as we did in the past when, years after the event, we would look at some scandal or waste of public money. The Comptroller and Auditor General now tries to look at these contracts as they come on stream. He started to do that with the Olympics and, although we cannot tell him what to do, I hope we can encourage him to look at this as it goes through.
Christian Matheson
As a distinguished former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the House that guidance, for which I thank him.
John Redwood
The project will also reveal part of our industrial history. When the building was first constructed, it drew on crafts and skills from across the country, and some of the companies involved might still be around in one form or another and be able to bid again. It was a national endeavour, not a London endeavour.
Christian Matheson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out; he is right. Perhaps the successor companies of some of those original suppliers will be able to bid—what a lovely connection that would be.
Some of the work for this project can clearly only be done in London. Obviously we are not going to move the Palace lock, stock and barrel to another part of the country, so the work has to be done in London. But efforts must be made, where possible, to include a diverse geographical range of companies. It is an opportunity to change old habits and step outside the old London-centric focus in which projects in our capital city are so frequently dominated by large London businesses—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew).
Chris Bryant
I hate to correct my hon. Friend, but I am going to anyway. Quite a lot of the work will not be done here. The parts of the clock are currently not in London but elsewhere in the country, and the cast-iron roofs have all been made elsewhere in the country. There is a real opportunity to build old trades, which perhaps we have not used for a very long time, all across the country. There could be benefits for every part of the country.
Christian Matheson
If I am going to be corrected, I would choose always to be corrected by my hon. Friend. The point I am making is that whatever is made elsewhere in the United Kingdom will eventually have to be installed here in London, but he is absolutely right, and the amendments show that we hope to encourage such opportunities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside pointed out in Committee that in practical terms that would require the widespread promotion and advertisement of contracts across the country. Market engagement and involvement must begin early and reach as widely as possible to include geographically diverse companies. I re-emphasise that the amendments are deliberately open and do not prescribe which companies should be considered; they would simply ensure that contracts were measured and monitored with consideration of the geographical context and the value context.
Furthermore, amendments 4 and 6 focus on the size of businesses bidding for contracts. This project provides us with the opportunity to upskill and invest in small and medium-sized enterprises as well as larger businesses. We must ensure that we support our thriving and exceptional small business sector, which regularly still feels cut out of large Government contracts. Efforts must be made to integrate small specialist companies and prevent big companies from winning contracts and subcontracting to companies that they already know and work with, rather than opening things up more widely.
Without placing those promises and that scrutiny in primary legislation, there is no guarantee that the Sponsor Body will not disregard any lack of geographical diversity. I see no harm in placing such a guarantee in the Bill. I hope that all Members recognise that it is a practical, common-sense amendment.
Christian Matheson
I give way to my next-door neighbour from Alyn and Deeside.
Mark Tami
Before my hon. Friend moves on from procurement, the other point, particularly for smaller companies, is that the actual cost must be kept to a minimum. If it costs about £10,000 to enter the process, small companies will not risk that sum of money, because it means a lot to them, whereas it means nothing to big companies.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend from the other side of Boundary Lane in Chester is absolutely right. We have to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises not simply by telling them that it would be good to bid for the contracts, but by making it as easy as possible for them, and by identifying and removing the barriers.
Finally, amendment 1, which stands in my name, is about corporate social responsibility and blacklisting. I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a proud member of Unite the union and the GMB, and I have received support from both in the past. However, I remind the House that I have tabled the amendment on my own initiative and with the support of hon. Members, not at the behest of any trade union, because we believe that it is the right thing to do.
In Committee I tabled an amendment that might be considered stronger than amendment 1. That previous amendment called for the Delivery Authority to proscribe from the bidding process any firm that had been involved in blacklisting and had not subsequently signed a recognition agreement with a UK-registered trade union. The amendment was narrowly defeated. Nevertheless, I did welcome at the time the Minister’s strong condemnation of blacklisting as a practice, and the support of other hon. Members in Committee. We can condemn, or we can take action. Aside from legislating to outlaw blacklisting, this project is the most direct influence we can have on making a stand against this terrible practice, because this House, along with their lordships’ House, is the ultimate client and can set the terms.
I remind the House that blacklisting is pernicious. It destroys lives, it is dangerous, and it is still going on. Skilled and qualified tradesmen are still refused starts, or are finished up on a job after just a couple of days, without explanation. If a workers’ name appears on a blacklist, it may well be because he or she has been a trade union representative or—more likely—because they have in the past complained about poor health and safety standards. Construction is a dangerous business. Site managers are under pressure to keep costs down, but that can lead to lower standards. Too often, the men or women who have been willing to stand up for their fellow workers and challenge lax health and safety regimes are the ones who have been marked down as troublemakers, when the truth is that in many respects they do their employers a service.
I remind the House of the scale of the problem. The Consulting Association is the most recent example of an organised blacklist—that we know of. In 2009, its offices were raided by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and it was found to be running an organised blacklisting operation, with 3,300 names. In the 2008-09 financial year, subscribers spent £87,749 on name checks. That means that, at £2.20 for each check, 39,886 names were checked. I emphasise that that was in just one year.
Amendment 1 gives the House another opportunity to make a statement and take a stand against blacklisting. I have listened to colleagues, and the amendment is less prescriptive than the one considered in Committee.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned both Houses leading the way; in 2013, the Welsh Government introduced a ban on the involvement of companies that blacklist and do not recognise trade unions in the public procurement process, such as the building of new schools and hospitals. That ban is already in place and it is working well. Because of those Welsh Government contracts, lots of organisations in Wales have cleaned up their act and now work constructively with trade unions and make sure that they have the most constructive processes, particularly in respect of health and safety.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration of how action of this kind can raise standards. When we raise standards in the construction sector, we save lives. It is a dangerous sector and whenever standards are allowed to fall, workers are regularly harmed, maimed and injured.
Neil Gray
I commend the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment; we will of course support him in his endeavours. He talks about taking a stand; of course, the House of Commons did not take a stand on the contract for the Elizabeth Tower and suffered immense reputational damage as a result. Does he agree that now is the opportunity to take a stand and ensure that that reputational damage does not continue?
Christian Matheson
We did take a reputational hit on that contract, unfortunately. The hon. Gentleman says that this is the opportunity; the fact is that there will not be many more opportunities, because we are the principal client on this programme so can set the terms.
The amendment is a lot simpler than the one tabled in Committee: it simply calls for the Delivery Authority to take account of a bidding firm’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including on blacklisting. It does not mention proscribing any transgressors from bidding and it does not mention trade union recognition agreements, but it does ask that CSR is considered. As I have just said, as the ultimate client for the programme, we would be doing the right thing if we put this requirement in the Bill. In doing so, we would send the message to the construction sector, and to workers in this dangerous industry, that we take the matter seriously and take their health seriously.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that the changes made to the wording of the amendment since Committee give more scope to the authority to have regard to a company’s policy on corporate social responsibility other than in respect of blacklisting? Have I read that correctly? If so, perhaps my hon. Friend could give the House an example of where else that might be valuable for the promotion of the highest standards in contracts.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but what we have tried not to do is to be too prescriptive in what we tell the Delivery Authority to do. The Minister had expressed concerns about being too prescriptive in the past. As long as companies can demonstrate that they have a corporate social responsibility policy—they might want to bring various different factors into that—that would be a start.
Kevin Foster
It is a pleasure to reply to the fantastic debate that we have had this afternoon. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with this important Bill from the Joint Committee through to Second Reading and Committee stage, and now today on Report. The input of all Members has been invaluable, and I particularly appreciate the kind remarks from the shadow Minister about the engagement that we have had. Similarly, I have also had a constructive engagement with the spokesperson from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), in taking this project forward. Clearly, there is a consensus across the House that this work is essential for the safety of our staff and visitors, to establish better facilities to support the Palace’s function and to ensure that it can continue to be the home of this UK Parliament for generations to come.
Before addressing the main amendments, it is worth saying that there is not a “do-nothing” option here now. Just carrying on patching and mending is more expensive than taking the decision to grasp hold of this project and move on. This decision is not just about spending money. We will carry on doing that. This is a decision about whether we want to set up a governance body to do the work in an organised and structured way that is clearly accountable to this House, and with a Sponsor Body that has the majority of parliamentary members who, again, would be accountable to Members both of this House and of the other place.
Let me turn to the amendments. I always think it is nice to start on a positive note, so I will start with amendment 7 on education, which was moved by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who made some very good points in Committee. Having reflected on those points afterwards—and having had discussions with the hon. Gentleman, to which he alluded—we will certainly accept and support this amendment. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said when we were discussing heritage issues that there are going to be decisions to be made all the way through this project, and although we were keen to have a Bill that is a framework allowing the Delivery Authority to get on practically, it did seem rather inconceivable that Members in this House or the other place would support a project that did not include an education centre. As an inevitable part of the project, it makes sense to make an education centre a need, rather than a desire. This does not unduly constrain the ability of the Sponsor Body to take the project forward. Therefore, the amendment will enjoy my own support and I am sure that it will also enjoy broad support across the House.
Amendments 8 and 9 relate to the transfer of the shadow Sponsor Board’s external members—not the parliamentary members. When the Sponsor Body comes into existence, there will be a need to reappoint parliamentary members, who will form the majority of the body via the usual ways. The amendments are about transferring the external members. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) made the powerful point that we have just got the Sponsor Body going—I think it was last year—and gone through a full recruitment process for external members; therefore, rerunning the process a year later may not produce a benefit, but could produce inconsistency. As we look forward to 2021, when the main votes on business cases and the main estimates will be presented to this House with comments from the Treasury, there is a need for consistency. As Members will have noted, the amendments would slightly alter the terms; the chair would have a slightly different term from the other external members. Terms can last for up to three years, so the chair would come to a point whereby there was effectively a phasing of appointments, and we are liaising with external members of the Sponsor Body in that regard.
Although we felt that the original drafting of these amendments gave a flexibility, it was one that was very unlikely to be exercised. This would have produced a situation whereby people who had just been appointed and were just getting into this incredibly complex project would find themselves having to reapply for their roles, with debates about whether they would initially be prepared to do that. However, I certainly support the amendments as tabled today, and the Government believe that they propose no threat or danger to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gave a passionate speech, setting out his superb knowledge of the archaeology and history of this Palace, including its outstanding value as a world heritage site. My hon. Friend made important contributions in this debate and on Second Reading, in which he reminded us how easy it is to overlook, and in some cases destroy, our heritage when undertaking extensive building projects. In particular, he cited the damage that was believed to have been done to the old palace of Edward the Confessor when the underground carpark was built. I am sympathetic to his point and, like all of us here, I am keen that the work is undertaken in a way that preserves the unique heritage of this building for future generations while respecting the fact that there is no intention for this building to become a museum; it has to continue to be a functioning Parliament for visitors, the staff who work here and others.
Chris Bryant
I am happy that the Minister is, as I understand it, supporting the amendment to which he is referring. But let us just be a little bit careful about some of the things that are often portrayed as absolute facts of our history in this building that turn out to be myths invented by the Victorians, such as the fact that the two red lines are two swords’ lengths apart. They are not. In fact, they only appeared in the 19th century when people could no longer wear a sword in the Chamber.
Kevin Foster
It is always a joy to hear another expert on the history of this building.
We have some concerns about the wording—not the thrust—of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said. For example, the Government recognise the significance of the Westminster UNESCO world heritage site designation, but note that that encompasses an area larger than just the Palace of Westminster: it also includes Westminster abbey and St Margaret’s church. I am mindful of the possibility that the inclusion in the Bill of the UNESCO status of the Palace of Westminster could be misinterpreted. The Government also share the concerns of the Joint Committee that explicit provision aiming to protect the heritage of the Palace could override opportunities to renew and enhance its purpose.
I appreciate the evidence supplied by Historic England and congratulate it on its solutions for ensuring the preservation of heritage on other projects, such as Lincoln castle, Manchester town hall and St Paul’s cathedral, while also increasing disability access. I certainly encourage the Sponsor Body to engage early with Historic England about the works so that it can learn from those projects.
It is also worth noting that the House is not its own planning authority: in seeking planning permission, there will be the usual protections. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on archaeology, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a passionate case. If he is prepared to withdraw his amendment, there could be some useful engagement with him, his group and Historic England, to look for appropriate wording that could be inserted into the Bill in the other place. That would cover the legitimate concerns he has picked up.
I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for tabling new clause 1, which relates to the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whom it would provide with the right to carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983. Such examinations are commonly known as “value-for-money assessments”.
The new clause also makes specific provision for a right of inspection and interrogation in respect of information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of the conduct of value-for-money assessments by the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. Although I am sympathetic to the principle behind the new clause, the Government are unable to support it due to the potential impact on small suppliers, which, unlike larger contractors, might not be able to engage with that type of audit.
It is worth noting that scrutiny of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority is already provided for in the Bill. Existing legislation also ensures scrutiny of contractors—for example, section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 already applies to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. That provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, given that the Bill requires the accounts of both bodies to be examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Additionally, article 5 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Rights of Access of Comptroller and Auditor General) Order 2003 means that, for the purposes of their audit function, the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the right to inspect and interrogate information held by the Sponsor Body’s and Delivery Authority’s contractors and subcontractors. The Bill provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the same powers as they do in respect of any public body when it comes to audit and examination.
Subsections (2) to (5) of the new clause go beyond the Comptroller and Auditor General’s current powers in relation to other public bodies. That is the provision allowing the Comptroller and Auditor General to access documents and information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of their value-for-money assessments. Those subsections would be an extension of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s current powers, provided for in section 8(1) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, allow for the Comptroller and Auditor General to access documents and information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of their audit functions only.
John Redwood
Will the Minister remind the House of the latest estimate of the total cost of the whole project and the timing of the payments—how many years?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. To be clear, the Bill is about setting up the governance framework. I can reassure him that once the Sponsor Body is established, it will set to work on a business plan and detailed set of costings, which then need to be approved by Parliament; it cannot go ahead and implement the project without doing so. There will also be Treasury commentary on the estimates that come before this place. We will reflect on it in engagement with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but it is almost certain that the NAO will wish to look at the quality of the Treasury’s work, so that the Public Accounts Committee can make recommendations to the House.
It would clearly be inappropriate to modify the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers on the face of the Bill. Any extension of powers should be properly considered, fully consulted on and effected globally, and should not be done as part of this specific case. Indeed, such an extension of powers could make the parliamentary building works less attractive to potential contractors.
It is worth pointing out that the Bill already puts in place transparent and accountable funding mechanisms for the parliamentary building works. Schedule 2 specifies that the Delivery Authority is required to prepare a statement of resources, which must be submitted to the Sponsor Body annually for the latter’s review and approval or rejection. If the Sponsor Body accepts the statement provided by the Delivery Authority, it will be reflected in the estimate prepared by the Sponsor Body and submitted to the Estimates Commission for the financial year to which the statement relates.
It is almost certain that the Sponsor Body will be subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny, and its parliamentary members may, for example, answer oral questions in this House and the other place. I hope the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside feels reassured that there is a range of abilities to audit and that it is unnecessary to press his new clause.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have just announced their net zero strategy. Will the work of the Delivery Authority take account of that strategy, and will the terms of reference include this building being net zero ready?
Kevin Foster
The Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body will be required to adhere to any legislation that has been passed in this place. Members have touched on disability issues and heritage issues. The Bill also refers to environmental considerations. We are keen to ensure that this is not a question of one interest automatically trumping another. Heritage issues will not automatically trump disability issues, and disability issues will not automatically trump environmental issues. There will be a range of choices to be made by Sponsor Body members, and they will then be held to account by Members on their decisions and how the project is taken forward. We certainly know that not taking the project forward will not improve the environmental impacts of this Parliament—in fact, quite the opposite.
I turn to amendments on which there is more disagreement, starting with amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester. As he rightly said, I made it clear in Committee that I see blacklisting as a scourge. It is an inappropriate and shameful practice. However, we have concerns about particular aspects of the amendment, even though we appreciate the intentions behind it.
Provision is already made in legislation against blacklisting. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 already provide mechanisms by which the Delivery Authority will be able to look into the practices of prospective suppliers in relation to blacklisting. In particular, it is also open to the Delivery Authority to exclude a provider from participating in a procurement where it can demonstrate a violation of obligations in the field of national social and labour law. That would include a breach of anti-blacklisting legislation. I could go into the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 in more detail, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with them.
It is a mandatory requirement for potential suppliers to declare that they have not breached any of the exclusion grounds, including labour law obligations. A completed declaration is also required of any organisations that potential suppliers may rely on to meet the selection criteria, including essential subcontractors. If a prospective supplier declares that they have been found to be in breach of the anti-blacklisting legislation by a court or tribunal, it would be reasonable for the contracting authority to ask to see details of the judgment.
The Government believe that the Bill provides mechanisms to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. For example, it would be open to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to make specific provision within the programme delivery agreement between the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority provided for in clause 4. Such provision could require construction companies to declare their policies on corporate social responsibility for the Delivery Authority to consider. Of course, whether such provision is made in the programme delivery agreement will be for the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to agree upon, but I am sure that members of the shadow Sponsor Board here today—including the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—are listening carefully to the issues that he and other Members have raised.
While I understand the principle behind the amendment, the Government do not consider it necessary. We consider that the current legislative framework and the Bill’s provisions already include the necessary safeguards to ensure transparency, accountability to Parliament through the period of the parliamentary building works and ongoing scrutiny of the parliamentary building works. Parliamentary Committees will also have the opportunity to scrutinise works that are ongoing. While the Government cannot support the amendment, we believe many measures are in place that will allow us not only to tackle blacklisting but to ensure there is constant accountability to this place on the widest range of environmental, social and labour legislation, and to ensure that this project is an exemplar of them all.
I now turn to amendment 6 and the amendment from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru—amendment 4—which are on a similar theme of looking to spread the work across this United Kingdom. In many ways, I welcome the enthusiasm of the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the right hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) in wanting to make this project one that really represents the whole Union, so that for generations to come and decades for come, Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to see in this House the symbols of being part of this Union Parliament.
Where I have concerns, sadly, is in how this amendment relates to procurement law. The Delivery Authority will need to create a level playing field as per the public procurement rules. Within these parameters, it is of course open to the Delivery Authority to encourage nations and regions across the UK to participate fully in and to benefit from the works processes. For example, the Delivery Authority may take steps to ensure that companies UK-wide are aware of the bids process by taking out advertising in regional media outlets and perhaps by doing roadshows, as Heathrow airport has done. However, in developing its procurement strategy and assessing bids, it would not be lawful to factor in the geographical location of companies. Adjusting the playing field in the way the amendment prescribes would, I am advised, expose the Delivery Authority to challenge under procurement law.
Neil Gray
I thank the Minister—well, I think I thank the Minister, who has just said he is not going to support my amendment—but this will not of course fall foul of procurement law, will it? There is no prescription here, and no quotas are set out. All the amendment does is to reiterate some of the comments that have been made by this Minister and previous Ministers and Leaders of the House that this will indeed be a UK-wide project with discernible benefits across the UK. Why on earth can a very wide-ranging amendment such as this not be enacted to guarantee the words of the Minister, unlike in the case of the Olympics, where that did not happen?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his overall constructive intervention. The problem is where the amendment says
“in terms of contracts for works”,
which implies a change to how the Sponsor Body would assess procurement, and where it says
“and in any other way”,
which is an unusually wide statement to put in a piece of primary legislation and could in effect give the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body in particular very wide range to do things that may not have been the intention of this House. Unfortunately, while I appreciate the intention of amendment 4, it is not one that the Government can recommend the House to accept or support.
Kevin Foster
I will now move on—I am conscious of the time I have been going on for—to amendment 6, which is on the similar theme of having a report. Again, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which is the wish to spread this work across the United Kingdom. I have been clear that this is about spreading it not just to the nations, but to the regions. We all wish to see it go to places such as the south-west of England—the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), a fellow south-west MP, is in her place—and to make sure that this work is shared.
What we do not think is right is to put this in the part of the Bill that the amendment suggests. Given the intention for reporting, this could be put in the part of schedule 1 that already lists, for example, the annual statement of accounts and the report on the building works that must be presented and laid. It would make sense to work on such an option and present in the other place something that sums up these areas, without putting it where it would look unusual and making sure that we do not violate the procurement rules.
Mark Tami
I am pleased to hear that the Minister will look at this proposal in the other place. All amendment 6 asks for is an annual report to see how we are doing at spreading the work around. Hopefully, we will do very well, but I think we need a report to see whether the work is being spread around or is still stuck in the south-east.
Kevin Foster
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the intention of his intervention. We have listened to Members’ submissions, but we feel it would be better to introduce an amendment to schedule 1 in the other place, because it would sit more appropriately with the other reports that will be made.
I have outlined the Government’s position on the amendments. I welcome the broad level of consensus that has been achieved and look forward to the Bill making further progress.
Mark Tami
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw new clause 1. However, we will keep the matter under review, because the project involves very large sums of money, as a number of Members have made clear.
I welcome what the Minister said about amendment 6. We will certainly return to it in the other place. I am delighted that amendments 7, 8 and 9 will be supported by the Government.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2
The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
Amendment proposed: 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(f) to require the Delivery Authority when allocating contracts for construction and related work to have regard for the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment.”—(Christian Matheson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I give my thanks to my fellow Devonian Member of the House, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for all the work that he has put into the earlier stages of the Bill, not least because he arrived on the Bill after its Second Reading. He has done an excellent job in liaising with others and getting himself over all the considerable detail of the matters that we are discussing today. I also thank those who served in Committee and those who contributed on Report.
I shall not dwell on the Bill for too long, as there is a high level of consensus across the House, and of course it is a Bill for Parliament as a whole and not for the Government in particular. It is important that we protect, restore and renew the parliamentary estate, not just because there are 3,000 or 4,000 people working here who have a right to work in a place of safety that is not falling apart around our ears, quite literally in some instances, but because the estate—the building and this Chamber in particular—is a symbol of the cradle of democracy that has inspired many millions all around the world. It is a symbol of our heritage, rooted in that sense of democracy.
The estate is also a positive symbol of defiance. One thinks of this Chamber and these buildings as having been forged out of the great fire of 1834, but this Chamber itself burned down in its former incarnation during the final days of the blitz, when Westminster Hall was also struck by incendiary bombs. The difficult decision had to be taken as to which one to save, given that there were not enough fire appliances to save both. With Westminster Hall being almost 1,000 years old, the decision was taken to save the older part of the Palace, which was undoubtedly the right decision. This Chamber rose out of the ashes at the end of the second world war and serves as a great inspiration to our country, and it is important that we do the right thing by the estate.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has amply outlined, the Bill sets the governance structure for the work that will be required to bring everything up to the standards that we should expect. It will ensure that the work runs to time, runs to budget and has a high emphasis on ensuring value for the taxpayer.
Of course, one of the reasons why the Bill is in such good shape is the excellent work of the Joint Committee that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. I extend my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) for her excellent chairmanship of that Committee. It should be noted that, in broad terms, the Committee endorsed the approach that the Bill takes. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), my predecessor as Leader of the House, for all her excellent work in pushing the project forward and for taking the Bill through its Second Reading.
The consensus across the House has extended to the Government drafting some of the amendments that we have agreed this afternoon. Most notably, we drafted amendments 8 and 9, which were in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) and the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami)—I will call him my right hon. Friend because he was my sparring partner during my days in the Whips Office—who spoke so powerfully about the importance of ensuring that the shadow Sponsor Body is transferred, subject to various requirements depending on when the appointments and the terms of office fall due.
We also worked with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on amendment 7, which relates to education facilities. We absolutely accept that such facilities are not just desirable but necessary. We thank him for the constructive way in which he engaged with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter. There were many other contributions, and two amendments—amendments 1 and 4—have now passed by way of Division in addition to those that I have mentioned. We look forward to examining them and to considering whether they might be improved or changed in some way when this Bill goes to the other place, but that is down to the will of the House.
I conclude by thanking the Bill team, all those involved in the restoration and renewal programme, the Whips, the PPSs—my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—the Clerks, the Opposition Front-Bench team and, in particular, the shadow Leader of the House for having sponsored the Bill. The Bill has been improved during its swift progress, and the House has risen to the occasion. I commend the Bill to the House.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I endorse the Leader of the House’s full list of thanks to save the Official Reporters having to record it again. I am pleased to support the Bill, as amended, and I thank the Chairs in Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter)—and the other members of the Committee for debating the Bill on 4 June. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for taking the Bill through. I understand that it was quite a pleasant affair—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should not have used the word “affair”!
Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Bill, which follows a long process of assessing and reviewing the state of the Palace of Westminster and of determining how best to proceed. The House debated and voted on restoration and renewal on 31 January 2018, and agreed that the Palace of Westminster is in need of restoration and renewal.
I thank both former Leaders of the House, the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for unlocking the difficulties and allowing the passage of the Bill—particularly the right hon. Lady, who is here in the Chamber.
The House resolved by 234 votes to 185 that immediate steps be taken to establish a shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority. I thank the members of the shadow Sponsor Board, who will hopefully step out of the shadows and become fully fledged members. These bodies will be able to make strategic decisions on the restoration and renewal programme so that the Palace of Westminster can be secured as the UK Parliament for future generations.
The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body will have overall responsibility for restoration and renewal, will act as a single client on behalf of both Houses and will be empowered to form a Delivery Authority. The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body will hopefully also have responsibility for the northern estate programme.
On Report, hon. Members touched on the successful London Olympics project, and one of the key things is that the project had an end date, so I suggest that the Leader of the House looks at arranging a proper schedule so that restoration and renewal does not run into never-ending dates for completion. It is important to have a date for completion.
I, too, thank the Joint Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), for scrutinising the draft Bill and making recommendations. The Joint Committee reported on 21 March 2019, and it said that the basic structure of governance proposed by the draft Bill is correct.
This has not been mentioned but, now Parliament has agreed that there is a climate change emergency, I understand that, within the necessary constraints of heritage and conservation planning, the refurbishment will support the energy efficiency of the buildings by using more energy-efficient building fabrics, including, where feasible, in the Palace of Westminster.
I am delighted that the education centre has been accepted and will be in its new place, as it will be a key part of the legacy of the building works. It should be established and remain in place during the works on the northern estate and the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. I know from experience that my constituents love the education centre, and it is important in helping them to understand what democracy is about so that they know exactly what we do in this place. The education centre is a fantastic building, showing the reality of sitting in the Chamber and in the House of Lords, so I thank the Leader of the House.
I heard what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office said about the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I hope some sort of oversight can be agreed. The Government mentioned cost and value for money approximately 13 times in their response to the Joint Committee’s report, so it is vital that we all agree that costs should be kept in check, particularly for taxpayers and for Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester did a grand job of addressing amendment 1 on blacklisting, and I am delighted that the House has accepted that amendment. The Leader of the House will know that the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 prohibit the compilation, use, sale or supply of trade union blacklists. It is a terrible thing to be on such a blacklist, which destroys lives, and I am pleased that the House has spoken and that it will not be the case, certainly in terms of contracts.
Talking of contracts, one of the key considerations that Opposition colleagues are keen to proceed with in restoration and renewal—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) addressed this in amendment 4—is the need to ensure that the economic benefits are available to all countries and regions of the UK, not just London. There used to be something called contract compliance, so contracts can be worded in such a way to include that. We know that some European countries—dare I mention Europe?—are able to benefit their own companies in that way without falling foul of state aid rules. I certainly think that contracts could be worded in such a way as to make those benefits available to the whole country. I know that it has been accepted now, but perhaps the Leader of the House could write to the shadow Sponsor Body to suggest that it looks at that.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Anybody with experience of local government will know that a contract has to include every item. If it does not, there will be a lot of additional costs that were never expected. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Valerie Vaz
Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend had a very good career as the leader of a local council, so he knows all about it.
Turning to heritage, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a valuable and robust contribution, and I agree with every word he said—I must declare an interest, because my daughter is an archaeologist. This is a unique building and we must protect it. I understand the Minister’s point about the distinction of a UNESCO world heritage site, which is slightly different, but it is an historic building. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) suggested that we should have a craft school, which is something they do in Scotland. Perhaps Historic England could link up with Historic Environment Scotland and do something somewhere in the middle of the country—
Valerie Vaz
Yes, I would love that. We have a great manufacturing tradition and there are many skills.
Mark Tami
Many of the skills that we will need are currently very limited, whether those of stonemasons or people who can work on the thousands of windows in this place. We need to train those people, because those skills are not readily available. We will be importing those skills if we do not train people.
Valerie Vaz
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. For me, having apprentices is a key consideration. It is also a good opportunity to make the workforce more diverse. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of this, but there is a specific company that employs only women builders, decorators, plumbers and electricians. I think that looking at that would be a good way of showing that we are diverse. I would have liked to see the heritage aspect included in the Bill, but the Minister has suggested that there will be discussions, particularly in the other place, where there is a lot of expertise on heritage—he might regret that slightly. I am glad that the amendments have been won. Perhaps the Government will consider making them slightly stronger. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester will be very happy to work with the Government on any future wording.
Finally, we have a duty to protect this amazing building. I know that lots of hon. Members have worked hard, whether in Bill Committees or through contributions they have made in discussions with House authorities, including the Minister. It affects all of us. We might not be here when the building is finally restored to its glory and is in its best condition, but we do this for future generations. Her Majesty’s Opposition are absolutely delighted to support the Bill as amended.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am delighted to see you in the Chair again, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my second speech in two days—my first contributions from the Back Benches since 2014—on another subject about which I feel so passionately. Yesterday, I talked about my passion for this place, this much-loved Parliament, in the context of the need to ensure that everybody who comes here to visit or to work is treated with dignity and respect. Today, I shall talk briefly about my other passion: making sure that Parliament is a safe and modern place for all those who work in it and for the hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
It was no mean feat—in fact, it was quite a great achievement—to introduce the Bill and to make progress where countless other Governments have failed. I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your commitment as a member of the House of Commons Commission, and to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the representatives of other parties on the Commission, for their commitment to making progress on this issue. The Bill is a significant tribute to all those who serve on the Commission, who were so determined to see that we take action.
Since the repairs made after the second world war, very little has been done to restore the Palace’s fabric. It is clear that 80% of the cost of R and R will lie in mechanical and engineering works. There is no doubt that we have almost left it too late. There have been 66 fire incidents since 2008. There are regular masonry falls, with the potential to cause serious injury. There are constant leaks—in the Palace rather than the Cabinet—blockages and failures of systems, and there is of course the ever-present risk of an asbestos leak, which would have us move straight out of here.
I wish to pay tribute to those with whom I worked closely over the past couple of years. I pay tribute, first, to those who served on the original Joint Committee, the advice of which has been so fundamental to the making of progress; to the programme team, particularly Tom and Kate, who did such a fantastic job; to the superb Leader’s Office team, particularly Joanna and Rob, who have done a marvellous job; to the joint Select Committee, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman); to the shadow Sponsor Board itself—I wish Liz Peace every success as she takes it forward; to the Bill Committee, with huge thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who literally jumped in and got stuck straight into the Bill, and what a fantastic job he has done; and to the Cabinet Office Bill team, particularly Ellen and Tim.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been such a supporter and advocate of restoration and renewal, and to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has been a superb Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and has proven herself to be a completely determined advocate for the restoration of this place. It has been a vital, cross-party effort. Finally, I pay tribute to my now ex-Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who was a huge support to me personally as we tried to persuade Members right across the House to back the Bill. I am so glad that, between us all, probably with some fraught conversations and a bit of persuasion—with no bullying, of course, because that would not be acceptable, but with some strong persuasion and strong argument—we have got there.
As we send the Bill to the other place for consideration, I would really like the Delivery Authority to consider looking into three issues that are critical to value for money and to the securing of a modern and functioning democracy. The first is the Elizabeth Tower. You will know as well as I do, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this has been a fraught issue. Elizabeth Tower is being restored. It is probably halfway through its restoration—a significant cost to the taxpayer—and will be open long before we leave this place. It is my strong desire that, once the restoration work starts and we have decanted out of here, Elizabeth Tower should remain open to members of the public. It will have been expensively restored, and the programme team have confirmed that having Elizabeth Tower remain open would not add to the cost or complexity of R and R. I urge the Delivery Authority to ensure that that happens and that we do not end up putting the Elizabeth Tower under wraps again, having just reopened it.
The second issue to consider is the availability of the second Chamber in Westminster Hall—the Grand Committee Room—which, in itself, will not be significantly affected by restoration and renewal. It is a more complicated matter because, of course, there will be building works, earth movers and so on all around the Palace, but we should give it consideration, bearing in mind that the decant option gives us only 75% of the footprint of the Palace. If we want to try to snaffle some of that back, we could keep the Grand Committee Room as our second Chamber throughout. That would enable us to provide more space for valuable Committee rooms and so on in Richmond House during the decant period. I urge the Delivery Authority to consider retaining access to that second Chamber, certainly through St Stephen’s entrance, and potentially keeping the Jubilee Café open as a place for Members and visitors to be able to eat and get cups of tea. The second Chamber is a particularly useful place, and I urge colleagues to consider that point seriously.
I have one final point to make in the context of the entire project. I have some concerns about the proposed way in which the media will be facilitated during the decant period. I met the head of the Lobby on a couple of occasions to discuss the needs of the media. I am aware that, under the current proposals for decant, the amount of space for the media is proposed to be considerably restricted to potentially half what it currently has. There is also a proposal to put a glass screen between members of the press and the temporary Chamber. I urge the Delivery Authority, if it takes on the northern estate programme, to reconsider that and ensure that the press has adequate space. Day in, day out, we see the consequences of different Parliaments around the world not having a free press to scrutinise their work. We constantly see the consequences of dictators who try to shut down the freedom of the press and what that does to their societies and their communities, and I would hate for us to do anything that did not permit the freedom of the press that we so value in the United Kingdom.
I am so glad to see this vital legislation moving forward and that the House itself has come to accept that, if we want to stay here for decades to come and pass this great Palace on to future generations, we simply must get on with it. I will stay close to the R and R programme over the coming years, and I look forward to the establishment of a professional Delivery Authority that will be tasked with ensuring good value for taxpayers’ money and with ensuring our legacy.
Neil Gray
I do not plan to detain the House for very long. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my speaking notes had to be ripped up after the result of that last vote. We are very pleased that the SNP secured the amendment of the Bill with the support of Members from all parties, for which I am very grateful.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She perhaps inadvertently provided several thanks not just to me but to the likes of the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for the service that we provided through all stages—from the Joint Committee to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, the Finance Committee, the Sponsor Board and various other incarnations in which we have been involved. Certainly thanks must also go to her, as she was the first Minister who took this project very seriously and started to drive it forward. The House must thank her for her efforts in this regard. Previously, the Government were rather lukewarm and standoffish about the project.
I want to pick up on some of the points that the right hon. Lady made, because they were very sensible and should go on the record. The suggestion about Elizabeth Tower should be considered. I know that she and others have made that point before, and it is right that the relevant bodies consider it. I think she understands that her idea about Westminster Hall might present a greater challenge. Discussions need to be had with the contractors and the programme board about whether it would be possible, given the fact that we are looking for a full decant to make it easier for the contractors to work, but certainly it should be considered.
The right hon. Lady was absolutely right to make her point about facilities for the media. Under the current proposals, their facilities would be greatly downgraded from the already inadequate facilities they currently have, so that issue definitely needs to be looked at as part of the decant process.
I thank Joanna Dodd and Michael Everett in the Clerks team for their assistance in drafting our amendments, which were successful in the end, and SNP researcher Eoin Bradley, who provided support on the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who is soon to be a Privy Counsellor; he provided a great service for us on the House of Commons Commission. He and I have worked closely together throughout the process leading up to this point. His replacement will be my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—[Interruption.] Indeed, he should also be a Privy Counsellor. My hon. Friend led on Second Reading and has been heavily involved in this process to date.
I thank the new Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for his approachability and willingness to engage. Although we disagreed on my amendment 4, he was willing to engage and we had a very forthright, honest meeting and discussion about it. I have a challenge for the current Leader of the House—not to sabotage amendment 4, which has just been passed and which is about ensuring that there is discernible benefit across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom when the Bill moves to the other place. We will be watching closely and with great interest.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not repeat the many thanks outlined by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and others, because they have listed everybody that I would list. However, I pay tribute to them and particularly to the members of the original Joint Committee, who really set the tone.
It seems a long time since 31 January last year, when we were on a knife edge here—not knowing. I hot-footed it here from my daughter’s hospital bed to ensure that we could get the amendment through, but we were really not sure what was going to happen. I give real credit to the former Leader of the House for taking up the ball and running with it, and ensuring that the Bill reached this position today. I also thank the Ministers since then who have picked up the pace.
It is really important that we get on with this now, and there is a real will to do so. As Members, we need to keep a very close eye on the process. The Public Accounts Committee will certainly do that, although probably not under me. I think my term of office will have almost come to an end—if I am still here—by the time we move out, so I will leave a note to my successor. The National Audit Office is already looking at how it can engage with the process, although there are still some discussions to be had about how that will work.
I urge Ministers to look again at amendment 6. I apologise for not being here when the Minister discussed it—I was chairing the Public Accounts Committee—but I thank him for the assurances that it will be looked at in the other place. It seems to me that amendment 6 follows neatly on from amendment 4, which has been adopted, because for amendment 4 to work we will need some sort of audit of how the work is going. Amendment 6 is a very simple measure, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to look at it and I know that colleagues in the other place will do so.
It feels like a long journey since January last year, but this has actually been going on since 2016 in this Parliament, and of course it has been decades coming. The key lesson is that we must ensure not only that we move out, get the work done and move back, but that no future Parliament allows the future, modernised, refurbished, restored Parliament building to fall into such disrepair. If this building is going to work for successions of future MPs, peers, staff and members of the public who visit, and if it is to remain the icon of democracy that it was set up to be, we need to maintain it in the future. We must make sure that that is part of the plan now—I lay a warning for our successors. That cyclical maintenance, boring though it may be, is vital so that we are not in this position again in our dotage. I can imagine the former Leader of the House sitting up in the Public Gallery and getting very frustrated if we come here as we get older. Let us hope that we do not have to do that, and that future Members will be good custodians of this building, as we and some of our predecessors have sadly not been in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Thursday 20th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Amendments as at 19 June 2019 - (19 Jun 2019)
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Monday 8th July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Amendments as at 19 June 2019 - (19 Jun 2019)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I shall wait while noble Lords depart.
I am delighted to open the Second Reading debate on the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill. The Bill has been a long time coming and builds on the work of many in this House and the other place. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, my noble friend Lord Deighton and the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, for the work they did on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which was vital in paving the way for the Bill. I also thank my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Brabazon of Tara, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Prashar, for their work on the joint pre-legislative Select Committee that looked at the Bill. All their recommendations were carefully considered and led to a number of changes.
The Bill gives effect to the resolutions passed in Parliament last year putting in place a governance structure that will ensure that the long-term programme of R&R work can be undertaken. It establishes the statutory bodies that will be responsible for addressing the risks and dangers that currently affect this building, as well as its restoration and renewal.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the horrific fire that swept through Notre Dame only a few months ago, which served as a stark reminder of the risks to this historic and iconic building. Here, we have a team of 24 staff employed to carry out fire patrols around the clock, and we have put in place complex fire mitigation measures. Other issues that have affected the Palace in recent months include falling masonry, water leaks, floods, sewage leaks, lighting and power outages, and toilet closures. Whatever individual position Members may take on particular elements of this programme, I think your Lordships would all agree that significant maintenance work cannot be delayed any longer. We must ensure that the Palace of Westminster is restored and protected, so that it may continue to serve as the home of the UK Parliament for generations to come.
In 2012, both commissions considered the option of relocating Parliament outside the Palace of Westminster in a new purpose-built building, they but decided against such a proposal. The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster also considered temporarily relocating Parliament outside London during the works, but concluded that it carried an unacceptable burden of cost and inconvenience.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that no costings were carried out or estimates taken of the proposal to build a new Parliament elsewhere?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Obviously, a number of reports have looked into this issue, which have considered a range of issues. Today, we are putting into legislative effect the Motions that were passed by this House and the other place, which affirmed that the guarantee that both Houses would return to their historic Chambers as soon as possible should be incorporated in primary legislation. That is what we are doing as part of the Bill.
This is an important, technical Bill which facilitates the next crucial stage of the R&R programme. It consists of 15 clauses and 4 schedules. It establishes the parliamentary works sponsor body, which will have overall responsibility for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and will act as the client on behalf of both Houses. It also provides for the formation of a delivery authority as a company limited by guarantee. The delivery authority will formulate proposals in relation to the restoration works and ensure their operational delivery. The sponsor body already exists in shadow form, and I thank those Peers who sit on its board: my noble friend Lord Deighton, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Geidt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
Drawing on best practice from the successful delivery of the London 2012 Olympics, the bodies will be independent and able to operate effectively in the commercial sphere, bringing the expertise and capability needed for a project of this scale.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
What are the latest cost estimates for the restoration and renewal work?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The purpose of the Bill is to set up the bodies that will do the detailed costings of the work. I will come to the outline business case, of which obviously that will be a crucial part, towards the end of my remarks.
The Bill also provides for the relationship between Parliament and the sponsor body, including consultation with Members. This is a hugely significant and costly project, so both the Government and Parliament must ensure that it represents and delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
The Bill establishes a Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, made up of two Members of this House and two from the other place, which will lay the sponsor body’s estimates of expenditure before the House of Commons and play a role in reviewing the sponsor body’s expenditure. It is through these annual estimates that the programme will be funded and approved by MPs. Further financial controls will be put in place, including a requirement that the estimates commission consults the Treasury on the annual estimates for the funding of the R&R programme and has regard to any subsequent advice.
The sponsor body is made up of parliamentarians representing both Houses and includes experts in running similar large-scale projects such as the Olympic Games, and, in terms of heritage, includes the former chief executive of Historic England. The delivery authority will be made up of architects, engineers and individuals with programme management, commercial and contracting experience. They will formulate the designs, costs and timings of the works, with proposals brought forward to Parliament for approval in 2021. We are confident that the arrangements being put in place will deliver the necessary restoration works and at the same time provide reassurance that taxpayers’ money will be protected.
The passage of the Bill in the other place was swift, with Second Reading passing without division and Committee completed in a single day. The Bill also passed Third Reading without a Division.
On Report, four amendments were made to the Bill. Two amendments were supported by the Government. The first required the sponsor body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster. The second provides for the automatic transfer of external members of the shadow sponsor body to the statutory body. This will bring continuity to the sponsor body, while providing an opportunity for it to evaluate its needs for its membership.
Two amendments, resisted by the Government due to deficient drafting and our view that they were not required in primary legislation, passed on Division at Report. One requires the delivery authority to have regard to companies’ policies on corporate social responsibility when allocating contracts. We accept the principle of this amendment, but it will require some minor and technical changes to make it workable.
The second places a duty on the sponsor body and the delivery authority to ensure that the economic benefits of the parliamentary building works are delivered across the UK. The Government resisted this amendment as it contravenes public procurement law: specifically, that location is not something that you can have regard to when allocating contracts. Again, we accept the principle behind the amendment, but it will be necessary to revise its wording to ensure that it does not cut across procurement law obligations.
Finally, a couple of matters were raised on Report which the Government agreed to consider further in this House. First, Members in the other place considered whether the sponsor body should have regard to the need to conserve and sustain the architectural and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The Government are absolutely committed that the work undertaken will ensure that the architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster is preserved for future generations, but we have been of the view that the best way to achieve this is through existing planning processes.
We have also been mindful of including the UNESCO heritage status of the Palace of Westminster in the Bill, given that it also covers Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret’s Church. We must be careful that, as the Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny said, explicit provision which aims to protect the heritage of the Palace does not,
“override opportunities to renew and enhance its purpose”.
The Government will therefore bring forward an amendment that strikes a balance between the preservation and protection of the Palace’s heritage, while delivering the renovations and accessibility modifications that we all want to improve the functionality of the Palace.
Secondly, there was considerable interest in the other place for the sponsor body to publish an annual audit of companies awarded contracts to establish their size and geographical location. The Government are keen for the benefits of the parliamentary building works to be shared across the UK, particularly among SMEs. Under the provisions of the Bill, the sponsor body already has to prepare and publish a report at least once a year on the parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards their completion. We will bring an amendment to place a further requirement on the reporting of contracts on the sponsor body. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have sought to work collaboratively with parliamentarians to ensure both that the right arrangements are in place to deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace and that these reflect the will of Parliament. I look forward to continuing in that spirit with noble Lords.
Before I conclude, I will turn briefly to the issue of this House’s temporary decant during the restoration and renewal of the Palace, which I know is of great interest to noble Lords. As I stated earlier, the Motion passed by this House in early 2018 was clear that, as part of R&R, we would temporarily leave the Palace so that the works could be done more quickly and in a cost-effective way. As noble Lords will know, the Bill is concerned not with the details of your Lordships’ accommodation during the period of refurbishment of the Palace but with the governance arrangements required for the successful delivery of the R&R programme. The sponsor body established on a statutory footing by the Bill will be responsible for delivering the decant accommodation for the House of Lords, in line with your Lordships’ requirements. It will be for the sponsor body, as part of the outline business case that it expects to present to Parliament in 2021, to set out the detailed, costed arrangements.
I assure noble Lords that the shadow sponsor body is keen to hear from Members about the proposed decant accommodation, and this engagement has already begun in earnest. Last year’s survey was followed by individual interviews with more than 150 Members of your Lordships’ House, and a similar number from the other place, to gain more detailed views on Members’ ideas, priorities and concerns around decant; that has continued with smaller, focused discussions on particular design themes. The results of this engagement are currently being reviewed and will feed into further work as part of the programme. In addition, the chair of the shadow sponsor body has written to APPG and committee chairs in both Houses to seek their feedback on the sort of facilities that they may require in the future. Plans for the decant of the House of Lords are in their early stages and there will be ample further opportunity for Members to feed into the process—I encourage all noble Lords to do so. I understand that the R&R programme team will carry out further engagement with noble Lords in the autumn.
The Bill is critical to the next stages of development of this important parliamentary project.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful for the ongoing consultation with Members about the decant process. Can my noble friend explain how that process will be accountable to this House?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, there will be consultation during the process but, ultimately, the sponsor body needs to bring an outline business case—the final proposal with costings, details and decant options—back to both Houses. Both Houses will vote on it, and that will be the final decision. Today, we are doing important work to enable the detailed work that noble Lords are obviously incredibly interested in, but it will return to Parliament for a final vote.
To repeat myself slightly, once the sponsor body and delivery authority have been established in statute, they will design an outline business case that the sponsor body must bring back to Parliament for approval and which will set out the scope, timing, delivery method and cost of the works. Only once the outline business case has been approved will the sponsor body and delivery authority be able to commence the substantial works on the Palace.
I very much hope that noble Lords will support the Bill’s timely passage so that we can begin to undertake the vital and increasingly pressing work to ensure that the Palace of Westminster is fit to serve as the home—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
This may be a question to which everybody else in the House knows the answer. Can the Minister tell us why neither the delivery authority nor the sponsor body will have a duty to have regard to heritage and preserving the fabric of the building?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope I made clear earlier that we have agreed that we will bring forward an amendment in this House that will look at putting heritage in the Bill. As I also mentioned, we need to balance that with making sure that any renewal and restoration of the building takes into account modernisation and things that other noble Lords are keen on—for instance, improving disability access and ensuring that it is open and available to the public who want to come. We will bring forward an amendment in this House during the passage of the Bill to achieve, I hope, that balance. On that note, I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is my privilege to follow the Leader of the House and to reiterate her appreciation for the enormous work and commitment that have gone into getting to this stage of the programme, including by those who undertake the thankless task of serving on the shadow sponsor body. I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft legislation. I went on it out of a sense of duty rather than enthusiasm, but discovered that this was not a sideline or deeply boring and irrelevant to our work, but absolutely central to the future of our democracy and the well-being of our democratic processes.
I shall just pick up on the point the noble Baroness made at the beginning on the fire at Notre-Dame. Following the fire, Antony Gormley said that it should be the beginning of the future, not the end of the past. We should think about this programme over the next 16 or 20 years as the beginning of a new future, building on the heritage of this building, retaining that heritage and ensuring the restoration of those parts of the building that are literally crumbling under us —but also seeing it as a way of demonstrating to the public during the process that we can engage, gain their consent and ensure that they believe this is part of democratic renewal, not just renewal of the pipework and the wiring, critical though that is.
William Blake talked of the “mind-forg’d manacles” that confine us in how we see things, and I hope we can set those aside. After all, we are at a time when democracy is literally fragile. We have the words of the President of the Russian Federation just a couple of weeks ago about the nature of what he saw as the crumbling of liberal democracy. I believe that what we do in spending billions of pounds of public money on the restoration of this building has to be accompanied by renewal. The stonework, pipework and wiring—the preparation of a building fit for people to work in, whether parliamentarians or staff—goes hand in hand with how people consent to the investment that makes it possible. In other words, the way we carry this out can either alienate people still further or engage them in believing that our institution—the two Houses in the Palace of Westminster—is fundamental to a functioning democracy, and that we wish to save it for the future.
When Barry and Pugin did their work, they immediately found major obstacles in the way of even the most modest renewal and improvement, which then took place over the subsequent 10, 20 and 30 years. I am grateful to one of our clerks, Philippa Tudor, for the work she has done on the history. It is instrumental in understanding how you balance the heritage with the design of democracy for the future. This picks up the last point the noble Baroness made in answering a question: if we do not get this right, we could end up with art deco toilets from the 1920s preserved at the expense of actually allowing people access.
I want to make three crucial points. I hope we can reach rapidly consensus on these because I do not wish to hold the Bill up; it is important that we get on with it and allow the shadow sponsor body to take on its full role effectively. In doing so, however, we have to set aside the notion that while Parliament is responsible, as the controlling mind, to determine what the sponsor body should do and how it should see its work—as we found out on the Joint Committee—we cannot then contradict that by saying that there can be nothing in the Bill to give not only a clear steer to the sponsor body but a signal to the world outside that we know what we are doing and are doing it on their behalf. If I might say so, the intellectual somersaults done by the noble Baroness and the former Leader of the House of the Commons in their letter, particularly in points 2.7 and 2.8, need to be gently, consensually set aside.
Three things are important here. The first, which I hope we can all agree on, is disability access. At the moment, this is phrased as being about access “to” the building and not access “within” the building. I do not often speak publicly about disability; I have tried to do what I have done over the decades quietly behind the scenes. However, those who think they are doing the right thing on behalf of people with disabilities need to consult them more closely.
The second important point is about the participation directorate: the education service, outreach and, separately, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, all of which do an absolutely excellent job. Let us try to ensure that they do that job with an eye on reaching out, rather than just on people coming in; it is about not just the footfall but the future.
Finally, the renewal element that I have spoken about must understand and engage with the political process of the House, so that it reaches out and engages people in whatever way it can. I must stress that this is not about prescribing anything to the sponsor body. The mantra in the letter sent out was: “Please don’t prescribe”. I do not intend that we should prescribe but rather, to change the word slightly, that we should be in the business of promoting.
There is a real lesson from that great comedy “Yes Minister”. When I was in Cabinet, I showed a wonderful episode to Ministers and senior civil servants at an away weekend. It was about a newly built hospital that was functioning brilliantly; it was on budget, there were no industrial relations problems and everyone was happy. The only problem was that it did not have any patients. Crucially, this Bill should not only ensure that staff and parliamentarians can do their work, that the public can visit and that the heritage is retained; it should also be a symbol of democratic renewal. If we get this right, we can play just a part in ensuring that we lift the mistrust, set aside the alienation and go forward in restoring, renewing and underpinning our democracy for the future.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for introducing the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for such an eloquent explanation of the broader issues that the Bill relates to. On these Benches, we very much welcome and support the Bill and hope it will make speedy progress through this House. In particular, I hope it can be concluded during our September sitting, so that it will not be delayed should we find ourselves having an early general election.
The Bill is long overdue. It is ironic that it took a fire at Notre Dame to spur the Government into action. It is undoubtedly the case that, if the Palace of Westminster were not the Parliament, parliamentarians would have been stridently calling for its renewal for decades. It is also worth remembering that this very Palace was itself born out of the destruction by fire of the old palace in 1834—I hope that history will not repeat itself. As the Leader of the House has pointed out, there are, fortunately, 24-hour fire patrols in operation, and I place on record my thanks to the fire officers and other staff who work tirelessly to keep our Parliament safe, often in trying circumstances.
Thousands of people work in this building and more than 1 million people enter the Parliamentary Estate every year as visitors, constituents, tourists, to visit Select Committee meetings and for other purposes. We have a duty to protect them and to ensure that their health and safety is not compromised when they are here.
As the noble Baroness said, this Bill gives effect to the resolutions passed in both Houses last year by establishing the statutory bodies that will be responsible for the works to restore and renew the Parliamentary Estate. The sponsor body will have overall responsibility for the programme and will act as a single client on behalf of both Houses. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market has already been doing sterling work as a member of the shadow sponsor body and will speak further about its future role.
The Bill gives the sponsor body the power to establish a delivery authority, to make proposals in relation to the works and to ensure their operational delivery. As has been explained, this approach was used successfully for the London Olympics. I agree that this is the best structure to deliver the programme in a way that commands the confidence of parliamentarians, staff and the public and, most importantly, is accountable to them.
While the proposed structure is sensible, of itself it does not deal with all the potential scope for meddling in the work of the sponsor board by members and staff of both Houses. It is vital to minimise this if we are to avoid the situation described so brilliantly by Caroline Shenton in her book Mr Barry’s War, where continuing delays were caused to the building of this Palace by an interminable number of Select Committees examining specific parts of the design and construction process.
So I am pleased to see that, under Clause 6, the parliamentary relationship agreement should contain provision about consultation and co-operation between the sponsor body and the corporate officers of both Houses, and that Clause 5 provides for a consultation strategy with members. Transparency and consultation will be the key to the success of this programme going forward smoothly.
I have spoken previously of my hope that the programme will be ambitious. We should not simply confine ourselves to repairing an old building. We should instead, through this project, show the vision that we have for a 21st-century Parliament that is a modern workplace, family-friendly and user-friendly. In doing so, we must ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, that huge improvements are made so that those with disabilities not only have proper access to this place but find it a congenial and easy working environment. We are all proud of the fact that Parliament has a long tradition of openness, and I hope that the programme will also develop better facilities for visitors and students who wish to see us in operation, not only from the UK but from across the globe.
If we want to ensure that Westminster is truly a Parliament for the future, then we must also consider the environmental impact of the works. I hope that, working together, Parliament, the sponsor body and the delivery authority can produce a cleaner and greener palace.
We must also consider the wider legacy of the works, with investment in skills across the country and the importance of SMEs having a chance to work on the programme. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the first Joint Committee on R&R, will speak further about this. Although I accept the problems the noble Baroness referred to about specifying the need for geographic diversity in contracting, it is important that, as with the Olympics, we give opportunities to companies large and small across the country to take part in the redevelopment of this place.
While referring to spreading the benefits of the restoration and renewal across the country, I hope that during the decant process it will prove possible to loan the works of art which are currently on display in the Palace to institutions across the country. In this way, many people who would not otherwise have any chance to see any of them will have a chance to do so, and it might save on storage costs.
Returning to the content of the Bill, I was pleased that so many of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill were accepted by the Government. I thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his work on that committee. Of those which were not, I do not think any were of fundamental importance. While we may want to discuss them again in Committee, I do not think that that should delay the passage of the Bill.
We must now get on and do this. The Palace is part of the UNESCO Westminster world heritage site. It is our obligation to maintain it for future generations, and with this Bill we are taking the crucial next step towards achieving that most important goal.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, how good it is at last to have before us a really chunky Bill. I am tempted to say that it is something that one might get one’s teeth into, but that, so far as I am concerned, would give the wrong impression because this is not a Bill that needs to be torn apart but a Bill which deserves to be supported, because it is a necessary Bill. The decision that we should in principle proceed with this project was taken by both Houses almost 18 months ago, as has been pointed out. What we need to do now is to set up the machinery to put it into motion. Of course, like all machinery, it needs to be fit for purpose if it is to do its job. The question is whether it meets that standard. That, I suggest, is what we need to consider today.
The key provisions are to be found in Clauses 2 to 7. The use of a sponsor body, to represent the interests of Parliament and assume overall responsibility for the building works, and of a delivery authority to formulate proposals and provide the operational delivery of the works, is a tried and tested structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out, ideally suited for major projects of this kind. It is clear that nothing can be done, other than in relation to preparatory works, until the delivery authority’s proposals have been approved by Parliament. Overall control will remain with Parliament, and it will be for the two new bodies to determine the strategy and formulate the proposals for Parliament’s approval. That is as it should be, so we need to look at the details that give effect to this plan.
I pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee which subjected the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny, which was so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, as well as to the work of the Bill team which has put the Bill together. As to the detail, as the noble Baroness said, two of the four amendments which were passed by the other place will need to be looked at again, and there are two other matters that are worth looking at again too.
Before saying a word or two about one of those matters, there is one other point that is of particular interest to me as a lawyer, and that is dispute resolution. The questions I ask myself, as I read through the Bill, are whether there is a risk of a dispute between the various parties that are referred to and, if so, how any such dispute is to be resolved. That disputes will arise is inevitable. It is not that those involved are likely to be just awkward. There will be genuine differences of opinion that will need to be sorted out. We are not, of course, concerned here with disputes between the delivery authority and the contractors engaged to carry out the works. There are well-established mechanisms in the standard forms of contract which are designed to deal with those matters. What we are concerned with is the possibility of disputes between the various bodies referred to in this Bill.
So far as I can find, the word “agreement” is used in six places in the Bill. One use I can leave aside fairly quickly. It is used in Schedule 1 and deals with something that can happen only if there is an agreement. It is its use in the main body of the Bill that requires a little more thought.
Clause 1(1) deal with something that affects the relationship between the House commissions and the two new bodies. It provides that works can only be designated for the purposes of the definition of “the Parliamentary building works” by the House commissions if they have the agreement of the sponsor body and the delivery authority. This is a case where something can only happen unless and until there is agreement, first, between the House commissions themselves and then, if they are agreed, between them and the new bodies. However, the Bill says nothing about what is to happen if they cannot all agree.
Clause 4 addresses the question of what is to happen if the two new bodies cannot agree on a relevant matter when they formulate the programme delivery agreement or when they consider whether it should be varied. The way that any such disagreements are to be resolved is set out in Clauses 4(4) to (6)—the matters are to be referred to the commissions to settle the difference—but the Bill says nothing about how that is to be done or what is to happen if the commissions cannot agree with each other.
I think that I can see the reason why the Bill does not seek to fill those gaps. The only way in which they could be filled would be to refer the dispute to a third party to act in the same way as, for example, an arbitrator, but that would be to take the decision-taking function on these vital matters out of our hands or, to be more accurate, out of the hands of the commissions. Therefore, I think that on balance the Bill is right not to attempt to tell the commissions what they must do to achieve agreement, but it needs to be recognised that they must find a way of working together to ensure that a consensus is achieved and that the project is not stalled or delayed by disagreements between them or the two new bodies. I have to declare that at the moment I am a member of this House’s commission, but I regret that I will be leaving that position when I cease to be Convenor, so it will then be for others to look after that vital matter. That is the first point that I would like to make.
The other point is one that I make briefly in relation to one of the two amendments to which the noble Baroness referred—the one in Clause 2(4)(h), which deals with spreading the economic benefit of the works across the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Baroness that there are problems here because of the effect of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Those who seek to enter into contracts for work of this kind have to be treated equally and without discrimination. That is the basic rule. Competition is not to be artificially limited by designing procurement in such a way as to,
“unduly favour or disadvantage certain economic operators”.
However, I hope that a way can be found to address the broad intention behind the provision that was passed in the other place by ensuring that companies up and down the whole of the United Kingdom, across all four nations, are made fully aware of the opportunities that will be available and how to bid for them. The process must be open to all without discrimination. That is not discrimination; it is just saying that spreading the message as widely as possible about what is on offer ought to be encouraged and provided for. Therefore, I look forward very much to the amendment that I have no doubt will be made to that provision to give effect to the broad idea behind the Motion passed in the other place.
With those comments, I very much support the Bill and join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in wishing it a swift passage through this House.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that this Bill has finally seen the light of day. It is 18 months since we debated R&R in this House. Then, I urged the full decant of the House, having been traumatised by what I had seen in the basement the previous week—I have not dared to go back.
I can understand why the process has been so protracted thus far. I can also understand more intimately the deep frustration that drove Pugin and Barry apart. I am sure that the relationship between the sponsor body and the intelligent client, Parliament, will be infinitely better—because this is indeed the sequel to that great work. It is the most complex and costly restoration project that we have ever attempted in this country. It will be the most exposed and the most controversial; it will be done in full view and with full expectations. Getting it right, as one witness to the Joint Committee put it, means articulating the “why” and not just the “how”. Revealing the building as well as restoring it so that we can see its full significance for the future and so that it will be better appreciated for what it means requires an explicit statement of exactly what we want to achieve, and I hope that that is restoration as a route to renewal in its boldest form.
As far as I can tell, the “how” is about right. I am happy with the arrangements for the delivery of the project. They are tried and tested ways forward, and the right powers are in the right place with the right people. It is admirable that we have the report of the Joint Committee and that it has been accepted by the Government. The committee listened very closely to its experts and recognised that in the relationship between the intelligent client and the sponsor body—I thought this was incredibly important—there should be no opportunity for politics: what Bagehot, obviously with great feeling, called “the busybodies and crotchet-makers” who would frustrate progress.
I am particularly glad that the temptation to take planning powers into the control of the delivery body was resisted; I think that the Government are absolutely right there. Sidelining the normal planning process is always a draconian decision, reserved for the most complex sites where sets of authorities and consents overlap tortuously. We are dealing here with one planning authority. It is probably faster and better for the process to be seen to be going through the full and contestable democratic process at the heart of Westminster.
I hope there is scope for the entire site to be seen and treated as a whole, ideally by a masterplan approach that would not only take into account the northern estate and the possibilities of the QEII but explicitly recognise what it means for this to be a world heritage site in terms of the purpose and quality of the conservation and its management, and the setting up of the historic buildings that make up the whole site. UNESCO has had its eye on us for many years and has not been pleased with what it has seen. It is not going to go away and it is not going to let us get away with the second-rate or the incomplete. This is what the sponsor body and the delivery authority need to think about.
I said that the Government were right to welcome many of the report’s proposals, but I worry that we may have been neither bold nor demanding enough in two important respects. On the fundamental and related characteristics of this place, there were two serious omissions from the list of core principles. One was the significance of the heritage of the building, which has been referred to. The second was the absence of a clear reference to sustaining the work of Parliament. Like the DNA model, these purposes and functions wind around each other. They make up the total statement of significance of this building. I am sure that the Leader of the House will deal with the first matter as she winds up, but I shall focus briefly on the latter.
I thank the Leader for what she has said, both in confirming in her own language the paramount importance of the heritage of this place and for confirming that the Government are bringing forward their own amendment. It is important that we see that amendment because there are, rightly, caveats to do with balance. The important thing is that heritage is in the Bill as a core principle. I was surprised and a little shocked that it was omitted in the first place; I thought that it would be a sine qua non, and the Joint Committee and Historic England thought so, too. The Government argued that it was redundant because the process was going through the planning system with all its checks and balances, but something totally fundamental was lost in translation here regarding the fact that so much is at stake, and so much reassurance needs to be communicated about the importance that we attach to the significance of this building.
Everyone knows that the planning process is the end of the conversation. The beginning is where you start with a shared agreement on why something is important, what has to be protected and what can be reasonably adjusted. Spelling that out in the Bill as one of the core purposes is very important when it comes to getting the changes right. That is what we will be talking about when we come to address the perceived, but not real, conflict between conserving the heritage and renovating the building. That goes to the heart of what my noble friend Lord Blunkett was talking about in relation to disability access—I will come on to say a bit more about that. The point is that the sponsor body should have the confidence to make judgments on the balance of necessity and what constitutes “reasonable adjustments” when developing proposals. So I will look hard at the amendment that the Government bring forward, but I certainly would not want to hold up the Bill in any way.
What does it mean to be responsible for the extraordinary, intangible heritage of this building? If we did not do it properly, not only would we signal dereliction of duty—that we did not understand what it meant to be curators and inhabitants of one of the world’s most important buildings—but we would simply fail to take account of and keep pace with all the things that have changed in the way that we manage and bring back to life our historic buildings. This place—and it is a place, not just a building—has been at the heart of our religious and political life for a millennium. In the past two centuries, it has spoken aloud the biography of this nation—and it still contains its original function, when so few historic buildings do. That makes it extremely important. Barry and Pugin agreed, in so far as they could, that this should be the showplace for the best of Parliament, as well as for the best of art, innovation, engineering and architecture. We should do no less.
So let me try to reassure noble Lords who think that conserving a heritage building will mean a whole procession of people saying no to imagination and action, and a failure to do what is required, whether that is adding better or more appropriate disabled access, or using new materials or technologies. Those days are over. The restoration of many of our historic buildings, whether they are cathedrals or coalmines, shows that with the right kind of thought and discussion, a way can be found around almost any barrier. Indeed, it is more than that. Ensuring good-quality access can enhance our understanding of the historic environment and its sustainability. It is called constructive conservation and Historic England has been doing it for many years now. This building is in our care and there will never be another chance to do anything as transformational as this, reviving trust and confidence by opening up the place and its courtyards to a more challenging life. It is about treating people not as visitors but as participants, welcoming them and ensuring that they know their role. Frankly, it means a national conversation that starts now. This Bill is a very good start.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, everyone who considers this Bill ought to first read the book the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to, Mr Barry’s War. It describes vividly the difficulties that Barry and Pugin had over the decades of building this Palace—it turned out to take decades, but it was not supposed to. The basic problem was that too many people had, or thought they had, a right to be in charge or be consulted as the rebuilding went on. This included the two Houses of Parliament that would occupy it; the Government who had to find the money; the monarchy, as it is a royal palace; the wider public; and numerous people from newspapers and so on, who wished to comment on it. At any given time, the individuals in these different elements did not agree among themselves and had different views. Also, these were not static institutions and did not have a single opinion on what should be done over the decades that followed. Members of Parliament changed, Ministers changed, and minds changed. All these factors are with us still and will be with us as this great project goes on. What the sponsor body is rightly designed to do is provide a single client to try to blend these opinions and put in a structured process for decision-making, approval by Parliament and the actual implementation.
Unlike in Barry’s day, we have agreed to decant—at least, I think we have. Clause 1(3) says:
“If either House of Parliament is located somewhere other than the Palace of Westminster”.
The use of the word “if” suggests some doubt. I hope and believe that there is no doubt in the minds of anyone, except perhaps parliamentary counsel, that it is essential to decant. Throughout the whole thing, the rule should be to make firm decisions after due consideration and not go back over them time and again. For example, I have argued before against the Lords going to the QEII centre and in favour of a temporary building in Victoria Tower Gardens, but the sponsor body and delivery authority must be allowed to make decisions on this, get approval from Parliament once they have done so, and then carry the responsibility. That is the purpose of the provisions of Clause 7 and the agreement provided for in Clause 6, which allow Parliament to have a say at these crucial stages. However, we must not constantly look over their shoulders or jog their elbows, but allow them to get on with it, unlike poor Barry.
Everyone realises that it will be very difficult to control expenditure during this process. I sit on your Lordships’ Finance Committee, and we frequently see the problems inherent in controlling expenditure on such projects. Currently, the two most high-profile projects are the Westminster Hall roof and the Elizabeth Tower, both large projects on iconic parts of the Palace. Their scaffolding alone is a work of art, though fortunately not yet regarded as a heritage asset to be preserved for a long time. The Westminster Hall project is running far above the original budget because, as the work proceeds, new factors have emerged which were not anticipated. Unexpected asbestos has been found in the roofs of both Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower. Extra work is needed to restore stonework, woodwork, metalwork and so on. The costs rise all the time, almost inevitably. It seems to me and my colleagues on the Finance Committee that the old military maxim “time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted” is important in this context. That has been attributed to military men all the way back to Sun Tzu, two and half millennia ago, and even he was quoting, apparently. It is important that the preliminary work is extremely detailed and thorough, with time being taken before decisions are made.
Having done the research and planning, decisions must be made and approval sought, after which Parliament, the sponsor body and everybody else concerned will need to be resolute and firm. They will be beset throughout by people wanting to spend less, saying that it is a waste of money, and by people wanting expensive variations on whatever has been decided. Archaeologists and historians have been much mentioned already, particularly in the wise speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who said some very important things. I am glad that the former chief executive of English Heritage, Simon Thurley, is one of the sponsor board members. I see his role in two halves. He obviously must look out for the heritage aspects of the building and its contents, but also do his best to ensure that heritage pressures from outside are focused and contained, otherwise they will endlessly delay the project and vastly increase the cost.
When I first came to this building, the best part of half a century ago, a lot of Pugin’s work was out of fashion, and a lot of ceiling and wall decorations were whitewashed. It was Sir Robert Cooke, the Member of Parliament for Bristol West, who some will remember, plugging away for years during and after his time as a Member of Parliament, who ensured that Pugin’s work was put back in the way we now see it. The members of the bodies that this Bill set up, and all the staff involved, have a high responsibility for one of our great national assets. We must allow them to do their work, following the procedures set out in the Bill, but without having to look unduly over their shoulders. I do not expect to be here when we move out of the building—let alone when we move back—because it will take some time, but I wish them well, and I wish the Bill well.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, if we are to modernise these Houses of Parliament for the next generation, and if there is to be a major programme of work, then I am sure that setting up a special-purpose vehicle is the way to go. I have no particular objections or embellishments to offer to the proposals in the Bill, which are well thought through and workable. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, they learn from the best practice of the Olympic Delivery Authority and other special-purpose vehicles established for such a purpose. I do not in any way object to the structure set up in the Bill if what we are to do is to modernise these Houses of Parliament, as a working Parliament for the next generation.
There is an issue which merits more consideration as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, particularly since it was hurried through the other place so rapidly—as the noble Baroness said, it went through there in two days. To be frank, I was shocked by how cursory the examination of the Bill was in the other place. One issue that we should spend more time considering is whether a wholesale modernisation of this House in these buildings is the right thing to do for our political democracy in the next generation or whether at this juncture, when we have a moment to plan for the century or century and a half to come—just as Pugin and Barry did in their time—we should seek to rebalance our political constitution and move Parliament away from London. I know that will be a revolutionary suggestion to noble Lords, and I do not expect for a moment that it would be agreed to in any rapid timeframe, but it is worth us considering it. The planning work for this complete refurbishment will take many years so it may be that further work on this issue could continue in parallel with the early planning work, not least because so little work has been done on the cost estimates.
To be frank, having now read all the documents to which the Leader and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred, at the moment all we have is a few back-of-the-envelope figures. There have been no proper costings and we have been told that one of the purposes of the new delivery authority is to produce and estimate the costings for the future. A figure of £4 billion has been touted but looking at the schedule of works, from my own experience in leading major infrastructure projects, I would say that any figure between £5 billion and £20 billion is credible at the moment for the scale of the works being talked about. Given the likely timescale, I would expect it to come out at the higher and not the lower end. It is also important to understand that the parliamentary estate which is not part of the Palace of Westminster is hugely valuable, not least buildings such as 1 Millbank. If they were to be sold as part of a relocation, that would realise an enormous capital sum which could go a long way towards making it affordable to make a move.
There are lots of issues which merit consideration. I am afraid that I am a natural reformer; I cannot see any institution without wanting to reform it, which is probably why I am on this side of the House rather than the other, so I am not in awe of the Barry and Pugin Houses of Parliament. As Pevsner said, the Palace of Westminster is,
“the most imaginatively planned and the most excellently executed major secular building of the Gothic revival”;
it is also true that it is probably the most recognisable building in the world besides the great Pyramid, the Taj Mahal and the Eiffel Tower. All of that is true but none of it would be affected by a decision to move the actual working of Parliament to another place. No one is talking of pulling these Houses of Parliament down; they would obviously be maintained. It is possible that their world heritage status, which my noble friend Lady Andrews referred to, would be enhanced by the working Parliament moving out because they would be much more accessible to the members of the public who want to study and are interested in Pugin.
My noble friend Lady Andrews, for whom I have the utmost respect, said that the Houses of Parliament are unusual in being one of the few historic buildings which retain their original purpose. If we could have an historical debate on this, I do not think that is the case at all. Most of the public buildings in this country—cathedrals, churches, schools, stations and town halls—are old but sometimes the institutions have moved. In particular, our most dynamic business institutions have tended to move to new sets of buildings. In the City, we have very successfully created a complete new sub-city in Canary Wharf to meet the needs of marrying the old and the new, without pulling down all the historic City of London, which would have been required if we were to ensure that a modern economy could co-exist with our old infrastructure.
It is also worth noting—and I feel this very strongly as a working Member of your Lordships’ House—that the Pugin and Barry design of Parliament is singularly inaccessible to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to Mr Barry’s War and I recommend to noble Lords Sir David Cannadine’s excellent essay in the book on the planning and origins of the Houses of Parliament. Pugin himself thought,
“the medieval world better than his own time”.
I had not realised until reading it, but it makes complete sense to me now that I inhabit these buildings every day that, as Sir David Cannadine says, they were intended to be anti-modern, anti-democratic and inaccessible. The Houses of Parliament were designed to be such. It is why the biggest entrance to this building is the Sovereign’s Entrance, which is used once a year. It is why all the most lavishly embellished public rooms are used least. They are essentially a backdrop for the State Opening of Parliament by the King or Queen. All these rooms are designed for that.
It brings to mind my only attempt to change anything in this House. I gave up quickly, I assure you, and I recommend that other new Members of the House do not try to influence in any way the work of the authorities of this House, because you will fail. I predict it. It is easier to try to reroute HS2 or affect Brexit than to change the way anything in this House operates. I made one attempt. I see the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in his place. Under his predecessor and the previous Black Rod, I made what I thought was a perfectly innocent suggestion. The Royal Gallery is the largest and least-used public room in this building by far. It is massively embellished and barely used at all. Why can it not be used to receive members of the public? Why not have some kind of coffee bar in there, as our mini-version of Portcullis House? I can already hear intakes of breath from the officials of the House as I say that.
On accessibility, it is hard to bring people into this building, but the obvious way is through the Sovereign’s Entrance. Let me immediately add, it could be restored with no change, and we could take the coffee bar out of the Royal Gallery for the State Opening of Parliament. Those of us of a certain age remember that that used to happen about once a year, but it appears to happen about once a century now. It may not be until the 22nd century that Her Majesty again opens Parliament in state. That could be done, but I was given 101 reasons why it could not. I will not bore the House with them, but one was that it would require the Queen’s consent. Black Rod thought that it would involve adjusting some of the tiles. I could go through all the reasons, but I gave up very rapidly.
Reading David Cannadine’s essay was instructive, because all those features of the Houses of Parliament that closed them to the public were designed that way, from the outset. Sir David Cannadine says:
“One of the architect’s prime concerns was to create a palace that would enhance the position and assert the prestige of the monarchy vis-à-vis the Lords, the Commons and the people”.
It is one of the reasons why the focus of the House of Lords is the throne, which is only used once a year. He says:
“Hence the Victoria Tower at the south-east corner, which on its completion in 1858 was the tallest secular building in the world, and beneath which was placed the magnificent Royal Entrance, which was exclusively for the use of the sovereign. Hence the succession of state apartments of unparalleled splendour”.
All reinforced the medieval image of the Palace, which was, as a conception,
“profoundly conservative, anti-democratic, anti-utilitarian and anti-industrial”.
All these issues are worth considering and have not been at all, so far, in how we take this forward.
I would like to speak for a few more minutes, because I do not intend to speak to my Motion later. The issue of moving the Houses of Parliament outside London is very real. Anyone with a long historical sense knows that Parliament’s location exclusively in London is relatively modern. In the medieval period, Parliament used to travel around the United Kingdom—mostly England then, although there was the phrase “towards Scotland”—with the King. In the 14th century, Parliament met 11 times in York, three times each in Lincoln and Northampton, and twice in Nottingham, Coventry and Reading. There were parliaments in Carlisle, Osney, Salisbury, Stamford, Winchester, Leicester and Bury St Edmunds. In the 1,000-year lifetime that we all go on about all the time, it is a relatively recent innovation for Parliament to meet exclusively in Westminster. It was another two centuries before the Houses of Parliament, where we are now, became its main meeting place, when Henry VIII moved to Whitehall Palace.
The question therefore is whether, in rebalancing our constitution, which is overwhelmingly dominated by London, there is a case for simply moving the Houses of Parliament outside London. I want to read out an exchange from the other place. It was the only moment—it lasted about two minutes—when the other place considered the fundamental issue of whether Parliament should move out of London, not just for a decant but for longer.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I appreciate that the noble Lord said that he was not going to speak later, but I remind him that the advisory speaking time is eight minutes.
Lord Adonis
It is an advisory time. I shall make one speech rather than two. I would be very happy to bore your Lordships with the second speech, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I finished my remarks and then did not need to make a second speech.
The matter was raised by a Plaid Cymru MP, Jonathan Edwards, who asked the following question of Andrea Leadsom, the then Leader of the House:
“The Leader of the House will be aware that nine of the 10 poorest parts of northern Europe are within Britain. Are the British Government not missing an ideal opportunity to decentralise power and wealth away from London and the south-east by relocating this Parliament somewhere else in the UK?”
That was a very good question to ask about this whole enterprise. The Leader of the House of Commons simply replied:
“Moving away from this Parliament permanently to another location … would require entirely relocating Government”.
I do not see that the one follows from the other in the modern age. The resources of Whitehall directly related to servicing Parliament are small; they are ministerial offices and those officials who deal immediately with Parliament. It would be perfectly possible to have Parliament in one place and the bulk of the Civil Service in another. My right honourable friend Yvette Cooper then asked a more fundamental question of Andrea Leadsom:
“Has the Leader of the House actually done any assessment of the costs of relocating … Government Departments out of London?”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/19; cols. 637-41.]
For those of us who think that this country has overcentralised its political system in London, if moving Parliament out of London also means relocating some government departments out of London, it gets better and better. It might give us the opportunity to rebalance our constitution and political system particularly within England, which is overwhelmingly dominated by London and the south-east, sapping so much vitality from the parts of the country beyond. These issues deserve wider exploration in Committee.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House began by saying that this was a technical Bill, and strictly it is. It narrows down to setting up the mechanism that we need to go forward with restoration and renewal. However, it is a Second Reading debate and I notice that our colleagues in the other place dilated around the Bill’s central proposition—which is also happening here in your Lordships’ House.
I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who said that we appear to be in a hurry. That is certainly not the impression of someone who has spent time in the House of Commons dealing with some of the arguments the noble Lord has deployed today and which I thought had been well and truly sorted out. The idea that we should start looking backwards when there is every urgent need to look forward I do not find very helpful.
Lord Haselhurst
If the noble Lord will forgive me, we have very limited time.
Lord Haselhurst
And we do not have add-on time, as in the other place.
It is true that we are, as a clientele, a difficult body of people to satisfy, because there are many lively ideas as to how we should proceed. If there are concerns, it is right that they should be examined. The extraordinary thing is that the public seem more satisfied than the two Houses of Parliament about what is intended and that, given their affection for this place and understanding of it as an icon of parliamentary representative democracy which the world also admires, they recognise that it needs to be repaired and be the continuing Parliament of this country. Their expectation is clearly that we will do the work and return here, and any other expectations are mistaken.
However, the renewal of the building might prove trickier, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, hinted. After all, projecting perhaps 15 years ahead, we do not know how many Members there will be in each House—their number might have been drastically reduced. The methods of working we will undertake as elected Members of Parliament and as Members of this House may alter considerably, so how can we be absolutely certain that we are equipping the building, both in electric power—whatever power we choose—and the form of office space we need? Will our needs be the same as they are now? Of course, many of us believe that we are still seriously behind on the IT front anyway, despite the best efforts of the Parliamentary Digital Service.
Then there is the question of the new space to be created. I have not seen any full account of what might become available, beyond the fact that some space will be released underground. There will also be the possibility of glazing over some of the courtyards, as has been done in other Parliaments, creating a lot of attractive space to assist Members meeting their constituents—using not necessarily the Royal Gallery but rather more tailor-made accommodation. As for what should be the priorities, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about access, but it is not just about access for the disabled, however important that is, but access for all visitors to this place. At the moment, they are kept outside, in spartan conditions. We encourage them, by the sensible use of public money, to come from all parts of the United Kingdom to visit this Parliament and we put them in a queue, whether it is hot, cold, wet or whatever, with no protection. This is ludicrous.
The other side of that coin is that because we have been spending so much effort on trying to keep unwanted people out of the place, when we actually need to get people out in an emergency, it is very difficult indeed. Anyone who has taken part in the fire drills we have had must scratch their heads in wonderment as to what we are learning from them. It seems to me that any Member in any part of this building has to know, when entertaining visitors in particular, the quickest way to safety. That is by no means clear and our efforts have not helped to make people fully conscious of what they should be doing.
There is a real issue about passage between the two Houses in their new locations. I would like to think that careful research will be done on the possibility of tunnels connecting them. Anyone who knows Capitol Hill in Washington knows that it is possible to move from one building to another in entirely secure circumstances. Two Underground lines go through Parliament Square, so I do not pretend it is easy, but this is a matter of security. I do not believe that the risk of being attacked will lessen in future years; therefore, we should think of this as an opportunity to see whether we can provide totally safe passage. I would also go on to look at Parliament Square. We are unfortunately placed in that respect, but I would like to push the perimeter out. It has been talked about as being too difficult and so on, but what comes first? The safety of this building and the safety of the people who work in it and visit it, quite apart from that of Members themselves. It is a target and we must do everything we can to frustrate any evil directed at it.
I have one or two specific points. It was asked in the other place whether there was any possibility, in the timescale we are contemplating, that the Elizabeth Tower, when the work there is completed, could be reopened to the public. I do not know whether that is practical, but I can see the point of considering it and I would like a definitive answer. Of course, it is very difficult to get people up there in the first place; nevertheless, it will be a further attraction in the future. More important is Westminster Hall. I would like to know, when all the present work has been done in Westminster Hall, whether it can be effectively sealed off for the period of the decant, so that we can have the opportunity to bring people in at St Stephen’s Entrance and take them through on a conducted tour, telling the story of Parliament. There would also be the opportunity of the gift shop and the cafeteria, but also, more seriously, of having Westminster Hall as a place of debate, as used by the other place. I just think we should be sure whether that is possible.
I want to say a word about the Archives. I suspect I am one of the few people who has visited the Archives. It was never necessary to consult them in all my years as an elected Member of Parliament, yet we keep them in the most appalling conditions in the Victoria Tower. I would have them out of there to as far away as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, might want to take them to counterbalance things. They would be another point of interest about Parliament. That would then release a great deal of space for your Lordships’ House.
If there are any doubters left—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not really one of them—Mr Barry’s War has been commended as essential reading. I absolutely agree. Putting a good structure in place to move forward is now imperative.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, just said about the Archives. There are real risks in maintaining them in their present physical location.
As has been noted by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Newby, I served on the Joint Committee on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, the report of which was published in September 2016, almost three years ago. That paved the way for the Bill before us today, via resolutions that were passed by each House of Parliament in the early weeks of 2018.
I have a vivid memory of the day before that Joint Committee first sat in September 2015 of visiting the internal works in the basement of the Palace of Westminster. I was struck by the state of the mechanical and electrical services and rapidly concluded that doing nothing, kicking the can down the road, was not an option. Indeed, that was very much the conclusion that the Joint Committee came to. It identified an overwhelming need for the works to go ahead, and that they should be undertaken most effectively by a full decant of the Palace of Westminster. The Joint Committee made recommendations about the governance, especially for a sponsor body comprising Members of both Houses as well as external members, and a delivery authority with necessary technical expertise, and about the necessity for clear accountability for Parliament to be responsive to the requirements of the public, staff and Members.
These recommendations are largely reflected in the Bill before us. There has of course been the addition of the estimates commission and an understanding of the inevitable sensitivity about cost and the monitoring of it. I suspect that is probably a worthwhile addition to the Bill.
One of the other things we reflected on was timing, and we tried to convey a sense of urgency in that report. Admittedly, we did not anticipate the 2017 general election, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will recall that we had in mind that all who were elected in what we then thought would be a 2020 general election should have an opportunity to speak in the House of Commons before decant, and that those who were elected in the 2025 general election should have the opportunity to speak in the actual House of Commons after Parliament returned.
I am not quite sure what kind of timeline is anticipated now, but we took the view that, because of the deteriorating condition of the Palace of Westminster, the R&R programme should begin at the earliest possible date. I note Clause 1(3), which I think is faithful to the terms of the resolutions passed by both Houses. It says,
“the functions under this Act in relation to the works must be exercised with a view to facilitating the return of that House to the Palace of Westminster as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
That is a very welcome sentiment, but we are entitled to ask what it is anticipated that it will mean in practice. When replying to the debate, could the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House tell us the current thinking on the timeline?
I was somewhat alarmed by paragraph 160 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which rehearses some of the difficulties and possible delays in the Northern Estate programme, with particular reference to Richmond House and the Ministry of Defence car park. It refers to,
“delay (possibly resulting in decant being postponed for several years, until 2028)”.
In other words, it suggests the possibility of the decant starting just around the time that the Joint Committee on which I served thought we would be coming back into the Palace of Westminster. Given the risks of staying on this building—the risks of incremental failure and the risk of a significant failure—it would be useful to hear what is being done to try to tackle and reduce some of these possible delays, not least in relation to Richmond House and the Ministry of Defence car park.
Another issue of great importance is parliamentary accountability. Of course, the real clients are the public—the citizens of the United Kingdom—who wish not only to preserve our heritage but to see a Parliament that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. However, we also know that day to day, in practical terms, the Members of both Houses—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, have some pretty strong views on things and do not hesitate to make them known—have the potential to be quite demanding as this project proceeds. That is why it is important that we have a sponsor body.
Sir David Natzler, the former Clerk of the House of Commons, in his evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, indicated that Sir Charles Barry had had to appear before over 100 parliamentary committees because there was not a sponsor body; my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to Mr Barry’s War and the importance of being able to channel and focus the legitimate concerns and interests of Members of each House. It is important that each House balances accountability and oversight on one hand with not wanting to micromanage on the other. We should let the bodies that we are creating with this Bill get on with the job.
Clause 6(2) of the Bill provides for the possibility of a parliamentary relationship agreement; the content of that agreement will be important. Paragraph 103 of the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill recommends that,
“parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body should be responsible for answering parliamentary questions”,
and that that should be dealt with in the parliamentary relationship agreement rather than in the Bill. Again, it would be helpful if we could get some indication as to the current thinking on this. Is it, for example, as with the Church Commissioners in the other place or the Senior Deputy Speaker here, who often are able to come to be Dispatch Box and answer on behalf of other bodies? It might be useful to have a member of the sponsor body who is a Member of your Lordships’ House, who would be identified as the person who perhaps responded to debates or Questions when they were raised by Members.
As regards the duties on the sponsor board, I welcome the duty specified in Clause 2(4)(h); the noble Baroness the Leader of the House indicated that that was brought in by amendment in the other place and that the Government will wish to reflect on it. On the one hand, we do not want to become too specific, but it is important that we try to find ways in which the benefits—the work that will be created for small and medium-sized enterprises—can be shared across the United Kingdom. Also, we should look in particular at the importance of and the opportunity for apprenticeships, particularly in specialist skills in the heritage and conservation sector. That was brought home to us very much on the Joint Committee. To be able to train people up in these specialist skills would be a worthwhile legacy, but not to do it could lead to delays and bottlenecks. Therefore, as paragraph 306 of the Joint Committee report said in September 2016:
“Conducting the works in one phase will make a significant demand on market capacity … A wide range of specialist trades will be required in a short space of time, and the Delivery Authority will need to be able to be capable of managing a large and complex supply chain”.
Therefore I very much hope that, while it may be going too far to specify apprenticeships in the Bill, nevertheless we will get some acknowledgement of the importance of that and of addressing the need for specialist skills, which has been identified. Perhaps some indication could also be given as to what has already been done to deal with market engagement.
There is a huge challenge here: value for money, and balancing heritage with practicability and legitimate issues such as access. However, as the Public Accounts Committee of the other place said in its 45th report, we should be getting on with it. The most efficient thing is to get on with it. That is what I hope we will do, and why I hope we will give the Bill a good passage through your Lordships’ House.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to consider the restoration and renewal programme. I must thank those who have worked so hard to get this important legislation to its Second Reading.
As with all of us, I have an interest in the impact of R&R on our ability to exercise our legislative duties. As a relatively young Member, I may have more interest than others in the building that the R&R programme delivers. Like many of the working-age population whom Parliament expects soon to be funding this project, I have not closely followed the previous debates, so excuse me if I raise concerns that have been covered elsewhere. I am keen that we use this process to educate both the public and ourselves.
I agree with the decision to renew the infrastructure of this Palace, and I agree wholly with decanting both Houses to do so. If a way could be devised to tour Parliament affordably around the regions, I would embrace it as a means of taking this institution closer to the populations we serve. I note that my family first served in the Lords in the 1280s, when your Lordships sat in Shrewsbury. If we could do it then, I am sure we can do it now. We would bend over backwards to welcome Parliament to Devon, and I will strongly support the more that can be done throughout this programme to benefit the regions and not just London—whether that be a regional decant or, as is more likely, the use of the best regional suppliers and craftsmen, of which so many reside in the south-west of England.
I must declare a further interest. I am the owner and operator of a heritage enterprise with similarities to this one. Along with AJ, my wife, I own a family-owned heritage SME which, like Westminster, began life as a medieval family home, a centre of hospitality and regional administration. It, too, has been much assaulted, altered and expanded since, but its mediaeval core remains. Like Powderham Castle, Westminster is a listed heritage asset but is still a working institution doing the same job now as it did when it was built. Like Westminster, Powderham also received its last comprehensive modernisation in the mid-1800s, with the addition of a vast quantity of Victorian heraldic decoration, which tells a particularly British history through pseudo-Gothic armorial devices. Also like the Parliamentary Estate, we constantly manage disrepair. Our predecessors did not postpone essential works for as long as your Lordships’ predecessors, but we ask restoration and renewal questions daily, while also interpreting for visitors a complex social and architectural history.
I was surprised to learn just how little we know about medieval Westminster and how much there is to find out. If we are decanting and the site becomes available for research, surely we are under a cultural obligation to investigate. This will be the archaeological opportunity of our generation and, as we are all aware, archaeology allows us to retell the stories we have learnt about ourselves. As to medieval English history, it permits us to challenge the dogma of the great Elizabethan propagandist, Shakespeare. For example, in 2015 I attended the reinterment of Richard III. The remarkable discovery of our last Plantagenet king under a car park in Leicester captured the world’s imagination and redefined that King who, far from being an evil hunchback, was revealed as a liberal administrator who enshrined the right to jury trial and had but slight scoliosis of the spine.
Similarly, archaeology teaches us that, far from being the heroic, blood-soaked champion of Agincourt, Henry V was a sensitive Renaissance prince who chose to be buried alongside his childhood best friend, a bishop called Richard. During Pride month, archaeological discoveries such as these are crucial to making our nation’s history more accessible and much more relevant. Imagine what archaeology could unearth here. I have only scratched the surface—to use an archaeological pun—but the marble King’s Table in Westminster Hall, the cloisters containing tombs of early Plantagenet royalty and Edward III’s Garter Chapel of St Stephen are all here to be explored.
The Commons amended the Bill at Clause 2(4)(g) specifically to include that the sponsor body have regard to “educational and other facilities”. What is a more important educational facility than the complete archaeological history of the mother of all parliaments? It would be culturally negligent to pass up this opportunity, particularly as this country’s research capacity in medieval archaeology and history is second to none.
MPs also pressed for the inclusion of heritage as a matter to which the sponsor body must have regard, and I understand that Historic England supports the amendment. I agree that the issue should be considered afresh by your Lordships and I look forward to debating the amendment, but what heritage is to be the focus? Is it Barry and Pugin’s very Victorian heritage, or that of earlier, equally transformative ages—the Anglo-Saxon origins, the Norman conquest, the Plantagenet empire or the Tudor revolution in government? I note that the Victorians are no longer on the national curriculum, but the Anglo-Saxons are.
I would encourage a more expansive understanding of the heritage we are restoring. It should not be just a like-for-like restoration of, to coin a phrase used in the other place, Pugin and Barry’s,
“mock-Gothic Victorian tourist attraction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/19; col. 659.]
We would miss a trick if we returned to this Chamber in 10, 15, 20 or possibly 25 years’ time and, having spent billions of pounds, noticed no difference, as has been suggested by some.
We have all been warned how dysfunctional was the process by which the Palace, in its current form, came to be and the 50-plus committees that designed it. Why would we want to preserve so slavishly a building designed by 50-plus committees of misogynistic, Empire-building Victorian gentlemen telling exclusively their interpretation of British history? This is an ancient medieval building that needs to stay alive. No previous generation, presented with the need to overhaul the Palace, would do so with the aim of restoring everything so that you notice no difference, at the lowest possible price, with minimal interference and having it completed as soon as possible.
I am also enthusiastic about making the Palace accessible to all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about the need to improve disabled access and speed up access for all. However, in considering accessibility, can we also please consider the accessibility of the stories we tell? Rows upon rows of Christian white men’s heraldic devices are not necessarily accessible to the United Kingdom’s diverse population. I personally may know and care about what the coats of arms mean—my family arms appear much more than most—but do others really care as much?
I note the pertinent timing of this R&R programme. We are busy asserting Parliament’s sovereignty in exiting Europe and celebrating the supremacy of Westminster, yet we appear to be ignoring a prime opportunity to renew this Palace for the 21st century. Indeed, I am surprised that this is not a key issue in the leadership debates between Messrs Johnson and Hunt.
Finally, I need to speak to some details. A full cost benefit analysis is required. Those unfamiliar with R&R will be shocked by the £5 billion to £10 billion figure being bandied about. If we are to spend that much money, we need not only a lasting and contemporary legacy but to justify the cost explicitly. I encourage the sponsor body to work with the local council on planning and not to incorporate planning provision solely in the Bill. The expertise of the excellent local conservation officers is not to be ignored; local authorities can also provide an experienced local presence in the design and consent phase of the works.
I hope that these issues will be considered so that we have not only a complete and consistent programme of restoration and renewal but a full financial and cultural justification for the works being undertaken.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, who brings a sense of history to some of the challenges that we face. As the Leader of the House said, I was a member of the Joint Committee; I am also a member of the shadow sponsorship board.
I want to take this opportunity to compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her joint chairing of the committee. Frankly, without her guidance, we would not be here today; she made a significant difference. I also want to take the opportunity to report on the sense of the shadow sponsorship board. I can convey that four emotions are at play. First, it understands accountability and is absolutely clear about it. Secondly, its responsibilities are clear. Thirdly, there is a sense of trepidation. Fourthly, there is a sense of delight about what we can and will be able to achieve.
The fact that we have the Bill in front of us is a matter of great relief and satisfaction. We do not need to go into the history of lost opportunities and mistakes made; a number of noble Lords have made the powerful point that we need to learn the lessons of Parliament and Barry. We do not want to go down the same track; we therefore need the structure outlined in the Bill to present a governance format that we can follow.
As other Members have noted, this is a huge, enormous project. If you incorporate the Northern Estate—which is so vital, because without that we cannot effectively do the decant—we have a very significant work to achieve. Anybody who has ever worked on anything to do with restoration and renewal, whether a small conversion or something larger, knows the certainty of the unexpected. We have to look only at the experience of the Elizabeth Tower, which is probably going to cost twice what was stated in the outline business case. It is perhaps meaningful and informative for us to know why. As work started, we discovered that the stone was friable; you could not fix the scaffolding to it. Until one had made a detailed survey, it was practically impossible to put a cost on it.
Going forward, the critical thing to maintain the confidence of all stakeholders—parliamentarians, the public and everybody out there—is that the whole thing is transparent. We have to get across the message that this is a dynamic project: things will change and need to be re-presented and explained. As we roll forward—this will be possibly 15 or 20 years in the making—that will determine the success of the project: how we are able to communicate and carry people with us. The good thing about the Bill is that we divide it into two phases. We can pause when we know roughly what this will cost, and we can take account of it and make sure we communicate that properly.
I will make two specific points, which have been made very well by other noble Lords. The first is that we should let the people we appoint and hire to manage this project do so with a necessary degree of inspection, of course, but with as little interference as possible. We cannot have this whole thing run by committee. We saw the contrast between the original building of the Palace and what happened with the Olympics, which had the same structure and was delivered much more effectively, on time and within budget.
Secondly, this need to be a one-nation project. We know there are procurement issues but, working our way around that, we want to make sure we get the work spread across the country as much as we can. Sometimes we need to go back to where we got the original material and use it. Sadly, in the case of the stone, the quarry at Rotherham was worked out some years ago, and I think it is now a lake you can sail on.
We have had a wide discussion. We have heard from many noble Lords about the whole challenge we face. The key is that we are entering this knowing what we are doing. This is not an act of blind faith but something that has been well considered. Everybody is acutely aware that we need to do this well.
One of the things that has cheered me in recent weeks is the groups of children being shown around the Palace of Westminster. I suggest that even their untutored eyes can see the extent of the deterioration in the whole of the fabric. It is for them and for those generations, because they are the ones who will live and benefit from it, that we must be sure we do a good job. That means addressing all the issues. My noble friend Lord Blunkett addressed the whole issue of disability, access and education. All those things need to be melded together so that when those people are in their 70s and 80s, they look back and say, “That was a wise decision”.
This is the moment when we need to commit and make it work. We cannot keep going back and changing specifications and things. It is a dynamic project—I have said that—but we need the commitment of this Bill. I therefore strongly support the Bill and wish it safe passage through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for introducing this Second Reading of the Bill, which I welcome and support. As was referred to, I acted as a member of the recent Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill. It was there that one appreciated the enormous challenges this project faces. The overall financial cost, including the decant of Members from this House and another place, the provision for all members of staff—I do not mean just Members’ staff—and the temporary disruption of public access are just a few of the immediate practical problems needing to be resolved. The question we faced was whether the Bill is fit for purpose. My answer to that is undoubtedly yes, although I welcome the amendments already agreed and those yet to come.
I am grateful to my right honourable friend Caroline Spelman for her chairmanship of the committee, enabling us to take evidence from a wide range of contributors in a very short time. We agreed that the Palace of Westminster needs to be extensively restored and that a patch-and-mend approach is just not possible. In our summary, we go on to say:
“Above all, we urge that swift progress is made with the Bill so that the shadow Sponsor Body can start its work with all the powers and authority it needs”.
The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 8 May this year, where the vast majority of Members supported the principle of restoration and renewal of the Palace. As my noble friend said, during the Bill’s passage two amendments were accepted—one on external members of the shadow sponsor body and the other on educational facilities—and the House is to come back with amendments on corporate responsibility. The committee debated for a long while how we can make people feel that this renewal and restoration is part of the whole country, rather than a London or south-based project. The contracts should bring economic benefits to the nations and regions of the UK.
The trouble with speaking so late in the debate is that others have mentioned many things. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said about apprenticeships. This is a wonderful opportunity to give youngsters, and indeed more mature people, a chance to learn new skills and be part of the rebuild.
It is estimated that the physical restoration of the Palace and its infrastructure will form some 75% to 80% of the total works. I am glad that the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s report supports some of our recommendations. Clearly, the scrutiny of the work, the need to hold the sponsor body to account and the role of parliamentarians in the development of stages are key to its successes.
Lastly, the committee was concerned that without a definitive completion date, it is possible that the project might lose momentum. We are all very much aware of that and do not wish it to happen.
Others have covered the restoration side so well, so I return, if I might, to questions on the renewal side. The committee had quite a lot of discussions about what we expect from this building in the future, what the general public’s participation will be and how we can make it work better. I have six prime concerns.
My first concern is that the safety of Members, the public and all staff must be achieved. But what about road access and, as my noble friend Lord Haselhurst referred to, the time the public spend outside, getting wet, before they can finally come into the building? We must resolve this problem; in this day and age, it is unacceptable.
Secondly, the new building should encompass easier access throughout for those with disabilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. This time last year, I broke my ankle and then realised how difficult it is to get around the building without knowing where the lifts are and, if you are lucky enough to find them, how they connect with each other. It is not just a question of disability access into the building but of access for those who have disabilities to get around it once inside.
Thirdly, new technology should be sought to improve lighting, heating, sound and other such basics. For example, it is ridiculous that if somebody is using a loop in a committee room, the rest of us can hardly hear what is going on; and if those of us without hearing difficulties can hear, the poor person with a loop facility that is not on cannot hear. That must be addressed.
Fourthly, we should review the way Parliament engages with the public, both within the building and via modern media links—there are tremendous opportunities there.
Fifthly, the Palace should continue to be an international tourist attraction. When this building was built all those years ago it was not for education or as a tourist attraction but as a Parliament. However, it is a heritage site and we have an opportunity to look to the future to see how we can use it better. I welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forward an amendment particularly on the heritage side.
The last of my six pleas is for a great improvement in our educational opportunities. I know that we do a great deal of work with our outreach programme and that on any morning you will 500 or 600 children coming through. However, it is about more than that. It is an opportunity to tell the public about the work of Parliament and what we do here—how it works rather than its physical side, which most people come to see. It is a great opportunity.
I am grateful to all those who gave evidence to our committee, which highlighted the importance of working together and giving time for consultation and feedback. I thank Liz Peace for her willingness to submit the extra information we required. As was recognised in the debates in the other place, the Leaders of both Houses need to work closely together. We recognise the Government’s response to our report and we wish the Bill well. However, speed is essential.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I start by reminding the House that I am a member of the shadow sponsor body. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the clarity and focus of the members of the sponsor body in delivering this project. I can assure the House that, even though we are still in shadow form, we are behaving as much as we can as if we were doing the job and, therefore, a huge amount is already going on. However, there comes a point where we need to be on a statutory footing, and that is why we need the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Liz Peace and the other external members, who are working well over and above their expected time commitment to come up to speed, not only with the project and the labyrinthine way in which we make decisions but on how their special expertise can be used to best effect.
The time has come when we must get on with it and get the project off the ground. It is not to Parliament’s credit that this building has been allowed to deteriorate to its current form. I often think that we are so accustomed to that deterioration that we do not see it any more. We do not see the portakabins in the courtyards because there is no space; or the large parts of the building that are covered in scaffolding because the masonry is falling off; or the piles of unwanted material cluttering up the ground floor because there is not anywhere to put it— the fire risk has already been referred to by the noble Baroness in her opening—or the constant and expensive patching up of the mechanical and electrical services. Through all of these we plough on regardless.
What we are doing to the heritage here is tragic. I have been here for almost 20 years and have only just realised that there is a mediaeval cloister in the House of Commons and that this historic gem is in a state of serious disrepair. The one fact that really struck home to me—which, to my shame, I had not realised—is that in this entire Palace there is only one lift that meets modern accessibility criteria. That is disgraceful.
The Joint Committee has done a great job. It has pointed out—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to this—that restoration and renewal brings forward a chance for democratic renewal. However, I would add that, in this most conservative of institutions, restoration and renewal can also be a catalyst for operational renewal in areas such as catering, support functions such as IT and security, visitors, education and so on. When I talk about Parliament in the context of this work, I mean the whole of Parliament as an institution and not only the Members.
It is a very complicated project. It has many technical challenges in a confined space in a world heritage site, with the complexities of all the different activities that we need this building to deliver, whether as a home for our democracy, an operational Parliament, a workplace for many, a visitor attraction, an educational resource and so much more. So Parliament made the right decision 18 months ago when it decided to use the model successfully used for the Olympics—I am glad the scrutiny committee supported that. That committee focused attention on the relationship between the sponsor body and the delivery authority that it will establish in statutory form. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in his opening remarks, it is a well-trodden, contractual relationship—or should be.
For me, the key is that for everything to work, the brief set by the sponsor body, acting as the single client, must be clear and not subject to constant change. The most important relationship is that between Parliament itself and the sponsor body. For the sponsor body to act as the single client effectively, it can certainly take the lead, but it is not Parliament. The democratic renewal of which I spoke earlier must be led by Parliament itself. The sponsor body should reflect the wishes of Parliament, certainly by offering up ideas and options, but mostly by looking at how the current Parliament’s aspirations can be met and ensuring that future aspirations are not stopped.
The same goes for operational renewal. It is not for the sponsor body to tell Parliament how to run its security, catering or visitor management, but rather to explore with Parliament what opportunities there might be for more efficient, effective and imaginative services.
The sponsor body is ambitious, and Parliament should be too. From much of the work the sponsor body has done so far in talking to many Members and staff, it is quite clear that there is a lot we could do right now. We do not have to wait for restoration and renewal, but we are so conservative that we never change anything. Many of the questions raised by Members and staff about restoration and renewal are about not the building work itself but how the building will be used. That should be in the hands of noble Lords and the Administration, not the shadow sponsor body.
We have heard a lot about Caroline Shenton’s book, and she gave us a copy when we started. The previous Clerk of the House of Commons commented that Barry needed a sponsor body. I am sure that may be right, but we must be realistic that the sponsor body itself is not a magic bullet. Parliament has a responsibility to be ambitious and to make this work. Parliamentary oversight of the work after the event is important, but the real value lies in engagement before the decisions are made, really understanding the potential consequences of particular options and aspirations and guiding the sponsor body accordingly.
The approach taken in the Bill envisages key milestones in the project which require parliamentary approval and an estimates committee with financial oversight powers. There will be a serious focus on communications between the sponsor body and Parliament, but we need to give more thought to how that will work the other way round: how Parliament is going to communicate with the sponsor body. There is potentially a very important role for the Deputy Speaker, the Services Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the arts and heritage committee. Then there will be the usual mechanism of debates and questions, all of which will play an important part. The sponsor body has established a set of key strategic objectives, which include health and safety, security, accessibility, heritage, effective working and value for money. Very few people would disagree with any of them. The job of the sponsor body is to commission a project that delivers as many of them as possible, but there will be points where Parliament will have choices to make. They may be difficult choices, and Parliament will need to be very clear about where its priorities lie.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far, with a really fascinating speech from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We learned a lot from it that we did not know about this building. There was also a gentle introduction from my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles, whom I find it difficult to disagree with but I am going to have to do so on this occasion. However, this debate does not represent a consensus as I understand it. Only my noble friend Lord Adonis has expressed some dissent, as I am about to do.
Going around listening to colleagues, I think that more and more people are getting more and more worried about the course we have set out on. Most of the speakers have been involved in some way—on the committees or the boards—in moving this forward, and they know they are moving in this direction, but so did the captain of the “Titanic”. He knew where he was going but he did not see the iceberg ahead. Sometimes we need to step back and think about that.
My really strong objection is that no proper consideration has been given to the alternative of a purpose-built Parliament, preferably in some other part of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that would provide a great impetus to places such as York, Birmingham or some other part of the United Kingdom. I am surprised at my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others who normally advocate a move in that direction. A purpose-built Parliament would also be better for security, which could be built in from the start, and it would be better for Members. We could have offices for Members so that we could work properly instead of being in little groups packed into this building.
Lord Blunkett
I do not normally do this but I cannot resist just pointing out that, in the early part of his speech, my noble friend Lord Adonis said that he would advise any new Member that it was quite unlikely that anything revolutionary would ever happen here. I just point to my noble friend that the idea of moving the whole shebang is an exercise in total futility.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
You can say that but you cannot prove it. It is not an exercise in futility. It has happened in other countries and has worked well, so you cannot argue that it is futile. What is being proposed is an exercise in total futility. After all, this House will not have the present composition or the current function for ever—at least, I hope that it does not; I hope that it will change.
Even if we do not move to Birmingham, York or somewhere else, we could still have a purpose-built Parliament in London. It would not help in the redistribution of wealth and power in the countries concerned but at least it would provide a purpose-built building fit for the 21st century. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about this building providing a Parliament fit for the 21st century, but it does not matter what you do to this building, it will never do that. It will never provide proper disabled access or have proper security.
What are we going to have? I went to a briefing about this with the lady who chairs the shadow committee. We were given an indication that we are going to be decanted for 10 years, moving out in 2025 and moving back in in 2035, so for 10 years we will try to operate as we do at the moment. What will happen to Joint Committees of the two Houses when we are in the QEII centre and the House of Commons is in Richmond House? What will happen to the CPA, the IPU and the all-party groups? What will happen to the informal contacts, which are increasingly essential to the work of this Parliament? What about security when people go between those two buildings? That will not be very easy. I asked about parking but the committee did not know. At the moment there is parking for Members of both Houses but there will not be during those 10 years. I come in on the No. 3 bus, so I am not worried about it, but a lot of my noble friends do not. They drive in and need to find somewhere to park, but that will not be possible. What is going to happen to the Library during the decant period? There is no answer to that. This is an outrageous suggestion. We really have ended up with a dog’s breakfast.
One argument—it was repeated today by the Leader of the House—is that we should look at what happened to Notre Dame. However, the fires at Notre Dame and Windsor happened during restoration and renewal, and the fires at the Glasgow School of Art also happened during restoration and renewal—twice. When people are working in this place we can detect whether there is a danger of fire and we are protected, but fires seem to happen during restoration and renewal, so do not imagine that this will be a solution to that risk. If we are not going to have any new build, why do we have to have this long and cumbersome decant that will cause so many problems? If we are not going to have a new build immediately, let us at least try to make the best of it. Let us make do and mend in this building. It can be done. We could move back to long Summer Recesses. The work could be done in those periods bit by bit. There is no impossibility.
I missed out something earlier when I was talking about building a new Parliament. I do not suggest that in the long term we abandon this building. It could be used more productively, and the work could be done without panic or rush because we wanted to get back into it: it could become a very good museum, a centre for the study of democracy. As my noble friend Lord Maxton has suggested, we could have reconstructions of famous events in political history in each Chamber for people to come in and see. We could have a whole educational opportunity for young people, who we have been talking about, to come in and look at history. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, there is much more to this place than just the Victorian history that Pugin and Barry left us. There is much more to the whole building. I am not sure that as far as Scots are concerned Westminster Hall is the best place to remember our history, but it would still be a very good centre for people to come to.
I urge the people concerned in all seriousness to look at this again. We are heading towards disaster. I am putting my mark here: I predict that whoever becomes Prime Minister, whether Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn—the latter is possible, although whether it is desirable is another matter—when faced with this proposal for billions of pounds to be spent on Parliament when there are so many other priorities, will not approve it. The whole project from now on is doomed.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is quite formidable to follow such a worrying speech of disaster and doom, but I would like to return to a more optimistic tone because I for one am very hopeful for this project. Having been involved in the infrastructure industry in the past, I have a great belief in the British ability to deliver major projects. I am filled with hope for what can be achieved in this exciting restoration project.
However, there is one aspect of it that I shall dwell on, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his excellent speech: the question of access and education. It is my belief that the determinant of success—how we will be judged by posterity, our children and the public—is not whether we answer security problems, heritage issues or create a comfortable arrangement for ourselves with our offices. We will be judged on whether this restoration and renewal programme helps to rebuild the connection between Parliament and the people.
There are some incredibly valuable opportunities to do so. Bringing more people on to the estate and having a much better approach to access will do a lot to bridge and heal the current disconnect. There is something really special about having people attending Parliament itself—being in the building and participating in education programmes housed in this building and the buildings nearby. We really have to think about how we can take full advantage of that opportunity.
These are precedents that have been maximised in other places. The Reichstag in Berlin, where the magnificent glass roof designed by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, shines light on to democracy, has a basement with a wonderful educational facility that we should emulate. The Capitol Building in Washington DC had a massive educational facility put in the hill underneath the Senate and the House of Representatives. We should think of that as a great precedent.
Clause 2(4)(f) and (g) make it clear that the sponsor body should ensure that Parliament is accessible to members of the public and that there is an education dimension to the project. However, I am concerned that this is not the full focus of the sponsor body. I was concerned that, on 7 May this year, the parliamentary authorities rejected the very sensible recommendations of the joint committee on the Bill that the sponsor body should have regard to the need to promote public engagement with and understanding of Parliament. For me, that was a great shame and a missed opportunity.
The Leader of the House of Commons and the Leader of this House said in explanation:
“We believe it is the role of Parliament to increase public understanding of its work and therefore do not feel this recommendation should be included in the Bill”.
I am not sure I agree with the logic of this, but we will probably have to live with it. It begs the question of who will champion access and education for this project. Public money will have to spent very wisely and difficult choices made about space, the management of public access, resources and investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, put it very well and asked who will actually fight for this cause. My noble friend Lord Haselhurst put very well the kind of challenges the public face. Who will take responsibility for improving them? Without a clear mandate to put access and education at the heart of the project, I am worried that they will be overlooked.
Secondly, I am concerned about what the objective for parliamentarians will be. If responsibility for access and education is going to lie with Parliament, it is right that we give designers and project managers a very clear signal and something to work towards. I have a specific suggestion that I would like to share with noble Lords. I suggest that Parliament should make the simple commitment that every school student in the land should visit the Houses of Parliament at some point in their school career. After all, young people are key to the revival of political democracy and addressing disillusionment in this country. They are disillusioned at just the time when climate change, AI, migration and the other macro issues we face are at their doorstep.
At present, around 10% of schools visit Parliament and these tend to be richer schools in the south-east. Fulfilling a commitment of the kind I just described—by ensuring, for example, that all year 10 students visit Parliament—would mean some 5,000 young people visiting Parliament each working day. That is nearly 1 million students a year, a big increase on the current figure. Such a commitment would involve logistical challenges, but it would be achievable simply by doubling the number of visitors to the Parliament estate each day. I recommend the research done by Matthew Oakley and Christina Bovill Rose at WPI Economics, who are working on a scheme that expands Parliament’s existing programmes so that they can deliver practical and affordable access and education.
This is not a “nice to have” that we should ponder, and then move on. The dangers of ducking this, of not making such a commitment, are that our renovation plans could appear self-serving, our political alienation will continue and the loss of civic commitment to the British parliamentary system will grow with each generation. My pitch is that the prize is great. If we put the UK’s young people at the heart of renovation plans, we can ensure that this multimillion-pound project comes with a legacy that boosts engagement in politics and democracy and increases diversity across all our country’s political and policy institutions. Doing so would not be cost-free but could have lasting benefits for the country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate all the noble Lords who have got us this far; it has taken a great deal of work over many years. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned many names and I expect that there are quite a few others. The debate has persuaded me that we need to look separately at the preservation of this building and at what Parliament does and where. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, this place could be turned into a very good museum of democracy.
Some noble Lords will have gone to a meeting in Portcullis House several years ago, at which we were first told about the various plans for getting us out of these places—or not, as the case may be. I remember one long-standing Member of the House of Commons, the first to ask a question, said: “Don’t you realise that if we move out of this building, it will be the end of parliamentary democracy?” It is an interesting question, especially now. Maybe we have reached it, maybe we have not, but we need to look at this separately. This is a wonderful building; it could be a museum, as my noble friend said, or we could come back here.
I will talk briefly about two things. The first is the issue of fire, which several noble Lords have spoken about, and the second is access of location. We had a Starred Question on fire in your Lordships’ Chamber about a month ago, after the Notre Dame fire. Subsequently, I had a meeting with some of the officials who do a wonderful job in dealing with fire protection in this building. We have fire detection and sprinklers in the cellar, which is probably the most difficult place, but there are many more problems associated with the roof, not just of Westminster Hall but of these buildings, too. There are three things to look at: detection, extinguishing and evacuation.
It is clear that they are doing pretty well in getting a new system of detection around, even in the roof. Extinguishing fires there is extremely difficult, but the new system, Water Mist, uses much less water and is extremely effective. I suggest that before any construction work starts on this building, a water mist system should be installed for the whole building on a temporary basis, with temporary pipes or whatever. That would be a great protection against a fire during construction. As many noble Lords have said, the biggest risk of fire is during construction. We are a royal palace, and there have already been two royal palaces that have caught fire in the Queen’s reign. However careful everybody is, it can happen, as many noble Lords have said.
If this place is going to be reconstructed as a Parliament, we need to look at evacuation. Have many noble Lords wondered: if the Committee Corridor were completely full of people, which sometimes happens, where is the way out? There is a fire door by the main entrance, but if that is shut because of a fire on the other side, can 1,000 or 2,000 people at the Lords end get out in half an hour—which is apparently the fire resistance of the doors—down two very narrow staircases? It is something to think about. It could happen tomorrow, but if we are rebuilding, we ought at least to ensure that we have proper evacuation facilities, including for people in wheelchairs or with mobility problems, as many noble Lords have said. That all needs to be sorted out before we start.
My final point concerns moving us to the QEII centre, and the Commons to Richmond House. As some noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Foulkes asked, how are we going to get from one to the other, through the mass of tourists that we see, particularly in the summer months? It is not easy. We will certainly not get back in seven minutes to vote, and communications between the House of Lords and the House of Commons will be extremely difficult. I cannot see why nobody has looked properly at the Foreign Office. We do not have an empire, as we did when it was built. I know that the Foreign Office will be loath to get out of their lovely building—maybe we can promise that it can return in 10 years when it is all finished—but at least it would be a bit closer to Richmond House. Maybe there are other buildings as well. We need to make sure that we do not completely separate the Commons and the Lords, because that would not be a good thing at all.
I believe that we should look again at my noble friend Lord Adonis’s suggestion of moving out completely, because in a new building, wherever it is, we could have the education facilities, the public access and everything else that we do not get here. We are rightly concerned about that and it would certainly help the north/south divide if we made everything less London-centric.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe is very keen that we consider the possibility of selling off the second-hand bits and pieces from this building if they are no longer used. I think that he is talking about the floor tiles that have been replaced over many years; he thinks that he has a market for them as a souvenir of the old House of Commons or House of Lords. He has asked me to say that he will put down an amendment in Committee to support this idea. It will not fund the new building, but I suppose that it might help.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the outset of my remarks I ought to explain to the House that I am president of the Ancient Monuments Society, one of the national amenity societies. Like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I am also the owner of a large grade 1 listed building; fortunately, it is slightly smaller than his, but I have had first-hand experience of leaking roofs and blocked gutters. I simply say to your Lordships that nobody ought to go there.
It is self-evident from our debate today that restoration and renewal is generally recognised as not simply a matter of refurbishing an office or a corporate headquarters. It seems to me that it has two distinct components. First, there is the proper custodianship of an important listed building; secondly, it is about providing a suitable location for two Chambers of Parliament, including offices for those who work in and for Parliament, and for those visiting it. They are not the same but they can overlap, and I hope they will. When I was questioned during the consultation, I responded in favour of this dual use but I am increasingly conscious of some of the problems inherent in it. One thing I am sure about is that if Parliament were to move out of this building, money could not be made from it unless it was entirely degraded physically or destroyed. I must say that the idea of the House of Lords becoming a museum of democracy slightly appeals to me.
This is more than simply a building project and Parliament must lead by example in respect of listed buildings. After all, there are thousands of listed building owners in this country and, according to their circumstances and the building they are responsible for, they have to spend considerable sums of money. Yet if you look back over the last half century or so, Parliament is an absolute exemplar of what you should not do. If restoration and renewal is not carried out properly here, that will discredit the listing system. Given the reality that enforcement is pretty patchy, a lot of people will say more widely, “Why on earth bother?”
Mention was made earlier about place. When I was on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, we spent considerable time thinking about the implications of place. The Palace is of course at the centre of our country’s administrative and political quarter, which goes well beyond the Parliamentary Estate. While it may not be as grand or spectacular as, say, Unter den Linden in Berlin, it is nevertheless a very important part of our total history and built environment. Within it, I believe that Richmond House is important and I admire William Whitfield’s work. He was a neighbour in the north of England and his grade 2* building should not be sacrificed, which I gather is a risk, because someone has blundered in drawing up the measurements of what is needed for a new House of Commons Chamber. Historically, the dimensions of the Chamber of that House have varied and if they are slightly wrong, either they should be adapted or plenty of other sites are available as possible alternatives, as has been mentioned.
London is also a global city and the Palace within it is part of a world heritage site. It would be completely shameful if we do not keep it in proper order. That would significantly damage the nation’s reputation around the globe, in the same way that were Notre-Dame in Paris not to be restored that would be considered shameful, too. Tourism is very different from giving access to British people to see their Parliament and their representatives, and it should be subordinate to the main purpose of this building and our primary purpose in it. But in a 21st-century world, when historic buildings and beautiful and spectacular landscapes have great economic value, it would be silly to set aside the economic benefits that could be derived from looking after this building properly.
As is sometimes intimated, perhaps we cannot afford it. It is interesting that the two candidates to be the next Prime Minister have been lavishly spending taxpayers’ money over the past few days, as though it were going out of fashion. The project we are discussing this afternoon would be a good way of investing some of it in the construction industry. As chairman of the Cumbria local enterprise partnership, I like to think that one of the regional hubs could be situated there.
Throughout the years, this building and its predecessors have been tied up with the concept of Britishness. At a time of considerable national uncertainty and angst, it would be ill advised to degrade that by in some way undermining this symbol of what we all share and thereby damaging our collective identity.
Moving on from the project’s complex character, we should look at the arrangements for command and control. As several speakers have said, these seem approved, and I shall make only two comments. First, it is important that everybody involved in the project is clear about what they are trying to do. We have heard various nuances of what this is all about expressed this afternoon. Once the project is under way, there needs to be a unanimity of understanding about what is trying to be achieved.
Secondly, I go back to the response of the Leader of the House to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. What is the role of conservation in this project? As an aside, it is a pity there is no specific conservation architect on the sponsor board. I know that Simon Thurley, the well-known and respected former chief executive of English Heritage, is a member, but there is a difference between being an executive and a non-executive in an activity. The chief executive of English Heritage has an overview of projects. A conservation architect is involved, every day, in the nuts and bolts of the details—sometimes tricky details—of what is entailed. Given that this is a world heritage site and an important listed building, the conservation aspects are paramount to the thing as a whole. That does not mean you cannot adapt and adjust properly as you go, but it is important there is absolute clarity about this, and I look forward to seeing the Government’s amendment about it.
It is often forgotten that buildings are wasting assets. I believe it would significantly underpin public confidence in the future of this building and the project we are discussing this afternoon if the Government also drew up a long-term detailed maintenance plan, which would be in the public domain and regularly monitored. The wider public could see what was going on and that we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. There is a good case for this to be put in the Bill—or, if not this Bill, another—so that it provides a long-term guarantee of the sustainability of what we are embarking on.
Just as Tony Blair commented that the future of this country was all about “education, education, education”, the long-term future of this building is all about maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. As the old rhyme might have put it, this is the leak that caused the rot that broke the beam that brought down the roof that demolished the walls that destroyed the house that Barry built.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my registered interests, which include a leaking roof, and especially my chairmanship of the Chartered Institution for Further Education, which is concerned with vocational training. I support the Bill in its entirety, and believe it is right that the sponsor and delivery bodies ensure that the “economic benefits” of the restoration and renewal works on this parliamentary building,
“are delivered across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom”.
Your Lordships have made many points and I do not want to repeat them, but I take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and my noble friend Lady Byford. It concerns apprenticeships. In our earlier debate on decanting the Houses of Parliament, I made the point that the probably eight years of work would provide a unique—indeed a wonderful—opportunity for the creation of high-grade apprenticeship schemes, which would serve this country well in developing not just traditional skills but many of the new ones that would be required. I hope that, at the Second Reading of this technical Bill, it is not inappropriate or too soon to suggest that these young craftsmen and women be called Palace of Westminster apprentices, and receive a special diploma, which I hope would be a recognised, valuable passport to further employment when the scheme comes to an end.
I hope that the sponsor board and its shadow members here consider obliging the delivery authority to write a number of these special apprentices into every contract. They could be working and being trained here or at the off-site location of a commission. I am sure that the parameters mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, could work here. A small committee of suitable professionals would be needed to oversee the scheme and to have regard to the quality of training and welfare available to the young people concerned.
The regions of the United Kingdom, as the Bill suggests, must be used as a source of skilled people. For instance, most of the cathedral cities have local, often small, businesses that specialise in wood-carving, joinery, stone-carving and stone masonry, and stained-glass work—all crafts that will be required. However, if such people are to be used, and if they are to make good use of apprenticeships, infrastructure will have to be in place which guarantees accommodation for them during their time here. It would obviously be extremely difficult for craft workers from York, for example, where there is a superb firm of ecclesiastical wood-carvers, to remain any length of time here unless special arrangements were made for temporary housing. Large national companies will not find it difficult to source suitable accommodation, but if Clause 2(4)(h) is to have any real effect in delivering benefits across the country, near-site accommodation and allowances will have to be available.
Of course, the bulk of the work will require architectural and construction skills, trained plumbers, electricians, carpenters, bricklayers, operatives of cranes and trucks, and every kind of supervisory post. There will be jobs in data cabling, air conditioning and heating, water treatment specialists, lift and other engineers, craftsmen in iron, steel and brass, employment in a host of other specialisms such as archaeology—which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned—and jobs in health, safety and security. All could be important sources of apprenticeship training.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned, the closure of the Palace will also provide an opportunity for the renewed care, possible loan and certain restoration of the many works of art here which are not part of the fabric but complementary to it: paintings, statuary, tapestry, books and manuscripts, and the many items of furniture and clocks which are original to the Victorian Palace. These could be moved to the regions for renovation, protection and exhibition to take advantage of the many superb specialists in these fields outside of London.
I mention in parenthesis the proposals made in 2015 for the cleaning, conservation and lighting of the Royal Gallery’s grand paintings of Trafalgar and Waterloo by Daniel Maclise. Nothing has yet happened. It would be good to know that we might see them in a semblance of their early glory before we are all decanted.
The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, mentioned that the Archives will move from the Victoria Tower to appropriate premises. It is essential that they be nearby, as it is possible that some of them will provide information concerning the original construction and restoration efforts in the past which could well be of use to those working on the next decade’s restoration and renewal scheme.
I hope that this extraordinary, once-in-a-century undertaking will provide a huge impetus for apprenticeship in the many skills that I have mentioned and an occasion for providers of vocational education to sharpen up their offers to encompass the many employment opportunities that will be available. I hope that it will lead to a renaissance of some of those crafts which have gently wasted away during past decades, and the encouragement of young people to acquire such skills. I hope also that something like a Palace of Westminster apprenticeship scheme will give an opportunity for many young people proudly to take their place in the history of this famous building and the preservation and renewal of its heritage—coats of arms and all.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it has been a real pleasure to listen to so many expert and well-informed contributions to this debate. Coming at the end of the Back-Bench contributions, there is not much that I can add to what has already been said, but I shall try to make mine a meaningful contribution none the less.
It is three years since the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster published its report. It was a privilege to co-chair the committee and serve on it with other Members of your Lordships’ House. It made a clear recommendation that Parliament should decant in full to facilitate urgent and necessary mechanical and electrical works to the Palace. We concluded that that approach represented the most cost-effective, quickest and lowest-risk option.
As we have heard, this is a major and complicated project, but it is not predominantly about external or structural repair works to the building; rather, it is about cabling, pipes, wiring, asbestos, heating, plumbing, drainage and sewerage—the elements that are essential for the building to be habitable and usable for any purpose. I have described it previously as vital surgery to major organs, arteries and veins.
It needs to be understood that, even if we decided that the Palace should no longer be the home of Parliament and were to become a museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has argued, these works must go ahead to protect the future of this building. As we have heard, the risk of catastrophic fire is real and doing nothing is not an option. As for moving out of London and our residing in another part of the UK, it is my view that it does not matter where Parliament resides; it will make no difference to how the public feel about Parliament from where they sit if we as parliamentarians do not listen more to them.
The Joint Committee published our report in September 2016, just a few weeks after the referendum result. By then it was even clearer that the project presented an opportunity, or catalyst, for Parliament to respond for people’s demands for change. That relies on how we approach our responsibility as custodians of this building, which for some is the home of democracy. Indeed, for many, this building represents a big part of our identity. This project should not just be about restoring the building, but also, I believe, about representing the interests of the people even better. I certainly support and endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, also made some interesting arguments as to how we might do that.
It is possible—probable even—that the role of the House of Lords will be different by 2035, the date when it is suggested we return to the Palace. But whatever form the second Chamber of Parliament might take by then, and whatever the needs of its Members, the most pressing need now is for us to make sure that the building’s future is safeguarded in such a way that renewal represents better the interests of the public we serve.
I stand by the Joint Committee’s conclusions and I support the main purpose of the Bill, which is the creation of a sponsor body and a delivery authority. I am somewhat concerned that, even before works have started, we are already behind the schedule that we as a Joint Committee expected for the project to begin. That is in part because it took some time for the original Motion to come to Parliament when it did, in January 2018. What was important at the time of that debate was, as I said then, that we made some headline decisions, made some progress and continued down this pathway. Having made the decisions we did then, it is important and very pleasing that we have continued to make progress.
Clearly, clarity of responsibility and accountability is always important in big projects of this kind, especially when so much public money is involved. I certainly agree with remarks made by other noble Lords that, once we have appointed the delivery authority, we must allow it to get on with delivering the project. However, we know that this major restoration and renewal project is not the only buildings or works project happening at the Palace of Westminster at this time. There is Big Ben; the roof works; the external masonry; the Northern Estate; and the works going on in Westminster Hall. Can the Minister tell us, when he comes to wind up, which is the body responsible for overseeing all these major projects?
The Bill before us makes provision for the sponsor board to take responsibility for works that go beyond the specific R&R programme. I am sympathetic to this because I am worried about the risk of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the confusion that will reign when all these different projects are going on. What discussions have taken place about whether the remit of the sponsor body for restoration and renewal might be extended to take control over all these works? Indeed, has the sponsor body itself expressed a view on whether it would want that wider remit?
During the Bill’s passage through the Commons, I understand that an amendment was proposed—it may have been during pre-legislative scrutiny—that the sponsor body be given responsibility for public engagement as part of its remit, but the Government did not consider this to be appropriate, arguing instead that it was the job of Parliament. I am sympathetic to that as well: I think it is for Parliament itself to be concerned about how, when we return here to the Palace of Westminster, we can improve the way we go about representing the public. Again, who within Parliament is responsible for leading the thinking on this and making sure that the public get a proper say in how Parliament will be different in a restored Palace of Westminster? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, made some important points about making sure that we, as Parliament, set out very clearly what our priorities are for this major project. I think it is essential that we have a way of channelling those, so that it is not just all of us as individuals.
As I said, I am firmly of the view that now is the time to take another big step forward, while recognising that final decisions on budget and design have still to be made, subject to more detailed work by the sponsor body and the delivery authority. I believe that the Bill rightly establishes those, and it has my full support.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Bill and produced the report which is in front of your Lordships as background to this debate. The report had a number of practical recommendations for implementation, and I was very pleased indeed to hear from the Minister in her introduction the way in which many of those recommendations were adopted in the House of Commons, or will be subject to further refinement and, we hope, adoption in the House of Lords at a later stage.
We have had an excellent debate with many fine contributions. I hope the Minister will find the opportunity to respond to many of the points made, if not in this debate, at least subsequently, because many drew out the tensions between different, quite legitimate objectives in delivering restoration and renewal. One thing that will happen when we decant is that the decanted accommodation will be better than the accommodation we are in now, and it is completely unrealistic to expect us, in eight, 10 or 15 years’ time, to move back into a building with lower standards than the temporary accommodation. I mention that particularly in relation to deafness. I am sure we will be able to hear in every room in the temporary accommodation, which is certainly not true here—I speak as someone who is a serial complainer about that.
What is really important and valuable from this debate is that there is universal acceptance that doing nothing, or business as usual, is not possible. There is an unacceptably high risk and urgent action is essential. The disastrous Notre Dame fire has certainly spurred everybody into action. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, disagrees, but a 24-hour fire safety team is neither normal nor cheap—nor is it guaranteed to produce 100% success.
The Bill is very welcome: indeed, it is overdue. In fact, the timeline so far has already been dangerously extended, as a number of speakers in this debate have pointed out. It has been characterised by short outbreaks of action and then prolonged periods of frustrating delay. The cause of those delays has not been explained or explored, particularly in this debate, but, bearing in mind that each delay came at a time when the ball was in the Government’s court, one might surmise that it was something to do with reluctance at the highest level to commit to a project which, however essential and urgent, has very few friends outside this building and none at all in the print media.
It might be thought that a year’s delay at this stage is neither here nor there. It is going to take another 16 years anyway, so what is another few months at the beginning? Actually, it has not been without cost—the cost of carrying the risks of catastrophic failure forward for another 12 months while construction costs have also risen by 1% more than either RPI or CPI, depending on which of those indices the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would like us to use.
Simply having that delay and looking at enhanced construction costs compared to rising tax revenue and so on has added £40 million to the cost of the £4 billion project. That is not even factoring in extending 24-hour fire cover costs for a further year. That is bad enough, but suppose that government uncertainty and reluctance had come during the actual construction period. For the purposes of illustration, a £4 billion project lasting eight years would need spending at £500 million a year. A year’s delay in decision-making would then cost the thick end of £300 million, arising from people standing around waiting for decisions and from paying overtime to catch up, not to mention extra plant hire, cranes and warehouse space.
We should certainly learn from Crossrail. Originally, we all said that this was going to be like the Olympics and Crossrail; we have stopped saying that and now only say it will be like the Olympics. Crossrail, once seen as a glowing example of success, is now an awful warning of costs and delay.
That brings me to one key area where the Joint Committee came to a different view from the Government about how this unique, massive and difficult project should be managed. The Bill is all about governance: not what should be done, how much should be done or even when it should be done, but by whom it should be commissioned and signed off. The Joint Committee considered the draft Bill very carefully in that respect. Our recommendations were framed to build a decision-making structure that would minimise delays and wasted effort. That is why we recommended that the new structure recognise reality and make transparent who exactly will decide if, when and how this project goes ahead.
That brings me to recommendation 11 in our report, which I think nobody else in the debate so far has mentioned:
“Parliament has determined that the Treasury should be subordinate to Parliament … in accepting or rejecting the costs of the project … However, we do not consider that this on its own will provide sufficient political buy-in from the Treasury over the course of this long project”.
That seems pretty clear, and it is sad that the Government feel that they do not want to accept that recommendation. Whatever the value of all the different governance procedures—no doubt there will be much discussion of them in Parliament, as well as rows and inquiries—that rather misses the point that, before that can happen and any estimate can be laid by the estimates commission, it must,
“have regard to any advice given by the Treasury”.
In Schedule 4 to the Bill, paragraphs 3(5)(a) and 3(5)(b) deal with phase one; paragraphs 6(5)(a) and 6(5)(b) deal with the transition year; paragraphs 8(5)(a) and 8(5)(b) deal with phase two. In a 15-clause Bill, three of the clauses are instructing everybody to have regard to any advice given by the Treasury.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why does the noble Lord think that the Treasury will agree to Parliament making this decision without its approval—I see the Leader of the House is not listening—given that I keep getting told that a much more modest proposal that I have been suggesting for a number of years is subject to approval by the Treasury and must be within a particular envelope? Either this Parliament makes decisions about expenditure or it does not. The noble Lord is saying that it will make decisions about billions of pounds, when it cannot make decisions about millions.
Lord Stunell
The noble Lord exactly anticipates the point I am coming to. If this goes ahead unamended, it is a recipe for the hidden hand to cause delay and wasted effort. Those were the points I was about to make.
The Joint Committee recommended that a Treasury Minister sit on the sponsor body, which will sign off the brief for the delivery authority. That is when the Treasury input is needed, not after a year’s work of design and procurement has been done, and perhaps wasted, when the estimates commission consults the Treasury, in accordance with paragraphs 3, 5 and 8, and is obliged to reject what comes to it. I say “obliged”, because if you must “have regard” to something, that leaves very little room to ignore the advice you receive.
There is a weakness in accountability here, but not a weakness of the designers, contractors, delivery authority or sponsor board. Those accountabilities are in the main clear and transparent, and very welcome for that. The weakness is in the accountability of the Government and the lack of any transparency in their input. I describe it as their “input” into the process but it is much more likely to be their extraction from it, because I do not believe that the Treasury would urge anyone to spend the money faster. However, their participation in the process is not transparent, and that weakness will lead to delay, waste and extra costs. How much better and simpler would it be to have the Treasury at the front end rather than the back end of the process?
It may be said that there is no problem because the Government will accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is so dubious about them accepting. However, we know that transparency influences the progress of the project, and that endless delays and costs involve money. When there was no transparency, we did not know, for instance, why it was taking so long for previous stages of this process to reach the House and for decisions to be taken. When those delays cannot be attributed and chased, they accumulate. I can well understand that the Government have no wish at all to be fingered by this problem; equally, we have to understand its cost. With costs running at over £500 million a year, I can well see that Ministers will be hesitant. That is five schools-worth a year, and the temptation will be to stop, pull back and slow down. That is bad and expensive news at any stage of a big project, but it is absolutely destructive when it is in full flow. Let us get that interference at the front level, and minimise the delay, the wasted design time, the costs and the aborted procurement. I hope we can come back to that key issue in Committee.
I concur with practically every speaker in this debate in saying that this is a good, sound Bill. It needs to go ahead, and quickly, and we need to make sure that any flaws regarding accountability that may be built into it are dealt with before it leaves your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with contributions from noble Lords who are new to the subject and from others who have been working on it for many years. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, who was part of the committee that reported in 2012; a number of us who have spoken were involved in the 2016 committee, co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell; we had a number of contributions from noble Lords who were on the joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee and from those on the sponsor board; and other noble Lords have experience and expertise. Perhaps there is some good advice we should listen to as we move forward.
I will pick up on something the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said on the subject of this project not having many friends outside Parliament in the press. One thing that was put to us in the Joint Committee in 2016 was how the press accommodation in Parliament is totally and completely inadequate, consisting largely of Portakabins on the roof. That might be a good start if we want to win some friends for the project.
Restoration and renewal is not an easy issue for any Government. The costs are enormous, the logistics complex, and everybody has opinions—usually different and opposing ones. One only has to read of the frustrations of Charles Barry as he tackled the rebuilding of the Palace after the 1834 fire, or Churchill’s efforts after the 1941 bombing, which have not been mentioned today, to understand that these challenges are nothing new. For a Government committed to austerity, it is even harder—although, given the public spending proposed by the Conservative leadership contenders, perhaps that policy is now changing.
A piecemeal approach to repairs, or the make-do-and-mend approach advocated by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, has always been easier than doing something substantial. That is why action now is so critical. The work of the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny is reflected in the Bill, which is an essential step forward in a long and arduous process.
Previously, we had the substantial report of the 2016 bicameral, cross-party committee, on which a number of us served and which was co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the benefit of guidance from the 2012 report. In 2012, the committee considered reports on the condition of Parliament going back over a decade, including the mechanical and engineering systems, the basement and the areas of greatest risk. Unbelievably, some of the services installed by Barry have never been renewed. Many of us have seen the poor working conditions of staff, with basement corridors and ventilation shafts jammed with decaying wires, cables and corroded pipework. It is to the credit of those staff that we are largely unaware of the M&E systems failures, or the work that goes into keeping the building operational.
It is lazy and inaccurate to portray restoration and renewal, as some do, as benefiting only MPs and Peers. In fact, few of the current cohort—including ourselves—are likely to enjoy the benefits. If we consider the timescale for the preparatory work, the decant, the work itself and then re-entry, it is hard to imagine that being completed before, say, 2032. Many will not return.
I was initially a sceptic about decant and returning but have been convinced by the evidence. The 2016 Joint Committee interrogated the information, not accepting any particular view but taking expert advice, including from disability groups and heritage organisations. I learned a great deal—sometimes in greater detail than I enjoyed. I must admit that I had not previously given much thought to the parliamentary sewerage system. Now I probably know too much about it. The committee concluded that it would be more efficient and effective to move out to allow works to be completed in the shortest possible time as the best value for money and, should Parliament wish it, to be the most creative in the renewal aspect of the project.
I have listened carefully to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes, who would prefer us to move permanently to a new site, possibly out of London. That is not new; it has been considered before. A 1960s proposal was for a national administrative capital on the Yorkshire moors, to be known as Elizabetha. A new location was considered by the committee that reported in 2012. As tempting as it sounds to have different locations, moving around as in the 12th century, we have only to look at the example of the European Parliament moving between Strasbourg and Brussels to understand the disruption and the costs that causes.
I have thought a lot about whether it is possible or desirable to move on to a different site, whether in or out of London. But Parliament is part of a wider system that interacts with government departments, civil servants, charities, campaigners and businesses who engage with policymakers daily. It is therefore hard to see how Parliament alone could move. I agree that the world should not revolve around London, but just moving Parliament would not address regional disparities.
A more effective approach could well include the Labour proposal announced at the weekend to devolve power and funding from the Treasury, with a new £250 million transformation fund for the north. That would be tasked with improving infrastructure and would undoubtedly create new jobs. The cost of relocating Parliament would have to be added to the costs of the restoration and renewal of this building, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as it is part of a wider UNESCO world heritage site with Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s, as we know.
I certainly endorse the argument that although this building respects our traditions and history, time moves on and we must provide for modern ways of working. In 1834, it was not even considered that MPs could have landline telephones in their offices—and certainly not mobile telephones. It could never have been imagined that one day, people would listen to parliamentary debates on the radio, let alone watch them on TV or live streaming. Even in 1997, when I first became a Member of the other place, I did not have internet in my office. There lie the greatest challenges: to respect our heritage and make this a workplace fit for the 21st or 22nd century in a way that allows the UK public fully to engage.
In February 2018, both Houses of Parliament voted for the resolution that required “immediate steps be taken” to establish a shadow sponsor body and a delivery authority and that their “statutory successors” be established by legislation in due course. The sponsor body would have overall responsibility for the building work on behalf of both Houses to underscore that this is a parliamentary project, not a government one. The subsequent delivery authority would create proposals and carry out the building works in a manner similar to the independent delivery authority for the London 2012 Olympics. The pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee supported that government structure in its comprehensive report and called for swift progress so that the sponsor body can start its work with the powers and authority it needs. I support that objective.
One has only to read the excellent book mentioned several times today, Mr Barry’s War by Caroline Shenton, to understand why such a structure is necessary. Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin’s plan faced enormous practical challenges. Barry answered to myriad bodies and appeared before more than 100 Select Committee inquiries. Construction lasted for nearly 30 years, with costs overrunning and delays resulting from difficulties with the ground, the design, the river, the officials, engineering and, dare I say it, the parliamentarians, who remained on site throughout.
All this led to changing demands and pressures that took their toll on them both. Pugin said that he had never worked so hard in his life. He died aged just 40, shortly after being released from the Bedlam asylum and soon after completing the design of what is now known as the Elizabeth Tower. Charles Barry, having originally estimated that it would take six years at a cost just under £725,000, became at times worn down and anxious. The first time the union flag was hoisted on completion of the new Palace, it was at half-mast for his funeral.
In the Bill, as recommended by the 2016 report, the new governance structure emphasises good planning and a sharp focus on delivery. We welcome the Bill and support its objectives, but that does not mean that we do not support improvements. The changes made in the other place are welcome, including ensuring educational facilities and that the delivery authority must have regard to corporate social responsibility when awarding contracts. However, as we have heard today, there are other ways in which we seek further reassurance.
Something that I regret has not been mentioned—except by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—is that the Bill fails to recognise the primary purpose of Parliament. Clause 2 lists areas to which the sponsor body must have regard—the key issues that must be addressed—but the work of Parliament, legislation, the representative democratic function, is not referred to anywhere in the Bill. That is a serious omission. At no point should the sponsor body or delivery authority lose sight of that.
We will seek assurances on how the public and staff, as well as parliamentarians, will be engaged. The Joint Committee’s recommendation was that the sponsor body should,
“promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament”.
This building can sometimes feel very remote to vast swathes of people. Sometimes, it even seems otherworldly. A young friend of mine, an avid Harry Potter fan, Sam Parker, walking around the building exclaimed with absolute delight and wonder, “Oh, it’s Hogwarts!”—great fun, but reflecting the 19th not the 21st century. Why is there no requirement for the sponsor body to engage with the public as it develops the strategy? Surely that body should also have a duty to consult the thousands of staff who work here and their trade union representatives.
On accessibility, the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s states that,
“the works to the infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster will ensure that the Palace is more accessible for those with disabilities”,
but “more accessible” is not defined. I understand that the shadow sponsor body views accessibility on a “sliding scale”. I hope that the Minister can confirm exactly what that means. Those with disabilities must have accessibility to Parliament with dignity and respect. I use the term “accessibility” deliberately because, as has been said, it is about not just access to the building but accessibility to all of Parliament at any point.
The Minister in the other place said that he expected the sponsor body’s annual report,
“to cover matters such as how it is taking forward questions of disability”,—[Official Report, Commons, Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill Committee, 4/6/19; col. 57.]
and that it should establish a sub-committee. However, the delivery authority will have no remit or requirement to improve accessibility for those with disabilities unless instructed by the sponsor body, and the sponsor body cannot do so unless instructed by Parliament. Is there a gap in the Bill here? Can the Minister be clear about the role of the disability sub-committee?
On Report, the Commons Minister stated that the sponsor body’s annual report could consider the size and geographical location of contracted companies to ensure that small companies and those from across the UK have opportunities to benefit from contracts. I heard what the Leader said in her speech but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, can say a little more and perhaps confirm that the Government will do all they can to give effect to that and ensure that this principle is adhered to.
On costs, restoration and renewal are undoubtedly expensive, with current estimates somewhere between £3.5 billion and £3.8 billion. We welcome the Government’s focus on value for money but there has to be an acknowledgement that protecting UNESCO world heritage sites comes at a price. I want to add a personal view about heritage. Some of our most interesting and valued buildings have survived because they adapted. We must do the same. If, following the works, this building looks and works exactly the same as it does now, the programme will have failed. That does not permit the programme to force changes on how Parliament works, but it should enable not prevent them. The programme should recognise that technology has revolutionised the way that we all work and will continue to work in future.
The Bill would establish a parliamentary works estimates commission, which will lay the sponsor body’s estimates before Parliament and review expenditure; it can also require a new estimate. Crucially, Parliament will have the final say on the project when the business case is laid in 2021. To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brooke about meeting some of the costs through selling the tiles for restoration, I suggest that my noble friend visits the Westminster Hall shop where, currently, half a tile is on sale for £95, a full tile is on sale for £150 and a high-standard tile is on sale for £200. They look very nice on display. Of course, the sale of some artefacts could contribute to the costs but the scale of what we are talking about, especially of the historical interest in what has been in the Palace, goes far and wide.
Noble Lords were right to mention decant, which the Bill does not cover but is essential. We will continue to seek more detail to ensure that the facilities for Peers are fit for purpose. We also need clarification on what will happen to parliamentary staff, such as our cleaners and caterers, and we seek assurances on their employment status. Will they be given first choice for new jobs arising at the QEII Centre or wherever we decant to? I hope that the noble Earl can confirm that there is, and will continue to be, engagement with the GMB and other unions on this issue.
This is a working building for more than 8,000 people. Importantly, the restoration must provide a better and safer working environment and a better visitor experience. More than a million people visit here each year, enhancing their understanding of how politics and major events play out. History happens here. Alongside that restoration must be renewal that looks to the Parliament of the future. In the 19th century, Barry and Pugin had a vision for a new Parliament rising from the ashes of the old one. In the 20th century, Churchill had a vision for restoration following the destruction of the war. Today, in the 21st century, we need a vision for an engaged, outward-looking Parliament for this century and beyond. After years of kicking the can down the road, we can, and must, get this right. With an emphasis on how we work and a focus on engagement and accessibility, this can be the people’s Parliament for generations to come.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this high-quality and thoughtful debate. As my noble friend the Leader remarked, the Bill has been a long time coming—too long, as I suspect we all agree. Although the Bill is with us at last, many uncertainties remain: how the restoration and renewal works will be undertaken in practice; how they will balance and reconcile the different imperatives that we all care about; and what the works will mean for Members of both Houses and the continued functioning of Parliament. These questions admit different opinions depending on your perspective. Although I will shortly respond to the issues of this kind raised by noble Lords, they are essentially debates for another day.
Meanwhile, we should be in no doubt as to the importance of what the Bill is here to do. It puts in place a governance structure to ensure that a professional programme of work can be undertaken. The urgency of this task cannot be underestimated. I respectfully but firmly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that this is a case of “make do and mend”. Earlier, we heard about the state of disrepair that this place now finds itself in, with falling masonry, mechanical and electrical faults, asbestos and other issues seriously affecting the day-to-day operation and safety of the building. Anyone who has toured the basement can see that we face a major restoration programme.
As has been said many times, this is a parliamentary project. The powerful contributions to the debate testify to our strong feelings on the issues before us; they certainly underscore how incredibly important it is that we get on with the job. The bottom line is that very significant work must be done to the fabric of this place. We must take the opportunity that the Bill provides to ensure that, pace the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Palace of Westminster can remain the seat of the United Kingdom’s Parliament for generations to come.
Let me address some specific points. First, on the amendments passed in the Commons and the others to be tabled in Committee, we heard earlier today from my noble friend the Leader about the Bill’s smooth passage in the other place as a result of the collaborative working between government and parliamentarians. The Bill reflects that, as cannot be said too often, this is a parliamentary project. The Government have listened to, and taken on board, the views and concerns of Members. That is why the amendments on the need for educational facilities, and on the transfer of external members of the shadow sponsor body to the sponsor body, were assisted and supported by the Government, and passed on Report in the Commons.
As it was the clear will of the House of the Commons, the Government also agreed at Commons Report stage to assist the tabling of two amendments in the House of Lords, one relating to heritage and the other to reporting. As a grade 1 listed building and part of a UNESCO world heritage site, the outstanding architectural heritage of the Palace would always have been a consideration for the sponsor body. We therefore did not deem a reference to heritage in the Bill necessary. However, we have heard from a number of noble Lords —notably, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Lingfield—that the Palace’s heritage and its high-quality conservation are of central concern. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, rightly emphasised, parliamentarians and heritage bodies have made their views on the matter clear, and we have recognised the importance of those concerns. An amendment will therefore be tabled in Committee that I hope will command support.
The Government also agreed to assist a robust amendment on the reporting of contracts and the size and locations of the companies concerned. There is already a requirement for the sponsor body to report on the carrying out and progress of the parliamentary buildings work. However, we will also require reporting on the size and location of the companies contracted to.
Report stage in the House of Commons also resulted in a call for amendments on the corporate social responsibility of contracted companies and for the economic benefits of the works to be spread across the UK. The Government opposed these amendments, but since they were passed in the House of Commons we recognise that their spirit should be reflected in the Bill. We will therefore work with parliamentary counsel and Members to ensure the amendments are worded appropriately.
An amendment to spread the economic benefits of the works across the nations and regions of the UK was passed in the Commons, as I mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to this. The Government fully support the principle that the benefits should be shared across the UK, but we identified some concerns with the wording of this amendment in relation to procurement law. We will therefore work with parliamentary counsel to ensure the amendment is appropriately worded, as we will with the amendment on corporate social responsibility. As with all the amendments I have spoken about, we will ensure that the spirit of the amendment approved by the other place is retained. The role of government is to assist Parliament in the passage of this Bill through both Houses. The project itself is for Parliament.
I turn next to specific questions asked about the provisions of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Stowell asked about responsibility for other estates projects on the Parliamentary Estate. At present, the R&R programme is responsible only for refurbishing the Palace and for the QEII Centre as a decent location for the Lords. It is expected that in due course, following designation by both House commissions, the R&R programme will also include the Northern Estate programme. Provision to allow for this is made in Clause 1 of the Bill. At the moment, no other current parliamentary estates programmes are expected to come under R&R. Again, however, Clause 1 of the Bill allows this to happen if both commissions, the sponsor body and the delivery authority agree.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked about the mechanisms for dispute resolution between any of the proposed bodies. It will be up to the commissions of both Houses to agree workable arrangements for the resolution of otherwise intractable disagreements. Work on this will be taken forward soon, and its importance is clear. I add only that the programme delivery agreement will cover how disputes between the sponsor body and delivery authority during the works are to be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others emphasised the need for proper disabled access to and within the building. Clause 2(4) states:
“In exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must have regard to … the need to ensure that … any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the Parliamentary building works are carried out, and … the Palace of Westminster (after completion of those works), are accessible to people with disabilities”.
I agree that it is important that the sponsor body and delivery authority appreciate that we expect disabled access to go beyond visitors, staff, Peers and MPs entering the Parliamentary Estate. It is worth mentioning that the sponsor body and delivery authority will need to comply with any legal obligation, such as the Equality Act 2010, when considering the provision of disabled access. I am pleased that the shadow sponsor body, to whose assiduous work I pay tribute, has specified that improving access forms part of its vision and strategic themes for the works. In fact, it has specified that the restored Palace will provide exemplary standards of access for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Bethell and others stressed the importance of educational outreach facilities. We all recognise the will of the other place in amending Clause 2(4)(g) in the Bill so that the provision of educational and other facilities in the Palace after completion of the works was a “need” rather than a desirability. We have the opportunity through R&R to create a legacy in educational facilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out, better educational facilities will allow schoolchildren who visit the Palace to have a more interactive engagement with Parliament and democracy. This could be achieved by using the new Chamber in Richmond House as an educational facility. I was taken with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Bethell that we should have ambitious targets for increasing the number of visitors to the Palace. Of course, it is for Parliament—not the sponsor body—to promote Parliament through outreach. Parliament has a number of initiatives in this area, including visits to schools, and there is an opportunity to think about those activities also.
This leads into the whole question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about renewal and how we define it. I am sure we each have different views on what renewal means. That is why it is so important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to engage with R&R and the scope of the work. I completely agree with noble Lords who have argued that the programme provides a number of opportunities; for example, improvements to the Palace should enable an increase in the number of visitors and an even better experience for visitors. I am sure we also all want to see improvements to the accessibility of the Palace as part of the work. That includes not just lifts and ramps but acoustics, the increased use of technology and, as I have just mentioned, better educational facilities. I would also like to see proper consideration be given to how space is used and whether the sponsor body can come up with innovative solutions to increase the available space, without impacting on the heritage of the Palace.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the importance of fire safety. I agree that this is of paramount importance, and indeed it is one of the strongest arguments for getting on with R&R. As he will know, until the Palace is handed over to the sponsor body, the House authorities are responsible for fire safety. I am aware that the noble Lord raised his concerns in the Chamber on 25 April in the aftermath of the Notre Dame fire. At that time, the chair of the Services Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, went into some detail to explain what precautions the House authorities have put in place to protect the roofs. The noble Lord will no doubt remember what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said on that occasion.
My noble friend Lord Haselhurst advocated for better access to Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower during the works. Analysis in 2017 found that any continued use of Westminster Hall or its surrounding areas by Members and/or the public would be highly disruptive and costly for no additional quantifiable benefit. The costs would be connected to maintaining a secure perimeter in close proximity to construction works and the additional cost to construction from managing a complex, partially occupied site. However, the feasibility study conducted by the R&R programme in 2017 found that the additional cost of maintaining access to the Elizabeth Tower during the R&R programme for Members’ pre-booked tour groups would be minimal, since the site boundary could be established to the south of the tower, allowing access through Portcullis House. However, that remains a matter for the sponsor body and Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, advocated for the opportunity for SMEs to be part of the restoration and renewal works. Smaller businesses will have the opportunity to bid to be part of the works. As the noble Lord will know, that is already happening with the encaustic tile conservation project and work on the Elizabeth Tower. Again, it is ultimately a matter for the sponsor body to determine how best to engage SMEs in the forthcoming work, and we have encouraged the programme to give thought to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, spoke about the opportunity to promote apprenticeships, an issue also cogently argued by my noble friend Lord Lingfield. Our response to the pre-legislative Joint Committee noted that we very much encourage the sponsor body to consider how it can share the employment and apprenticeship benefits of R&R across the UK. The R&R programme has taken steps to learn from other programmes about how to plan for successful apprenticeship and skills development programmes, and the shadow sponsor body has committed for the programme to provide for the development of national construction and craft skills.
Let me turn briefly, if I may, to the decant, which I completely understand is of huge importance to many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the choice of the QEII conference centre as the location for the temporary decant of the House of Lords. The QEII Centre is the preferred location for the Lords decant, in line with the recommendation by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster in 2016. That recommendation was agreed by the House of Lords Commission in September 2018, subject to further feasibility work being undertaken.
Underlying that decision was a lot of preparatory effort. The restoration and renewal programme team carried out work with the government property unit to assess the suitability of sites on the government estate. One option involved use of the courtyard of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in King Charles Street. However, it was considered to be a suboptimal solution that would require further decant accommodation to be delivered over multiple locations and had space constraints around the Chamber.
The QEII Centre has a number of advantages as a decant option for the House of Lords. It would provide the best accommodation solution because it would reduce the need for accommodation across multiple sites. It is not a listed building and can be adapted to meet security requirements. As a government-owned space, it has fewer risks when compared to a commercially owned property. Last but not least, it presents opportunities for greater accessibility than we enjoy currently.
I acknowledge that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes, and some other noble Lords, strongly believe that Parliament should be permanently relocated from Westminster and that we should, in consequence, turn the Palace into a museum. The first thing to do is remind noble Lords that the Motion passed by this House early last year was clear that both Houses will return to their historic Chambers as soon as possible after the restoration and renewal of the Palace. In accordance with the will of both Houses, that guarantee is incorporated into the Bill. By way of background, in 2012, Parliament commissioned a pre-feasibility study into the preliminary business case for R&R. The study considered that whole question and concluded that because,
“the geographical proximity of Parliament to Government is of significance … substantial additional costs would be incurred”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Earl has been very helpful but he moved over the issue of the decant before I was able to ask him a question. I asked earlier about the position of the Library and of car parking during those 10 years, and he has not answered either question.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
When I went to the briefing meeting, the lady in charge of the shadow sponsor body did not have an answer either, and nor did she have an answer on security. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Perhaps the noble Earl can help me with another question about relocation elsewhere. Earlier, the Leader of the House admitted that there was no costing of that alternative. Why was there no costing, at an early stage, of what is an obvious alternative proposal?
Earl Howe
The matters raised by the noble Lord will be part of the outline business case, so it is impossible to be specific. However, on costing, in October 2012, the House of Commons Commission, and at that time the House Committee in the Lords, considered the pre-feasibility study and decided:
“The report is a useful first analysis of the issues. However, the Commission has ruled out the option of constructing a brand new building away from Westminster and no further analysis will be undertaken of this option”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why did it rule it out? I should have asked earlier. My noble friend Lady Smith chastised me earlier for being late to the issue. Why was it not considered? Why was it ruled out at such an early stage, without any costing, as the alternative?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I did not chastise my noble friend—I am surprised that he should think such a thing.
Earl Howe
It will be best if I write to the noble Lord on that point and copy in all noble Lords who have spoken so that everyone is clear about the extent to which this issue has been trawled over.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the debate on this issue has effectively already happened. On his further point, even if a decision were taken to relocate Parliament outside London, it would still be necessary to restore and renew the Palace to ensure that its future is safeguarded. This would be required as part of our commitment to the Palace as part of the UNESCO world heritage site. Without accounting for inflation, the independent options appraisal suggests that the minimum that would need to be spent to maintain the Palace’s status as a world heritage site, and to replace or repair systems like for like, would be £3 billion. I will write to the noble Lord further on this issue as I have just been reminded that my time is up.
However, before concluding, perhaps I may emphasise my agreement with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others on the need for timely progress on these works. I will be happy to put further thoughts in writing on that point. Equally, I will be happy to write on the costs, concerns about which have rightly been raised, particularly by my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The governance arrangements that the Bill sets out can deliver the necessary restoration works and ensure value for money for the taxpayer. I shall be happy to explain why.
I will also write to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about why we disagreed with the recommendation of the Joint Committee to appoint a Treasury Minister to the sponsor body. I am also happy also write on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the need to engage parliamentarians in the R&R proposals.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the importance of engaging the public. I agree that the public need a voice in this historic project. Indeed, the project provides an unparalleled opportunity to get the public engaged with Parliament and democracy throughout and by providing a lasting legacy. It is the role of Parliament to increase public understanding of its work. Nevertheless, the sponsor body should consider public understanding of Parliament when it engages the public on the R&R programme.
Turning finally and briefly to the Bill, it will ensure that a fit-for-purpose governance structure is in place that will deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace. I look forward to the Bill’s future stages and to working with Peers across the House, as does my noble friend the Leader, first and foremost to make sure that we get the Bill right but also to maintain a sense of impetus in the parliamentary process. It is important that we progress the Bill in a timely fashion to establish the sponsor body and delivery authority so that the works for the restoration and renewal of the Palace can begin in earnest. I have no doubt that your Lordships, as always, will work to ensure that the Bill fulfils its objective, laying the groundwork for the building works that lie before us and thereby ensuring that we deliver to the nation a Palace fit for purpose and ready to be the home of Parliament for future generations. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Monday 22nd July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 187-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (19 Jul 2019)
Baroness Wheeler
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I open the Committee stage of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Smith—who, as the House will know, was a member of the original Joint Committee and spoke with her usual eloquence and depth at Second Reading on behalf of these Benches—unfortunately has other commitments and cannot be here until later but is very much hoping to join us as soon as possible. Meanwhile, my noble friend Lord McNicol and I are holding the fort.
I am moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendment 16, both of which are in my noble friend’s name. It is right that we start today with amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 that aim to ensure and reiterate that the core purpose of the restoration and renewal programme must be to enable the Houses of Parliament to continue to serve as the UK’s primary legislative and democratic institution.
Clause 2 lists areas to which the sponsor body must have regard, but the work of Parliament, legislation and the representative democratic function is not referred to anywhere in the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Smith said at Second Reading,
“That is a serious omission. At no point should the sponsor body … lose sight of that”.—[Official Report, 8/7/19; col. 1675.]
Our amendments seek to remedy this. The House will be aware that, as this project progresses, it is vital that we bring the public and Parliament with us. We must make both aware that the works are imperative not only to preserve this historic building for future generations but to ensure that this country can long benefit from its constitutional role.
By stressing the significance of the works for the sanctity of democracy, we can better demonstrate that the costs and work involved are vital and necessary, and we help address and dissuade notions that this is only for the benefit of parliamentarians. Safeguarding Parliament’s role in our constitution is of vital benefit to everyone in the UK. Through these amendments, this House can do more than send this message; we can ensure that this principle is at the forefront of consideration for the sponsor body as works progress.
Amendment 16 would legislate that the sponsor body must always take regard of the primary democratic and constitutional functions of Parliament during the project. Amendment 1, meanwhile, would ensure that while the decant takes place the aim of the works will be to facilitate both Houses’ return so that their democratic and constitutional functions can be upheld and continued.
The importance of including in the Bill the broad principle that the works must never lose sight of the fact that they are taking place to maintain Parliament as a place of democracy was underlined by noble Lords from across the House at Second Reading. I hope that the Government will agree and bring forward proposals on Report to ensure that this principle is incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to speak in support of the amendment that has just been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It is important we remember that the principal functions of this place are its constitutional, legislative and scrutiny functions. That should not be forgotten. That said, in many of the debates we will have in Committee, we will remember many of the other things that happen in this place. I was going to say it is a village; it is probably larger than that in terms of the number of people who work here. However, at the end of the day, if it were not for the democratic and constitutional functions that take place, most of that other work would not materialise.
Although it is not one I signed, possibly through omission rather than as a deliberate act, the words “at the earliest opportunity” in Amendment 1 are important, because there is an urgency in this: both in starting now and, when the works start, in getting back in as soon as possible. Throughout the whole process, it is important that we try to maintain the pace. We will come later to an amendment I have tabled about timelines. We all know from large public works that there is often a tendency to delay, but I hope that once we get out it will not be very long until we get back in.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, any amendment which improves the Bill is obviously a good thing, but I was not clear from what my noble friend said how this amendment does so. It is not clear to me how the words,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,
and,
“at the earliest opportunity that its work and democratic and constitutional functions can reasonably be delivered in the restored Palace”,
are in any way different. Could my noble friend answer that when she responds?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for moving the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. The Government entirely agree that it is important for the sponsor body and delivery authority to ensure that the R&R works enhance and protect the work of Parliament. This focus is reflected in the fact that the Bill requires that the majority of the members on the board of the sponsor body are parliamentarians.
As part of its strategic vision for the programme, the shadow sponsor body has been clear that restoration and renewal must deliver a building that supports Parliament’s core function as a working legislature both now and in the future, using high-quality design and technology. This includes facilitating any procedural changes that may be requested by either House.
When drafting the Bill, the Government have been careful not to prescribe either what Parliament does or its procedures, as these are clearly a matter for Parliament itself. We are concerned by the reference to the “democratic and constitutional functions” of Parliament in this amendment, as we are mindful of potential legal challenges in respect of the exercise of the powers contained in the Bill. For instance, we must be careful not to unintentionally invite the courts to consider matters that are the preserve of Parliament, such as the question of what the “democratic and constitutional functions” of Parliament are. Doing so could call into question the separation between the courts and Parliament.
Noble Lords will know that the Companion explains that the principle of control by Parliament of its affairs, free from interference by the courts, is often called “exclusive cognisance”. We are concerned that the inclusion of this wording in the Bill could be seen as Parliament waiving the exclusive cognisance of the House, and so we have reservations about the wording of the amendment.
The best way to ensure that the R&R works enhance and protect the democratic and constitutional role of Parliament is to ensure that Parliament has a final say on the plans for a restored and renewed Palace. The Bill sets out very clearly that the works cannot commence until Members of both Houses have approved the delivery authority’s proposal for the design, cost and timing of those works in the outline business case. This will enable parliamentarians to determine whether the designs for the restored Palace and decant enable Parliament to carry out its democratic and constitutional functions. Significant changes to the design, timing or cost will also have to go back to Parliament for agreement. For these reasons, we are confident that the sponsor body will ensure that the parliamentary buildings works enhance and protect the work, and democratic and constitutional functions, of the Houses of Parliament.
Obviously, this is a matter for noble Lords to consider, but as I have set out, we have some legal concerns. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord that the principle behind the amendment will be central to the work of the sponsor body and the delivery authority. I am sure that the parliamentary authorities would be happy to provide further advice on this if needed. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. After today, I will look at the legal and constitutional issues that she raised. I am very grateful for her reassurances about accepting the principle. If we feel that we need to reinforce that, we will come back on Report.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Adonis, the “earliest possible opportunity” reference will be taken up in later amendments and so we will respond to that in due course.
I thank in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his contribution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
“( ) If a planning application is submitted to a responsible planning authority for works immediately adjacent to the Palace of Westminster, the Sponsor Body must—(a) determine whether these works might impede the Parliamentary building works in any significant way; and(b) if they determine that they may impede the Parliamentary building works, issue a notice to that effect to the responsible planning authority.”
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I say at the outset that I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater for adding their names to it.
I have tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, I hope that all your Lordships agree that we want to protect and enhance this building and want it to emerge from the restoration and renewal project even more magnificent than it is at the moment. One of the greatest buildings in the world, and the greatest symbol of democracy in the world, it is at the heart of the world heritage site which encompasses the Abbey, St Margaret’s and the immediate environs.
The immediate environs include Victoria Tower Gardens. Last week, we were all exalted in a letter from my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth to love our parks—indeed, he told us that it was Love Parks Week. I do love our parks and do not imagine that a single one of your Lordships does not love our parks. There is nothing more wonderful than to walk through St James’s Park, Green Park and Hyde Park and up to Kensington Gardens; it is a wonderful country walk in the middle of the greatest city in the world. They are great parks not only because of the way they are laid out, but in size. Adjacent to the Palace of Westminster is a much smaller park, but one that gives great enjoyment to those who use it. It is used on daily basis by residents, office workers, children and others. It was carefully laid out in the last three decades of the 19th century and contains the magnificent statue of the Burghers of Calais, the statue of Mrs Pankhurst and the memorial to Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, one of the great advocates of the cause that led to the abolition of, first, the slave trade and then slavery in 1833. That is something of which this country, and this Parliament in particular, should be extremely proud.
Lord Adonis
Can the noble Lord tell us where he proposes that the memorial should be moved to?
Lord Cormack
There are many places where it could go. It could go to one of the great London parks, but the Imperial War Museum, which has offered a site and has adequate parking, would seem an admirable destination. It already has galleries that graphically and movingly describe the Holocaust, so that is a possibility. This afternoon I am simply saying to your Lordships that it is very important that we look at this carefully and without prejudice.
To those of my noble friends who are strongly in support of the Holocaust memorial, I say: please remember that those of us who have reservations are not against having a memorial; we are not Holocaust deniers or in any sense opposed to the Jewish community, which has given so much to our country over the last three and a half centuries since the Jews were readmitted by Oliver Cromwell in 1652. I speak as one who lives in a city—Lincoln—that had the second largest Jewish community in the country in the Middle Ages, and we honour that. Indeed, at the moment, together with Jewish colleagues and others I am planning a great exhibition to commemorate that, to be held in two or three years’ time in Lincoln.
Therefore, it is not a question of a Holocaust memorial being something that we do not want. We do want it but this is not the place, and it is certainly important that all aspects are considered carefully by the body that the Bill establishes. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to this amendment. In this most significant work for parliamentarians and indeed for the whole nation, our concerns are not only for this building and our parliamentary work, and not only for the future and the public, but for safety, security, access and the environment now and in future centuries. Quite apart from the changes in methods of working that will be taken into consideration in refurbishing this place, major concerns affect the surrounding areas. We have many more tourists and many more protests—peaceful and otherwise—here and in Parliament Square; there are more visitors, including dignitaries requiring protected access; and, above all, we are painfully aware of the vulnerability and magnetic attraction of this area to terrorists. Protestors could include parties interested in the Middle East, and environmental activists because of the underground excavation, destruction of trees and loss of green space inherent in the Victoria Tower Gardens plan.
This brings me to the concerns I have for those gardens adjacent to Black Rod’s Garden and the parking exit for our cars. Your Lordships will have heard that there is a plan to have a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in those gardens, which has not yet received planning permission. In the meantime, there has been more than one security analysis of the implications of a very large memorial and museum with concomitant visitors. It has been estimated that there will be 1 million visitors per year and 11 coaches delivering and taking away visitors every day.
The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord King, and myself is designed to take account of the implications of this. The proposal to build on this site has avoided addressing security considerations in any detail, failing the tests set out in paragraph 95a of the National Planning Policy Framework of 2019. There will be potentially long queues of visitors waiting for security checks—the touted 20-second check will clearly be insufficient—next to children playing in the playground and the usual park visitors. Presumably, they too will have to undergo security checks because they are close by, whether intending to visit the memorial or not.
The principal threat comes from jihadi-inspired terrorists, as evidenced by the atrocities that have occurred in Europe recently, targeted against Jews and Jewish-associated buildings. The proximity of the planned memorial to Parliament, with national and international news media constantly in attendance, will make it a high-value target for those who wish to promote their evil aims with publicity. There have been many other criminal activities levelled against Jewish targets of which many of us are, frankly, fearful, and a great deal of private and public money is already spent on protection. We also have the extreme right-wing groups, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and protestors of all sorts—bearing in mind that the memorial may also include victims of LGBT persecution, and of the Rwandan, Armenian and other massacres—who will see this location as the focus for their action.
Alongside is Millbank, a busy road with limited parking. It is difficult to see where the coachloads of visitors would be able to disembark. I envisage more anti-terrorist vehicle barriers and pavement restrictions at the southern end of the Parliamentary Estate, as well as presumably more concrete blocks, barriers and bollards to protect against a suicide vehicle crash; it would be easy enough to drive into the park with this intent, rather as happened in the attack here in March 2017. At the very least, the footpath in Millbank will have to be narrowed and security patrols will be required night and day. Graffiti and desecration of memorials are all too common, as we saw with the Bomber Command memorial and even the Cenotaph in London. There will be large queues of people waiting to enter, which provide a soft target for extremists. Objects such as bricks, and worse, could easily be thrown from across the road, or could be dropped into the well area at the entrance to the learning centre, causing disruption.
Building a memorial will require large areas around to be closed for a time, with excavation equipment and building materials, at more or less the same time that these buildings are being prepared for repair. How will the park be managed at night, and cleared, and what will the light pollution be? Our amendment refers mildly to avoiding impediments; other amendments refer to the whole of the Parliamentary Estate and the broadest meaning of access. They all deserve support, but this one is the most urgent, in that the damage to security may occur very soon. We need to protect the Parliamentary Estate and its immediate vicinity. I stand here to assure noble Lords that it is not anti-Semitic to oppose this design, in this location, as has been suggested; far from it. The trouble is that, if the plan is steamrollered through as a political football—if I may mix my metaphors—it will for ever be tainted with opposition. To build a Holocaust memorial we must do so with reverence, affection, respect and acceptance. If it has to be forced through, it is contrary to the very objectives for which it is designed.
The other argument that may well be raised is: “Such a memorial has to be right next door to Parliament to remind us that democracy must and should protect against genocide”. Sadly, democracy has not proved in the past to protect against genocide. One need only instance in our current age Yugoslavia and Myanmar, and of course Germany had a form of democracy in the 1930s. Genocide comes from ethnic and religious hatred and from ideology. That is something that you combat only by educating people, not by putting up a memorial in a small park. For those reasons, I support the amendment and I hope that others will too.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment, although I am not sure that it goes quite far enough. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said.
I declare an interest in that, every day when I come here, I walk through those gardens. A number of times I have seen them being dug up and changed. There is a beautiful play area for children at one end that has been dug up and changed at least two or three times and there have been various other changes, while the visitor centre has taken away a fantastic view of the building. One might argue that that has a great purpose and it is very welcome to bring more children here, but I think that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the pressure of people, parking and security is really important.
We are not a planning committee but we have a duty to protect Parliament. I have been associated with these Chambers and Parliament generally for some 36 years—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
One of the new boys indeed. I hope that, like me, my noble friend Lord King comes here every day and is filled with wonder and a sense of, “How on earth have I managed to get here?” It is a very special place and it is important that in the process of renewal we do not lose what we have.
We are talking not just about the building but about the environment and the immediate environs, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said. I see that park in winter, spring and summer. I see the children in their playgrounds, I see the office workers having their picnics, I see the lovers on the benches behaving quite properly, I see people doing interviews in front of that wonderful view of the tower, and it has enormous value. If we are to have 10 years of construction and disruption in this place, what on earth would possess us to add to that by having another major project, not even on the surface but underground?
We have seen the presentations and sketches of what it would look like and, frankly, I do not think it would enhance the beauty, simplicity and value of that space, which is also very much valued by tourists. I support the amendment but I hope that, at a later stage, we will have one that does more than just make this point in the way that this one does—that we have an amendment that actually makes it clear to those responsible for this project that it is not just about the park; it is about Parliament as a whole and preserving the precious heritage that we are all privileged to have the responsibility for.
I welcome and totally support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. My noble friend is rightly keen to argue that we want a very successful Holocaust memorial project. I think the venue that he described would be a far better one; it would involve less controversy and, I venture to suggest, it would be possible to achieve rather more quickly than will be the case given the controversy and the difficulties that we have. I support the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment that was moved so clearly and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I agree entirely with the other things that have been said so far.
Over a mere 36 years in association with this Palace, I have quite often gone into those gardens for moments of deliberation and relaxation. The reason why I do so is that they contain one of the most wonderful public sculptures in the world, “The Burghers of Calais”. It is a much better location for that casting of the statue than you find, for example, in Calais. It is a sculpture of international moment and very much part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. With the other two memorials that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to, there seems to be quite enough for small gardens of that size, particularly when there is another site for the Holocaust memorial available for sure on the much more capacious site of the Imperial War Museum—I will speak about that in a moment.
I am very committed to the erection of a Holocaust memorial. My sister Renata and I share a father but not a mother. We do not share a mother because her mother died in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944. A framed copy of her death certificate hangs on the wall of my sister’s house in the Midlands. It does not tell the entire truth. It says she died of smallpox, when she was almost certainly murdered because she had smallpox. These events are very important to us as a family. We believe Renata’s and my paternal grandparents died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. We do not know exactly how, but it was probably by being taken straight from the train to the gas ovens.
I suspect that many people in your Lordships’ House have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau. I am afraid once was enough for me—I shall not go again. Anybody who has been there will realise how momentous, vile and treacherous those events were and what effect they have on those families, whether they be religious or secular—I am not a religious person at all. This is the history of many people in this country and indeed quite a lot of people in your Lordships’ House and the other place.
I regard this memorial as an absolute necessity, but what does it need? I have been to Holocaust memorials around the world when I have been able to. Yad Vashem is an extraordinary memorial, set in a great space. Last year, I went to the new Holocaust memorial in Warsaw, Poland. Poland has a mixed reputation for its attitude to Jews, even since the Second World War. However, if your Lordships have not been there, I have to tell you that the new memorial in Warsaw is a sensational place. It dominates a big square. You can walk around it and through it; you can go to restaurants in the streets around it. The whole of that area has been created and recreated to accommodate that memorial.
In my view, a memorial to the Holocaust needs room to view, room to breathe, room to reflect and room to police. The site for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens certainly does not have the room to police. The road between Lambeth Bridge and the Palace of Westminster is often closed to traffic when important events are taking place here, or on the not insignificant number of occasions when there is a suspicion of a raised terrorist threat level. It would be a sitting target for terrorists and would not be difficult to access. It would not be possible to create a ring of steel around it, which can be done on a big site in a careful, considerate and not particularly obvious way.
A memorial such as this should have space—as at Auschwitz, which is on a huge site—for coaches to bring and set down older schoolchildren who are learning about modern history, including the history of the Holocaust. There should be space for them to be corralled in an appropriate way, with time to listen to their teachers. They should be able to see the light of day. I do not understand the desire for an underground memorial. To be able to understand what happened to these people, you need light. The children’s memorial at Yad Vashem, which is a hall of mirrors with candles, is based on seeing light, not being in a subterranean space. I say to your Lordships, with the feeling I hope I have shown, because I believe in this proposition—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
In a moment—this is not the appropriate place. I venture that anyone who has great experience in local government, such as the noble Lord who I am about to give way to, should be of a similar view.
Lord Pickles
I was merely going to point out to the noble Lord that the memorial is indeed on the surface. The learning centre is below ground. It is important for us to be accurate in our objections.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Part of the memorial—the visible part—is on the surface; the rest is underground. Yes it is a learning centre, but if one goes to look at other monuments with learning centres, they are not concealed below the ground. I do not know of any other Holocaust memorial—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am not going to give way again; the noble Lord can make a speech if he wants to. This is not the House of Commons. In my view, the placing of the learning centre underground compounds the points I am trying to make. This site could be put on a much bigger estate. It could be more open, visible and more easily policed. Those are the main reasons why I support the amendment.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, a lot has been said and I agree with such obvious and logical reasons that have been given. It is very difficult not to, but I want to add my views. I was brought up a Hindu—am I not allowed to speak?
Baroness Flather
Somebody was muttering. I was brought up a Hindu. Personally, I have never understood why there is such a lot of prejudice against the Jews, in Europe and in other countries. They are very clever people. They believe in education and achievement. Why is it that people do not really feel the same about Jews as everybody else?
I have stood up to speak because when I learned about the Holocaust it had a very deep effect on me. I have become an atheist as a result, because I could not accept that 6 million people could be killed like vermin and nothing happened for them. If nothing happened for them, what do I need God for? I am sure not many people think like that, but it is how I feel. I am going to Auschwitz-Birkenau in August. Of course, somebody said, “You must go to Birkenau; it was a factory”. Silly me, I thought it was a factory making something. It was a factory killing people in the most careful and planned way, just killing people. I cannot believe that we are living in this century.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is another amendment in this group in my name, but I am afraid it is nothing to do with the Holocaust memorial, so forgive me for changing the topic. It is about co-ordination of major programmes and projects.
At Second Reading I raised the need for clarity on responsibility and accountability for all the major programmes of work ongoing at the Palace. As we know, we currently have the roof works, there is the masonry project and Big Ben, and soon to start will be the Northern Estate. My concern is the scope for confusion and the potential for all manner of things to go wrong if there is not a single body responsible for all these separate programmes to make sure they are co-ordinated properly.
Clause 1(1) makes provision for the sponsor body and the delivery authority to be responsible for building works beyond the restoration and renewal project itself. Since the Second Reading debate, I was pleased to receive a letter from the noble Earl confirming that responsibility for the Northern Estate will soon transfer to the sponsor body, so one of those major projects will now be within the remit of this new body. That is very welcome. I have also learned since Second Reading that within the House authorities, Strategic Estates is responsible for the other projects which are expected to be completed before the decant.
None the less, I have tabled my amendment because of the scope for things to go wrong when these big works eventually commence. I would like some reassurance from the noble Earl, or from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that the Strategic Estates team has a formal responsibility for proper engagement with the sponsor body on all these projects; and that if there is any question that responsibility should shift to the sponsor body in the best interests of the future of the Palace of Westminster in the round, it will be considered swiftly. I would also be grateful if the Minister could let us know to whom Strategic Estates is accountable. If there was to be any change in responsibility for those major projects which could impact on the restoration and renewal project itself, which decision-making body would make that decision?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I would like to bring us back to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment. I have great respect for my noble friend, who sits beside me and advises me on the procedures of this House; perhaps he is not doing such a great job, but I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about some Holocaust memorials that he has been to, but for me the most iconic one is the one right in the centre of Berlin. If your Lordships have not been to that one, I urge you to go because the memorial is all above ground, while its learning centre is entirely underground.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I have been to the site in Berlin. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is on a much bigger footprint than is postulated for Victoria Tower Gardens? It is a rectangular site, occupying a great space, which is very different from what is proposed here.
Lord Polak
I will come on to the actual footprint of the site in a minute, if I may.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the issue of security. I just pose the question: what does it say about our society that a Holocaust memorial is deemed a security risk? That is the sort of society we now live in, which is very concerning to me. I also take issue a little with noble Lords using this sort of amendment to the Bill to raise objections to the establishment of the memorial on that site. I know that I am northern and I like people to be straightforward. If this amendment were about just objecting to the site of a memorial, I would have preferred its wording to be clear and unequivocal in saying so. I do not know of any Jewish communal event or building that has been stopped or withdrawn because of security concerns. Thank God that in this country, measures are always put in place by successive Governments and successive leaders of the police, whether it be the Met Police here or the police in Manchester and other areas. They have always shown support and understanding by working closely with the CST—the Community Security Trust.
This reminds me of when I was the education director of the Board of Deputies back in the 1980s. I remember questioning the then president of the board, Lord Janner—he was not Lord Janner then but was subsequently made a Peer. I asked him what would happen if somebody were to daub the stone in the Dell in Hyde Park? What would happen if somebody came and put something on it, a swastika or whatever? I remember that his words to me were: “Stuart, you’ll roll up your sleeves and we’ll clean it up”. Those are important words, because it would be a great shame and sadness if a memorial such as this did not happen because we were worried that it could cause problems. I am not an expert, but surely Westminster is a heavily policed part of town, so why would a memorial at this site be an additional risk to the place we are in?
I do not want to pre-empt the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but I hope a memorial in the learning centre will stand next to Parliament as a reminder to all throughout the nation of our responsibility to remain vigilant against intolerance and bigotry. Setting history’s worst example of the disintegration of democratic values against the greatest emblem of Britain’s aspirations for democracy will stand as a permanent reminder of the responsibility of citizens and politicians, in a democracy, to be vigilant and responsive whenever and wherever those values are threatened. The trustees have ensured, and will ensure, that all precautions are met and the relevant people consulted.
The memorial will require just 7.5% of Victoria Tower Gardens—that leaves 92.5% untouched— and, as a result, the drainage, planting and gardens will be improved. Existing paths will be replaced, the playgrounds enhanced and there will be a new café. There will be many reasons to love the park. Members of the public should be able to go about their daily lives and that includes visiting all high-profile places in Westminster.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have played no part in previous deliberations on the location of the Holocaust memorial. I have listened to the discussions very much for the first time. I say at the outset that I understand some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has made. I also strongly identify with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Polak, has made. What is unacceptable about this amendment is that something as big as the location of the Holocaust memorial is not being decided by a planning authority, but by a back-door route as an amendment to this legislation. This is a national memorial at the heart of London.
By the way, it has taken a long time to set this up. It should have been set up a generation ago, but, as this is a national memorial, it is of such importance that Parliament should decide, and on an express vote. If this is still unresolved—and, from listening to the debate, perhaps the Leader will tell us that it is more resolved than appears—there should be a procedure for Parliament to decide on the location, on a positive vote of both Houses, taking account of all the issues, including those which have been raised on security and accessibility, and on the aesthetic elements by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. What he said about the Berlin memorial was interesting. This is a hugely important decision that the nation should take, from looking at what other nations have done with their memorials and how ours matches up.
If I have understood the situation correctly, construction is not going to start imminently. It sounds unlikely, given the other work that is going to happen on the site. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me but, if that is the case, Parliament should decide what happens with this memorial. We should not leave it to Westminster City Council, by using an amendment to the Bill in this indirect way.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I am participating in this debate as one of the four Members of your Lordships’ House on the shadow sponsor body. I speak from that perspective, but I am not speaking for them. I hope that distinction is clear. I am certainly not commenting on the location, or desirability or otherwise, of the Holocaust memorial. I want to reflect on what this debate shows about the extent of the powers of the shadow sponsor body. As far as I can tell, there is no real master plan for the whole world heritage site. Decisions are made in a slightly piecemeal way, involving major players such as the city council and so on, but in so far as there is co-ordination between them, it has always been the authorities of both Houses of Parliament who do it. If under this amendment that locus was taken away from the parliamentary authorities and handed to the shadow sponsor board, I suggest your Lordships would need to reflect on that.
The role of the shadow sponsor body is, fundamentally, to do what Parliament instructs. Therefore, if Parliament wanted us to take on this role, we would obey. However, as a parliamentarian, I would be quite nervous about handing over an important contribution to the overall planning process to the shadow sponsor body, which has been set up for an entirely different purpose: delivering the restoration and renewal of the fabric of this building.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is a thoughtful person who might take away that point and reflect on it, because it is entirely possible for the thrust of his arguments to be fulfilled, but perhaps not by the shadow sponsor body. In many ways, the amendment tabled and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is another example—it will not be the only one today—of an interesting relationship between the work of the sponsor body and that of the parliamentary authorities. For me, as both a member of that body and a parliamentarian, what is important is clarity. It is less about who exactly is doing what than being absolutely clear about who is doing it, so that, as decisions are made, we know how they have been made and by whom. The lines between some responsibilities are a little blurred, which makes it quite difficult for us.
We need to be careful not to use this Bill in a way that muddies those waters and makes it less clear where such responsibilities lie. At the end of the day, the shadow sponsor body and the sponsor body when it becomes substantive have their role to play, but the parliamentary authorities and Members of Parliament will also continue to have theirs.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the sponsor board was set up to manage the renewal of the Parliament building, but Clause 1(3)—we have talked about it many times—covers all the buildings that Parliament might sit in, even temporarily. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is concerned about the possible management roles of, and interaction between, the different organisations, as are many of us. It would be useful if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, could clarify that.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I am very pleased to. This is something of a moving picture. When the shadow sponsor body was first set up, it was not envisaged that it would have management of the Northern Estate programme, which has emerged. The Bill provides a framework in which Parliament could decide—to be honest—to ask the shadow sponsor body to do anything it liked, but just because it can does not mean that it should. There has to be reflection always on whether a particular task really sits within the skills and parameters of the sponsor body, which is why I have some concerns about the amendment effectively asking the shadow sponsor body to engage in the planning process on behalf of Parliament. If Parliament wants that, we will do it, but I am a little nervous about it and think that role sits more comfortably with the House authorities.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Amendment 2 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack, for whom I have enormous affection and respect. This Bill, on the restoration and renewal of Parliament, is hugely important; we all know that this project must be pursued. However, I would like to give an alternative perspective.
The memorial that is the subject of this amendment is not, as far as I envisage it, about war. Suggesting that it might be more appropriately sited in the Imperial War Museum suggests that it is about something other than what I believe it is intended for. The memorial is about democracy and the horrible consequences of the disintegration of democratic values. The site for this memorial was specifically chosen for its historical, emotional and political significance and is a reminder of the government-approved murders of millions of innocent citizens. It will symbolise our country’s commitment to remembering the men, women and children, whether they were Roma, gays, disabled people or Jews, who were murdered just because of who they were, not for anything they had done wrong.
Baroness Deech
Can the noble Baroness explain how, while democracy has spread across Europe since the Second World War, and Holocaust memorials, hundreds of them, have gone up in Europe and America, anti-Semitism and extremism are on the rise? They are not achieving their purpose. It is a worthy gesture but it needs much more thought.
Baroness Altmann
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I do not think there is a causal connection between memorials sited in other places and the aims of this particular memorial, and what it is intended to symbolise. The trend towards Holocaust denial, revisionism and the rise of anti-Semitism and intolerance, even permeating, it seems, mainstream political discourse in this country and elsewhere, is a frightening reminder of the very reason why the memorial should be built precisely where it is currently planned. As we have heard in your Lordships’ House today, the memorial has many opponents and I understand the concerns raised, but I urge noble Lords to consider the fundamentally important reasons for it to be sited next to our Parliament.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
Would the noble Baroness and other noble Lords accept that this is not fundamentally a debate about the desirability or the location of this? I genuinely recognise all the passions that people feel, but this amendment is about the extent to which the shadow sponsor body should act to engage with the planning authority.
Baroness Altmann
I understand the point being made, but I think it is important that alternative views are expressed, having heard so many noble Lords who have put their perspective very powerfully. Of course, the noble Baroness is right—
Lord Adonis
I strongly encourage the noble Baroness to continue with her remarks, because the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to this location ranged far wider than the text of the amendment, which says that the sponsor body should have regard to whether the works,
“may impede the Parliamentary building works”.
The noble Lord’s objections about security and desirability, and the other objections raised, ranged far wider. I think it is completely inappropriate that this amendment should be the means of deciding where the Holocaust memorial goes.
Baroness Altmann
I strongly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and respectfully request that I put some alternative views to the House. I take the noble Baroness’s point that this is about the renovation and restoration of this Parliament, but this amendment having been put down, I think it is important that the House hears a range of views. Otherwise, an amendment of this nature, which would undermine the important purpose that is intended for a site right next to our Parliament, may pass automatically.
As my noble friend Lord Polak said, the project would take up just 7.5% of Victoria Tower Gardens, and it is intended to offer substantial improvements to the gardens. It will link the existing memorials to historic battles against injustice, and the Buxton memorial to the abolition of slavery will be preserved. The project provides for new pathways and playgrounds and has carefully looked at protecting the trees in the gardens.
I am hugely grateful to the Government and my party for approving the construction of this memorial, and that it will be situated in such a powerfully symbolic location. I hope that the concerns of noble Lords, which have been carefully and respectfully expressed, can be overcome with further discussions about the plans already in place and the careful consideration of the design, which is intended to avoid disruption. Disruption is inevitable whenever restoration is carried out, as will be the case with the restoration of Parliament, or, if one is building a Holocaust memorial and museum on any other site. However, I understand also the concerns of local residents, and that there are strong reservations.
I urge noble Lords to consider whether this particular amendment to this particular Bill is addressing the correct issue at the correct time, and whether we should have a broader consideration of the merits of the Holocaust memorial as it is currently proposed.
Lord Pickles
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. The noble Baroness opposite will like this, because I want to speak to the amendment itself.
Among the traditions and conventions of this House is a long-standing one that we do not impose retrospective legislation, and I know that my noble friend Lord Cormack has not attempted to do so. The result of that is that the existing planning application, which went in earlier this year, would not be affected by this amendment. Therefore, it matters not whether my noble friend wants to press it to a vote or wait until after the summer holidays, when the decision may well have been made, because this will not affect the decision regarding the location of the memorial learning centre one jot or iota.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, wanted an explanation of where we are. A planning application has been submitted to Westminster City Council, which is going about this in a diligent and thorough way. It has some experience, because most of the larger developments that government wants are within this area, so there is probably not a city council within the country better placed to do this. We could well have taken the decision to place this memorial and learning centre by a resolution of the House, overturning the planning of Westminster City Council. However, I have a soft spot and a lot of respect for local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, read out the National Planning Policy Framework; I like that, because I helped to write the section that she read out. It is important that, whether you are the Prime Minister, the Queen or some massively important person in the City, you are still subject to town and country planning. I found the experience of working alongside Westminster City Council useful, and I anticipate that we are likely to get a decision in early September.
My noble friend is the epitome of civilisation and reasonableness; absolutely nobody would feel that he was anti-Semitic. I did feel a number of times that my noble friend was carefully carving a paper tiger in order that it be destroyed, but let me be clear: you can object to this location without being anti-Semitic in any way. My noble friend spoiled it a little when he said that he wanted to preserve all the grass, the dicky birds and flowers but then said that actually, it would be quite a good place for us to build a temporary Chamber over the top. I suppose that the flowers and the dicky birds could then go take a hike.
This site was announced in January 2016. I know that the announcement was made in secret—it was made by the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House of Commons, so one would not necessarily expect everyone to know about it, but I would expect Members of this House to know. Not only was the site announced; we then announced an international competition, and all the top architects in the world put in a bid. We had an exhibition in Westminster Hall, which Members of this House could have looked at; they could even have submitted a card saying whether they liked the design. It was then selected by a jury, which included the Chief Rabbi and Holocaust survivors. Two international architects with experience in Holocaust architecture were selected.
I understand that my honourable friend Lord Forsyth, who is no longer in his place—no doubt he is a busy man—said that he does not like the design. Fair enough: not everybody likes it, but it won an international competition. It has been selected to appear at the international design centre. It is regarded as a thoroughly intelligent piece of work.
Lord Pickles
I will of course give way in a moment, but as I said, this is not the House of Commons; I will come to you in a moment.
Even the people who put together the landscape have just won the competition to landscape the trees and grassland surrounding the Eiffel Tower. The French are notoriously pernickety about design, and I cannot help but feel that we have managed to get the best. I give way to the honourable lady, Baroness Deech.
Baroness Deech
I just wondered whether the noble Lord would remind the House that the winning design is identical to the one that the two architects produced for a competition in Ottawa, which they lost. The Ottawa setting was huge and concrete. They simply brought the same design over to London, hardly tweaking it.
Lord Pickles
I have no idea whether that is true and—I hope that the honourable Lady will not mind me being blunt—I do not care. It was a winning design. It is an attractive design. I know that she does not like it but, frankly, I prefer the choice of a competition and an international jury to her particular whims.
We are almost following a standard. The honourable Lady mentioned Ottawa. Ottawa and Washington went through—
Baroness Barran (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that it is “the noble Baroness”, not “the honourable Lady”. We address our fellow Peers as the noble Lord or Baroness, rather than the honourable.
Lord Pickles
I thank the noble Baroness. That is very helpful.
Ottawa and Washington went through exactly the same process. They said, “We don’t want it here. We think it’s a marvellous thing but we don’t want it in this particular location. Just put it somewhere else”. They then produced a security assessment saying that it somehow adds to insecurity. We have worked closely with the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, and the Metropolitan Police. This morning, my office checked with them to see whether the security report produced by Mr Adrian Tudway changed their assessment in any way; their answer was no. I must say, Mr Tudway is a remarkably honest person. In his assessment, he says:
“I assess the risk of such an attack as falling within the ‘moderate’ band (using Low, Moderate, or High Risk)”.
That seems extremely sensible to me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am listening to the noble Lord’s cogent speech with great interest. Should he not have started by declaring his interest as co-chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation Advisory Board?
Lord Pickles
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I apologise to the House; I forgot that I was in the Lords, not the Commons. I should say that I am co-chair of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and vice-president of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust; I am also on the commission for Auschwitz, the concentration camp in Poland. All those posts are unpaid. I also attend other events. If I have left anything out, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Why this location? We have heard suggestions from other noble Lords as to why it is appropriate. There are two reasons. First, we want the people who have visited the learning centre, and listened to the lessons of the Holocaust and the genocide, to leave, look towards the Victoria and Elizabeth Towers and these two Chambers, and recognise that Parliament is the final bastion—the final protection against tyranny. Secondly, we want people working in this Chamber and in the other place to understand that they always have a choice: they can protect or they can oppress. It was a compliant legislature that introduced the Nuremberg laws. I look forward, in the not-too-distant future, to taking my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other Members on an exclusive guided tour of the new memorial. When it is finished, I am sure that the honourable gentleman will feel that we have done him and this place proud.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who speaks with great authority on this matter. As he rightly declared, he is deeply involved in and knows an enormous amount about what is proposed. But I pick him up on one point he made. Whether or not the application here is out of time for this amendment, I would have thought that nobody in your Lordships’ House would disagree that both this amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, are eminently sensible. It must certainly be right that the sponsor body takes an interest and is informed, as this long restoration and renewal process goes on, of any issues we need to know about; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made that point.
There are so many different angles. I will instance one that has not been mentioned at all, about what comes into Victoria Tower Gardens. I happened to be talking to one of the officers of the House, who got very excited about the issue of lying in state. I do not want to anticipate any unfortunate events that may take place at a very senior level in our country, but at some stage there will be a lying-in-state. Anyone familiar with the problems of lying in state in this Parliament, when the queue goes all the way down the back, through Victoria Tower Gardens and over Lambeth Bridge, will ask where on earth the people are going to go. This is just one illustration of the peculiarities and requirements of the extraordinary site on which we stand.
I criticise my noble friend Lord Cormack over one point. He spelled out what he was looking to see from the restoration and renewal of these great parliamentary buildings. We see a forecast of 37 degrees on Thursday, but I saw absolutely no mention in the new proposal of the importance of brilliant air conditioning throughout the Houses of Parliament.
I am a strong supporter of the Holocaust memorial; I was a strong supporter when it was originally proposed. What was not proposed at the same time was that it would be combined with the learning centre. That introduced an entirely new dimension, of course. When the proposal was originally put forward—I understand that the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, were involved at one stage—there were three alternative locations for the learning centre that were not Victoria Tower Gardens. The memorial, like other memorials, was to be in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The issue I see arising is that we have had a clear statement about how little space this will take up—the figure given was 7.5%—but it has to be built first. It may be 7.5% when the work is finished. I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Pickles did not seem to think that the learning centre was underground.
Lord King of Bridgwater
There was an intervention that I thought suggested not. If I have got that wrong, I apologise.
It is going to be a massive construction process. I asked my noble friend Lord Pickles—he will not mind my mentioning this—how long he thinks this will take; two years, possibly. Anybody familiar with construction projects in London—I have been, and am at present, quite closely involved with some—knows the likelihood of any construction project in London finishing on time. Your Lordships should come with me to Crossrail and see the problems; the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows better than anybody that this is a major problem. While the construction is going on, how much space will it take up? I asked earlier what happens to all the spoil they dig out. It will all go out by barge. That is a new dimension, but it is implicit recognition of the traffic problems that this might cause.
This is an incredibly difficult issue to talk about, because all sorts of allegations are made about anti-Semitism. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on his most moving speech, which seemed to me to completely knock on the head the suggestion that anybody who has a concern about this must be implicitly anti-Semitic. I recall the letter written to the Times by the noble Lord and 10 other colleagues, all Jewish Peers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, expressing their concerns about what will happen.
It is obviously going to be a major construction project which will give rise to concern over traffic—about which we have complaints enough at the moment—will deprive a significant area of London’s smallest park of its utility and will go on for some time. I hope those words will echo around Westminster Council. I am not sure whether they will echo around the Secretary of State whose application it is—it will presumably be referred to him subsequently—but it is an unfortunate decision and we will have to see what comes out of it.
My noble friend Lord Polak made the point that we have had terrorism and we do not expect any more problems. However, given the news today about the ISIS attacks and the killing of the Taliban, the idea that ISIS/Daesh has gone away is wrong. Having lived through Borough Market and Westminster Bridge, and having seen the new threats of one kind or another, I must warn your Lordships, from my experience of having dealt with terrorism for too much of my life, that this is a completely new dimension. We never had suicide bombers in Northern Ireland but we will have them aplenty—it is what happened in Kabul today. Given the complete confusion in the whole of the Middle East area, the activities of the different groups and the unfortunate involvement of Israel—a democratic state in the middle of that appallingly unstable and dangerous area—your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that, as the hatred, threats and the various problems in the world continue to grow, there is no prospect of a calmer, more peaceful world emerging. In those circumstances we need to move with great care to ensure that we do not increase the risks of more danger.
We know all too well—it is a political point—that the police are finding it hard to cope with the present number of threats, difficulties and disruptions they face. This will not make their lives any easier and, in many cases, the challenges will be even more dangerous.
I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Cormack and, although it may be a bit late, I hope the House and the sponsor body will look carefully at the implications of this development as the hugely demanding task of restoring and renewing our Parliament is carried forward.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention before the Minister responds. The broad sentiment behind Amendments 2 and 21A to ensure that consideration is given to how other constructions could impact on the restoration and renewal programme is fully acknowledged by us. I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am also a great fan of Victoria Tower Gardens. I particularly enjoy walking through it and seeing “The Burghers of Calais” and the anti-slavery memorial.
However, while I am obviously moved by the contributions of noble Lords on the Holocaust memorial and the Holocaust itself, I am not in a position to comment on this today—I have not been involved in it —but my noble friend Lady Smith has been involved in discussions with noble Lords from all sides of the House.
As the House noted at Second Reading, the Government have chosen not to hand planning issues to the delivery body, as had previously been suggested—my noble friend Lord Adonis raised this point—but none the less it is helpful for this House to consider whether there is a place for the sponsor body to advise on such issues. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised important issues in relation to this and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
On Amendment 21A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, the issue of the parliamentary relationship agreement including provision for corporate officers to inform and consult the sponsor body on nearby works is important. The noble Baroness raised a number of important issues and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Cormack for tabling his amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I understand the sentiment behind it and agree that, if planning applications for works adjacent to the Palace were submitted, the sponsor body would clearly need to seek guidance on whether those works might impede the R&R programme and, if necessary, raise objections. Prior to the appointment of the shadow sponsor body, under the House authorities the R&R programme has held annual conferences for neighbours such as Westminster City Council, the GLA, Transport for London, Westminster Abbey and the Metropolitan Police. The sponsor body plans to continue these conferences, in order to update partners on the progress of the R&R programme. Close engagement will continue.
Clause 2(2)(b) already places a duty on the sponsor body to make strategic decisions relating to the carrying out of parliamentary building works, and this would include responding to planning applications that may impede the works. Therefore, while we recognise the importance of the principle behind this amendment, given that this is something that the sponsor body already has the power to do in the relevant circumstances, I do not believe it needs to be prescribed in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord Forsyth and Lord King, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised particular concerns around the Holocaust memorial project planned to be located in Victoria Tower Gardens, which is run by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I assure noble Lords that, before deciding on Victoria Tower Gardens, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, an advisory board to the MHCLG which has cross-party support and is co-chaired by my noble friend Lord Pickles and Ed Balls, conducted an extensive search for possible locations and considered almost 50 sites in central London. Visibility, accessibility, availability and affordability were taken into account during this detailed process. The foundation identified Victoria Tower Gardens as a potential site for the memorial and, following investigations into its feasibility, recommended it to the Government in January 2016 as the best choice.
My noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the possibility of the Holocaust memorial being situated at the Imperial War Museum. Noble Lords will certainly be aware that that was carefully considered along with, as I said, many other locations. However, Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the site capable of meeting the Government’s aspiration for the new national memorial.
A key factor in choosing the location was the visibility it afforded to the memorial. As my noble friends Lord Polak and Lord Pickles said, in the shadow of Parliament, the memorial will encourage visitors to learn about the challenging decisions that our leaders had to make in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
My noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord King, Lord Forsyth and Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, all touched on the important issue of security. We are fully aware of the security implications associated with the environs of the Palace of Westminster and are in regular contact with representatives of the Parliamentary Security Department, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and the Metropolitan Police. We have been advised on physical and operational security measures to mitigate risks and are confident that the proposed site would be secure. Queuing visitors will be confined to the paths immediately adjacent to the memorial itself, and all visitors will require a pre-booked ticket.
Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the planned design will lead to improvements in Victoria Tower Gardens. The vast majority of the public space will be retained and improved, with more accessible seating and a new boardwalk along the embankment.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord King asked about the timetable for the project. As my noble friend Lord Pickles outlined, subject to planning permission, work on the site is expected to begin in 2020, with the Holocaust memorial opening in late 2022; that is well before the R&R programme works will commence. A detailed delivery plan has been developed and robust project management arrangements are in place to ensure that it remains on track, with engagement with specialist contractors throughout the course of the works.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned the construction time and suggested that it might be longer. He also suggested that the contractors would need quite a lot of the garden for temporary works while they build the memorial. Has the Minister any idea of whether any of the garden will be able to remain open during the construction phase?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that because this project does not relate specifically to the R&R programme, I do not have that information. But I am sure I will be able to find out and will write to the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Cormack raised the issue of the decant. We will come to that in a later group so, if it is okay with noble Lords, I will now turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Stowell.
Lord Polak
For the record, I forgot to mention that I am a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. I apologise for not saying that at the beginning of my contribution.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend’s amendment would obligate the House authorities to consult the sponsor body about major works to the Parliamentary Estate which sit outside of R&R, if they are likely to have an impact on delivering the programme. Noble Lords will be aware that the Strategic Estates team is a bicameral service, accountable to the clerks of both Houses and to the relevant domestic committees. In the case of this House, those are the Services Committee, the Finance Committee and ultimately the commission. At present, the shadow sponsor body sits within the House authorities and under the Strategic Estates team, which means that both parties have a head start in looking ahead and being aware of what ongoing projects might have an impact on R&R.
My noble friend’s amendment is to Clause 6, which concerns the parliamentary relationship agreement that the House authorities and the sponsor body will have to sign once the sponsor body is formed on a statutory basis. This agreement will set out the arrangements to hand over the Palace for decant and to hand it back once the Palace has been restored. It will also cover issues relating to staff transfers, insurance, security and the control of data, among other matters.
In the light of its purpose, we consider that this agreement is the natural place for the House authorities and the sponsor body to determine how they will keep each other informed about ongoing estate works which might affect the R&R programme and provide the clarity that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, rightly said was important. As this agreement already has to cover “consultation and co-operation” between the sponsor body and the corporate officers of the House, we do not think it is necessary to prescribe in this Bill what that consultation and co-operation should cover.
Ian Ailles and the two clerks currently co-ordinate estates projects through the Parliamentary Estate and public realm oversight group. Once the sponsor body is established, if Parliament and the sponsor body wish for this group to continue to play a co-ordinating role, it would then need to be covered by the parliamentary relationship agreement. In addition, if, over the course of the R&R programme, it became apparent that there was support for current separate House authority estates programmes such as the archives project to fall under R&R, the Bill makes provision for this under Clause 1.
Adding another project to R&R could happen but only with the agreement of the commissions of both Houses, the sponsor body and the delivery authority. As was discussed during this debate, that is precisely the process that is currently being followed to integrate the Northern Estate programme, which includes Richmond House, into the R&R programme. The reason it was not included from the beginning is that the NEP predates important decisions on R&R.
I hope that my response reassures my noble friend, and I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My noble friend kindly offered to write to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Will she confirm that she will put a copy of that letter in the Library?
Lord Adonis
I take it from what the Leader and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, have said that these decisions are beyond the point of no return. That being the case, is not this debate a complete waste of time?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, my noble friend does not appear to be answering the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and has asked me to withdraw my amendment. I made it quite plain when I moved it that I rather honour the convention in your Lordships’ House that we do not divide in Committee and I have no intention of seeking to do so. However, I would like to say two or three things.
First, it is very important indeed that any application relating to the immediate environs of the Palace of Westminster, and that could conceivably impinge upon what we are going to do, should at least be looked at by the body we are formally establishing in this Bill. That is very important, and I may well seek to move an amendment when we come to Report. If I was so minded, I would want to consult the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, before doing so.
On the subject of the Holocaust memorial, it is important that the Committee has been able to debate this extremely important adjacent development. In responding, my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated that it is almost a fait accompli, but I gently remind her that the planning authority has yet to determine, and I certainly hope that it will take most carefully into account not only the powerful speeches of my noble friends who have so strongly supported this, but those of us who have perfectly reasonable, legitimate concerns about the effect it may have. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for what she said, and to my noble friend Lord King and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his moving and powerful speech. These are not arguments that should be lightly dismissed or cast aside, and it is entirely legitimate that those of us in this House and in the other place should have views. If they diverge sharply from those equally sincere views held by my noble friends Lord Pickles, Lord Polak and Lady Altmann, that is what democracy is all about. We cannot always agree on everything, as we have demonstrated quite successfully over the past three years. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“(4) The Sponsor Body must ensure that the first works carried out as part of the Parliamentary building works are to ensure that all buildings undergoing works are provided with—(a) a fully automatic fire alarm system achieving BS5839 L1/P1 standard; and (b) a fully automatic water mist suppression system.(5) Exceptions to the requirement under subsection (4)(a) may be justified only on grounds of practical feasibility and must be given prior approval by the Sponsor Body.(6) If, for reasons of practical feasibility, the requirement under subsection (4)(b) cannot be delivered, the Sponsor Body must approve an alternative fire suppression solution before further works may commence.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 2A, 2B and 16A, which are all in my name. These are all about fire. We have had several debates in your Lordships’ House about the risk of fire in this building. As we saw at Notre Dame in Paris a few weeks ago when the roof caught fire, there are issues about how we protect roofs and the building both when it is in use and when there are contractors on site. Many noble Lords will have seen the results of fires. I think the Queen has had bad fires in two palaces during her long reign, and we have had two fires in Glasgow and in many other places. Having spent quite a lot of time looking at fire prevention and the consequences in the Channel Tunnel and other long tunnels and in other buildings, I suppose that fire is of great concern to me. I am very grateful to two officers of the House, John Bradbury and Malcolm McBride, who have helped me and discussed the issues and the problems with me. I am also grateful to Stewart Kidd, who is a past secretary-general of the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association.
When we come to fire, three separate issues need to be discussed: detection; evacuation of people; and suppression—that is, how to put the fire out. I think the authorities in your Lordships’ House and the other place have made progress in detection. There are certainly very good systems in the basement, and I know that they are doing some things to detect fire in the roof. I will come to evacuation later. It is fine to have a fire detected, but if you are not going to let the building burn to the ground, you have to suppress the fire before it goes too far. I know we have good procedures in this House when the contractors are working on the roof, and I am sure they are very well policed, but there is still a risk. Given the special nature of this building and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier, our job is to protect Parliament, we have to take these issues extremely seriously. That is why I put these amendments down. They are probing amendments, and I hope to carry on discussing the various issues in the amendments with Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and other people after this debate.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I want to make some brief comments. I start by reminding noble Lords that the shadow sponsor body sets six key strategic priorities in its publication about restoration and renewal produced in the spring—I know that everyone will have read it avidly and memorised it. The very first point in the very first block of priorities concerns fire—the risk of fire in the restored Palace and also during the restoration. Therefore, it is very much in the minds of the sponsor body, as your Lordships would expect.
The noble Lord’s point about evacuation was very interesting. My initial thought was that it really was not anything to do with the shadow sponsor body. It is an operational matter and something that we ought to do. Most of us, ever since being at school, have experienced fire drills. I thought I would be saying that this was a matter for the House, but the noble Lord made a more fundamental point about how much we do not know about how people use this place. One thing that the shadow sponsor body has found in its work is that people do not necessarily react as you would expect them to, so it is a very real point. However, I stand by my initial view that it is for the House authorities and not the shadow sponsor body to sort out the evacuation drill.
I hope that the noble Lord wants not to put on the face of the Bill a specific and technical response to fire but, rather, to probe whether we are taking it seriously. Having said that I am not speaking on behalf of the sponsor body, I know that we would be very keen to work with the noble Lord on this matter. Your Lordships will be aware that we have done a lot of work with Members on disability access issues, for example, and will be doing so on other matters, so I am very happy to talk to him about that.
His question about fire and heritage gives rise to a fundamental point, which is that noble Lords have many different priorities. Some say that heritage takes precedence and others say that accessibility does. I think that making something a number one priority above everything else on the face of the Bill would probably make life quite difficult later. There will be a point when the House has to make has to make these decisions. The shadow sponsor body, working with the designers, will put forward a whole range of propositions but it will be for the House to work through what it chooses to prioritise. Therefore, putting things on the face of the Bill that constrain that prioritisation could mean that Parliament has fewer choices when it comes to make a decision.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I do not want to comment on this from the point of view of a member of the sponsor body, because I certainly am not. I was a member of the Joint Committee that reviewed the legislation but I am not speaking from that point of view either. I am speaking as somebody who, in his professional life before entering the world of politics, supervised construction projects. Indeed, I was supervising a project when the people adapting the sprinkler system with welding equipment set fire to the roof and the building burned down. Therefore, I am very well apprised of the risks and I think that the noble Lord has done us all a favour by raising them in the way that he has.
I want to comment in particular on the specific technical solution that the noble Lord has put forward. I think he will recognise that this project’s construction phase will last for at least another 10 and probably 15 years. Mist sprinkling had not even been invented 10 or 15 years ago, so we need to be very well aware that what technology will deliver now might be completely different from what it is appropriate to deliver later. Therefore, I very much hope that he will make allowances for the specific point that my noble friend has raised and ensure that, whatever discussions take place, we do not lock ourselves into a technical solution that becomes outdated and irrelevant.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the comments and amendments—Amendments 2A, 2B and 16A—of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The House was made particularly alive to the vulnerability of the estate to fire by the recent incident at Notre-Dame, which happened during the restoration work, as we all know. Fortunately, in many respects, there are provisions currently in place within your Lordships’ House and across the Palace to protect the buildings and, we hope, reduce and mitigate the risks of anything similar happening. Not least, staff are employed to patrol the estate and we have all seen the developments and changes with the fire doors and other advances.
The technological advances and changes over the last decade commented on by my noble friend are something we need to be kept aware of. For the safety of the 8,000 people who work here, the 1 million or so who visit annually and, as has been touched on, the precious heritage of the building, it is imperative that we take any and all further steps necessary to ensure the utmost protection. As he touched on, steps must also be taken to ensure that evacuation procedures are up to scratch in the event of fire. One thing I have noticed as a new Member here is that some of the stairs do not stop at the level above or below, which I find a bit bizarre. Also—I am sure there is a very good reason—I have never heard a fire alarm or test within the building. I am sure it is because I have not been here at the right times, but during the hours of sitting I have never heard a test done on a fire alarm.
In recent years, I understand there have been two major royal palace fires. In each incident, the evacuation procedures meant that not a single individual was seriously injured. Should a fire take place in the royal Palace of Westminster, it will be a far greater challenge to protect all those in the building because of its size and nature. It will be useful for the House to consider what exact provisions will be necessary. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling these amendments on fire safety and for his continued interest in this extremely important subject, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
I assure noble Lords that fire safety is recognised as being of paramount importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, said, it is very much on the mind and agenda of the sponsor body. It was good to hear that from somebody on that body, which had far more weight than my saying it on her behalf. One of the reasons these works are urgent is because of the alarming number of fires that have been caught just in time around the Palace. This is why we have 24-hour fire-safety patrols, and, more importantly, why full decant is required as soon as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the tragic fire of Notre-Dame was a stark reminder to us all of the risks to this historic building. There is no doubt that the best way to avoid a similar incident here is to get on with the job of protecting the thousands of people working here and the millions who come to visit, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, rightly said. The Bill is clear that the sponsor body must have regard to,
“the need to ensure that those works are carried out with a view to ensuring the safety and security of people who work in Parliament and of members of the public”.
Clearly, this will require the sponsor body and delivery authority to ensure that the Palace is as safe as reasonably practicable from the risk of fire during construction and subsequently in service. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, said, one of the key themes highlighted by the shadow sponsor body is for its vision of the programme to,
“ensure high standards of health, safety and wellbeing and provide appropriate protection for the building and those in it”.
Under the Bill, the sponsor body will be required to lay detailed proposals before Parliament for approval, and the Motion passed by both Houses last year requires that those proposals must include measures to ensure fire safety, among other factors. Clause 7 specifies that no Palace restoration works, other than preparatory works, may be carried out before the sponsor body has obtained parliamentary approval of these proposals. It defines these “preparatory works” as,
“initial design works, and … other works that do not affect the continued functioning of the Palace of Westminster for the purposes of either House of Parliament”.
As noble Lords will be aware, and indeed as the noble Lord said, the current work carried out by the Strategic Estates team to keep this place functioning is operated during restricted timeframes in order for the business of Parliament not to be affected. For example, the ongoing work on the cast iron roof programme can be conducted only when the House is not sitting and work must be stopped immediately if a complaint is made on grounds of noise by an MP or Peer. This sort of example highlights the need for swift progress to be made in decanting both Houses so that the sponsor body and delivery authority can get on with R&R, including the installation of the necessary fire-detection and prevention measures.
The Bill requires at Clause 6 that Parliament and the sponsor body enter into a parliamentary relationship agreement, which will contain commitments around the safety of the Palace, including mitigating fire risks. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke on 25 April and at Second Reading on his understandable concerns about the fire safety of the Palace prior to the works beginning. Until the Palace is handed over to the sponsor body, the House authorities remain responsible for fire safety and have put in place a number of measures to protect the Palace and the roofs, as he mentioned, in particular.
As the noble Lord will be aware, Parliament’s fire safety strategy sets out particular requirements that will need to be considered as part of restoration and renewal. This includes the installation of a full water mist or water sprinkler system, although, as the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord McNicol, said, we also need to ensure that we are fleet of foot with respect to technological advances. Already, the current fire safety improvement project has installed a water mist system throughout the basement, and it is operational. This was following lessons learned from the devastating fire at Glasgow School of Art, where the sprinklers had been installed but not turned on.
In addition, fire safety improvement works include having automatic smoke detection systems in most of the roof spaces across the Palace, and coverage of the remaining spaces will happen by December this year. The House authorities have also compartmentalised the roof space and extended the regular fire safety patrols to include the roofs. In the Palace more generally, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, there are now more than 700 fire doors in operation and strict requirements for all contractors to abide by the highest fire safety standards. I can reassure all noble Lord that those high fire safety standards will continue to apply throughout the works. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes a specific point about the fully automatic fire alarm system achieving the L1/P1 standard. I am aware that this level of detection is already written into Parliament’s fire safety strategy requirements.
Turning to his amendment regarding evacuation of the Palace, and the observations of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, at present, the fire risk management team carries out evacuation drills of all parliamentary buildings once a year; the Palace itself is evacuated twice a year. However, I accept his comment that it has proved difficult to stage these evacuations while the House is sitting. There have been previous evacuation trials involving volunteers in the Chambers and Committee Rooms; we will obviously continue to work to make sure that we do the best we can in this regard and, if there is more that can be done, we will look into it. Furthermore, it is expected that as part of the design works for R&R, the principal designers will use specific computer software to model evacuation routes, capacity and timings.
I cannot stress enough the importance that we place on fire safety. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that in the answers I have given. I fully support the principle of his amendments but, in light also of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we do not believe they need to be, or should be, included in the Bill. This is an extremely important issue and something that will be covered in the parliamentary relationship agreement, which we believe is a more appropriate vehicle for this kind of information. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord is to a degree reassured. I assure him that we will continue to have this as our highest priority.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response. I am much more reassured than I was before, but not totally reassured. I will keep watching this. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for putting me right on one or two things. That has been useful. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who has had first-hand experience in this area.
I said that my amendments were probing, and of course one should not put particular technological solutions in a Bill like this because things might move on, as noble Lords have said. The key point is to have a debate about these issues and for the Government to be aware of them.
Corners can still be cut in any building. I recall that when I was first in your Lordships’ House, a long time ago, I had locked myself out of my house and so slept here, in the family room downstairs. I had a very comfortable night but in the morning I went to see the then Black Rod and said, “You said you patrolled everything once an hour”. He said, “We must have patrolled the family room”, but I said, “Well, the door squeaks so I would have heard it. I just don’t believe you”. People cut corners; that is human nature. So, in addition to the patrols, detection and suppression is vital.
I pay tribute to the work that is going on to get into this. We have to keep going and make sure that as work moves forward these issues are taken into account, as well as the evacuation. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(i) the prospective contractor’s policy relating to corporate social responsibility, and(ii) the prospective contractor’s policies and procedures relating to employment (including in relation to the blacklisting of employees);”
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendment in my name and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Noble Lords will be aware that an amendment was tabled by Chris Matheson on Report in the other place imposing a duty on the sponsor body to require the delivery authority, when allocating contracts for construction and related work, to have regard to the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment. This was opposed by the Government due to existing legislation on blacklisting, and because we considered it more appropriate for these matters to form part of the programme delivery agreement between the sponsor body and delivery authority. The amendment was passed but had defects—namely, that policies on blacklisting are employment policies, not, strictly speaking, matters of corporate social responsibility. We are therefore tabling this amendment in order for the spirit of the original amendment to remain in the Bill while ensuring that it is appropriately drafted.
This amendment will ensure that there is a duty on the sponsor body to require the delivery authority, when considering the award of a contract in respect of the carrying out of the parliamentary building works, to have regard to the prospective contractor’s policy relating to corporate social responsibility and its policies and procedures relating to employment, including in relation to the blacklisting of employees. We have worked with colleagues in the other place on this amendment and they are content with this change of wording.
The second amendment in my name relates to the reporting of contracts and fulfils a government commitment made in the other place. On Report in the Commons, MPs debated an amendment requiring the sponsor body,
“to undertake, and publish, an annual audit of the companies that have been awarded contracts for the Parliamentary building works, with a view to establishing their size and geographical location”,
which was tabled by Meg Hillier. It was clear that such an amendment commanded support on all sides, and the Government agreed to bring an amendment on the reporting of the awarding of contracts to your Lordships’ House. Schedule 1 of the Bill already requires that the sponsor body must prepare and publish a report once a year on the carrying out and progress of the parliamentary building works. The amendment requires that that report includes information about persons to whom contracts for carrying out the works have been awarded, particularly their size and the areas in which they operate. We believe that the amendment fulfils the spirit of the amendment debated in the other place while being appropriately drafted and included at the proper place in the Bill. Again, in proposing this amendment we have worked with colleagues in the other place who are supportive of the wording. I hope noble Lords will support both amendments in my name.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for tabling his amendment on ensuring that R&R provides opportunities for businesses across the UK. The Government have always sought to encourage the shadow sponsor body to give thought to how the delivery authority will engage with SMEs and businesses across the UK in restoring the Palace of Westminster. That is already happening on other projects on the parliamentary estate, such as the work on the restoration of Elizabeth Tower. The shadow sponsor body is committed to creating economic opportunities across the UK, and, once it is established in statute, we expect to continue this commitment. Once the R&R programme is under way, parliamentary committees will no doubt want to scrutinise the work of the sponsor body and the delivery authority, including what opportunities have been created across the regions.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9. I am grateful for the understanding and commitments made by the Leader of the House, and that we have consensus. In the light of that and the fact that we have taken a very long time on the first clause of the Bill, and in order not to hold people up, I shall be incredibly brief.
I think there has been a real collaborative effort to put together the jigsaw that is before us in relation to this proposition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford —to whom I am grateful for her support on this and other aspects of the Bill—knows, we considered this at some length in the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill. There is unanimity because we all want this to be seen as a national project benefiting the nation as a whole. I shall come to other arguments later on other amendments, but on this one we have anonymity—I am sorry, I mean unanimity, although we might have anonymity as well if we carry on too late tonight; no one will know what we have debated.
My own area benefited originally from the stone for this building. A lot of the stone came from South Yorkshire and adjoining areas. Big Ben at the moment is being constructed with a mechanism from the north, from the city of Sheffield, and I think we can make this a real economic win-win. We need to because very big infrastructure projects, including the one that I am associated with in relation to skills and employment for the Heathrow expansion, need to be seen to reach out for gross domestic product, for GVA and for productivity. We have a terrible gap on all three of those in our country, comparing London and the south-east with the rest of the UK. If we can make a small contribution with this substantial investment of public money, we will all benefit from it.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I will just say a few words. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his comments. The Joint Committee went into quite a bit of discussion about the fact that this should be a UK project, not a London and the south-east project. I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for responding to the way in which the debates went in the Commons and for coming up with the proposed amendments, because that is a great benefit to us. Corporate and social responsibility is extremely important in this day and age. It is so easy to just say, “Well, yes”, but not actually do it, so spelling this out in the Bill will make a huge difference.
The other thing that we talked about in the Joint Committee was the opportunities this would give for young apprentices and those who are retraining, who are necessarily young people, to learn skills and take part in a project of this size and complexity. I am very grateful that we will be able to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to be involved in this project. I will not repeat everything that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has said, but I am very happy to support this amendment and I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward the amendments that she has spoken to already.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Baroness’s remark that this is a UK project, not a London and south-east one. The overwhelming majority of the work and the employees will be located in London and the south-east. Saying that that is not the case does not make it not the case. It is the case. This is an issue we will address later. By virtue of the fact that Parliament is located in Westminster, the temporary premises will be in Westminster, and all the refurbishment works will take place in Westminster, it is a London and south-east project. We might as well admit that completely frankly. Some weasel words about it being open and promoting the interests and knowledge of the rest of the United Kingdom do not, I am afraid, amount to anything at all when the overwhelming focus of Parliament before, during and after this work will be on London and the south-east.
Baroness Byford
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments. It would be a great mistake to say that people from elsewhere who have the skills and opportunities to come here are not able to use them. Is the noble Lord really saying that people who live in London and the Greater London area are the only people who will be involved in this project? If he is, that is a very sad state.
Lord Adonis
I certainly was not saying that; I was simply stating the obvious. The work will be overwhelmingly located in London and the south-east because that is where Parliament is currently located.
Baroness Byford
That is indeed where the work will be done, but it does not have to be done solely by people living in London and the south-east. I suspect there will be quite a few people coming from abroad to work on this project as well. If that is so, I do not see why we cannot have people who live further from London than the 25-mile radius around it.
Lord Shipley (LD)
If I can interject in this discussion, there is a real danger that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is right, but it does not have to be like that. That is why I am very supportive of Amendments 9 and 27, which are exceedingly important. When the Minister winds up, I would appreciate it if she could comment on Amendment 27 and the annual report to Parliament on “the areas in which” those who have contracts operate.
It seems that the decisions will have been made by then. They are very dependent on the nature of the procurement exercise, which is why Amendment 9 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is terribly important. It seeks to insert provisions that,
“opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the Parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom”,
which implies that the start of the procurement process will be geared to deliver that objective. The Government and those responsible for making the decisions about procurement need to plan this very carefully. It will not be enough for the procurement system simply to take national contractors from a national list, with companies that say they can employ people from all parts of the country. In reality, what will almost certainly happen is that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will be proved right because the labour force will come from a narrower part of the UK—London and the south-east. I want to avoid that.
It is important that procurement reaches SMEs, not just big national companies. It needs to get specialist professions such as specialist architects, and get to companies based purely in the regions of England, or based only in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. It will not be enough for only national contractors to get the lion’s share of the business. I hope the Government will plan to achieve all this in a proactive way. I fully understand the legal position in relation to procurement law, but this is surely about enabling proper competition, not simply relying on a system which does not promote genuine competition. To do that requires competition to be enabled rather than minimised.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, in following on from my noble friend I welcome these amendments. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, refer to skills and apprenticeships. I return to a subject which I raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and I served on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster and will readily remember the evidence we received regarding the importance of skills. However, we are talking about skills in the heritage sector, where there may be a shortage at the moment, and there could well be lead times in training people to deploy those skills when it comes to R&R.
One of the recommendations which the Joint Committee made in paragraph 306 of its report is that,
“market engagement should begin early, and be facilitated by the early establishment of a shadow Sponsor Board and shadow Delivery Authority”.
I understand that we do not have a shadow delivery authority at the moment, but it would be helpful if, in responding to the debate—if not tonight then in writing—the Minister could tell us what steps have already been taken to pursue that market engagement and identify where there might be bottlenecks, and see what could be actively done at the moment to try to ensure that there will be an adequate supply of skilled tradespeople when the time comes to undertake this important work.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, sometimes competitive tender can breed low bidding rates, and contractors make up their profits through claims. Is the idea to generate negotiated unit prices or have competitive bidding?
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, before the Minister answers, I am a great believer in trying to get as many SMEs to bid as possible, but one has to think about the risks they will be required to take, as well as the conditions of contract and the penalties if it is late. You can imagine one or two big contractors being given the overall responsibility to do this, because they are the only people who can manage the risk. There will be a rush to get this done. Wherever the supply of timber, stone, other materials and expertise comes from, we will have to work very hard if we want to get real SMEs to do this, as so many noble Lords expect. It will not happen unless we work very positively towards it.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I am pleased that this group of amendments is being debated here today to deal with the responsibilities the sponsor body will have, in particular those relating to the contracts to be awarded. I thank the Minister for the Government’s Amendment 3 on the social responsibilities of the sponsor body, which fulfils their promise in the Commons to address the concern raised by my honourable friend Chris Matheson: that contracts have regard to the prospective contractor’s policy on both CSR and employment policies and procedures. The company’s wider attitude to social responsibility has to be a key consideration when awarding contracts.
On employment practices, we welcome the specific reference to companies that have undertaken blacklisting activities which will lead to their exclusion from consideration. This shameful practice has previously seen businesses compile files on thousands of workers, recording details of their political and trade union activities to prevent them gaining employment in their respective trade. Sadly, there is evidence that blacklisting has remained rife in recent years, and this is an important step not least because many construction staff currently working on building sites are employed by businesses which have previously been convicted of such unlawful behaviour. In such a prestigious project as R&R, it is important that Parliament makes a stand and warns businesses that if they neglect their social responsibilities, are not up to scratch on their employment practices or engage in illegal blacklisting, they will not play a role in restoration and renewal projects and will not be awarded contracts.
I fully support my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 9. He is right to underline that the economic benefits of the work have to be available in all areas of the UK. This was again a key theme from noble Lords at Second Reading. We must make it clear that this is a project for the whole country and that all the rewards, including for businesses, are felt in all areas. I particularly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, on skills and apprenticeships, which was also a familiar theme at Second Reading.
In summary, government Amendments 26, 27 and 30, placing a duty on the sponsor body to include information on contractors’ size and areas of operation in its annual report, are welcome and will help to provide the transparency and accountability needed. Finally, on employment-related issues and the importance of ensuring full staff consultation on the R&R programme and project, at Second Reading my noble friend Lady Smith asked the noble Earl to confirm that there would be full engagement with staff and their representative unions. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this and reassured the House that the Government fully recognise its importance.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I am also grateful for the support for these amendments from across the House. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of procurement and contracts. This is the very reason why we are setting up the independent sponsor body and the independent delivery authority, which have the experts and expertise to ensure that SMEs around the country can take advantage of this. We believe that setting up these bodies in a timely manner is exactly the best way to ensure that the benefits of this project are felt around the country, notwithstanding the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. We very much look forward to ensuring this project has the buy-in of the regions and workers across the United Kingdom because it will be a fantastic project. I hope we will also see regeneration of skills apprenticeships in key areas. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support for these amendments.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, I suggest that Committee begin again not earlier than 7.12 pm. For the benefit of noble Lords not signed up to the dinner hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that debate will now be taken tomorrow.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Monday 22nd July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 187-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (19 Jul 2019)
Lord Blunkett
“( ) to promote public understanding of, and engagement with, the Restoration and Renewal programme and its objectives.”
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 6 and 10 and will endeavour to be brief. Rather than repeating myself later, I will set out here why it is important that this amendment should be in the Bill. I suspect that I will have a slightly more uphill struggle than on the amendment we debated before the Statement, but I hope not, because I am seeking consensus. Once again, I am deeply grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords on this and subsequent amendments.
We have to have some understanding of why it is important to have some essential elements written in the Bill rather than in letters from present or past Leaders of the House, or reassurances from the Dispatch Box. It is patently obvious that nobody knows who the Minister will be from Thursday onwards. I suspect—I have written about this—that there may be an election sooner rather than later, so elected Members in the other House do not really know who will be there. As far as we are concerned, the grim reaper can determine whether we are here or not rather rapidly.
On staff servicing the sponsor body and members of the sponsor body who are not in either of these Houses, it is obvious that going for promotion, or leaving for another job or another part of the country is part of life. Therefore, the notion that a letter of assurance or a word or two from the Dispatch Box, or even, importantly, the trust we place in existing sponsor body members and staff is not worth the paper it is written on or the emotion it uses. Who knows who will be here by the time we decant and, certainly, by the time we return?
I place on record that none of what I am going to say disparages either the commitment or the appreciation of Ministers or sponsor body members, or Liz Peace and her team; I have nothing but respect for their work, their good offices and their words. However, we need to ensure that the electorate, who are already totally disillusioned with politics and Parliament, feel that this has something to do with them. As we discussed on the consensual amendment on the economic benefits to accrue from the restoration and renewal programme, if we can get them, so on the political gains that can be made: there is the need to gain consent. That is why these amendments endeavour to ensure that the Bill, whoever is in this House and serving on the sponsor body, and the direction they give to the delivery authority, make it absolutely clear what Parliament’s will is.
What is Parliament’s will? Is it determined by ephemeral Ministers or by a letter that may or may not have been sent months or perhaps years before? Is the will of Parliament to be determined only when the delivery authority eventually comes back with a scheme that, frankly, will not be amendable anyway, because it will have been put together as a package? We may be able to choose whether we have a slightly more or slightly less expensive scheme; I hope that we will go for something more than the lowest common denominator. If we do not, people will be even more aggrieved at the billions we are spending if it is just about electronics and pipework, and a little bit of restoration. These amendments are intended to be a positive way to ensure that the sponsor body is able to understand the will of Parliament, expressed by the Bill, which is, seriously, the only way in which Parliament can reflect the true will of this House and the other place on this prolonged project, and do so with consensus.
It is important that public engagement at every level on these and later amendments supports our intentions—I think that all of us have the same intentions; they cannot be otherwise. I have said to Ministers that if the amendments tonight and subsequent amendments were already in the Bill, would anybody feel that they had to take them out—would there be a move to do so? The argument is that this confines the sponsor body in some way and that it is determinist, preventing it having flexibility in the way it proceeds and what it does. None of the amendments prescribes, because I have deliberately watered them down; none of them is deterministic or confines the sponsor body and the future delivery authority in any way whatever. They reinforce and send a message out to the public that we care about the engagement with them; we want them to understand what is taking place in their name, with their money—to ensure that that reaches out, as Amendment 10 says, to the regions, and that we do so with the support of future generations.
I will say one other thing about the nature of Parliament as well in reaching out and selling the restoration and renewal programme to the public. Does anybody seriously believe that the sponsor body is not inherently part of Parliament? It responds to Parliament, and as we discovered in the Joint Committee, its methodology is very much about the estimates committee and the commission, but it is part of and represented from this House and the other House on the sponsor body. Essentially, it is part of the parliamentary process. However, it cannot simply hand over promoting and communicating the restoration and renewal programme now and in the future to the public. It must have a role in doing so. People have said to me, “This isn’t the role”, but it is in the letters of the former and current Leaders of the House that were sent to the sponsor body and circulated to us all that we do not need to bother putting something in the Bill, because it is the role of Parliament to sell the Bill. If we look at the attendance on the restoration and renewal Bill in this House tonight, or the engagement in the House of Commons, does anybody seriously believe that the 600 or 650 Members of the other House, depending on the boundary changes, will spend their time going out, explaining, engaging and selling this programme to the public? Your Lordships must live in a different world if you believe that, and if you do not, you should support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment and share the views of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
To me, the principles of this massive investment are that of course it is about the engineering, heritage and security of the House, the comfort of Peers and Members of the House of Commons and their ability to do their jobs, but the most important legacy will be to contribute to the rebuilding of trust between Parliament and the people. It is not uncommon for infrastructure projects of this size to have important secondary benefits without which they can be deemed a failure.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I absolutely agree with everything that has been said. Frankly, it is a no-brainer for the Government not to agree with the amendment. Apart from anything else, if they do not, they will be seen to be offside with common practice these days in restoration projects.
If the House were to come to the Heritage Lottery Fund—I declare my interest as deputy chair of the board—with a proposal for a fairly significant grant, as the House may still do although we could not fund the whole thing, the very least we would expect is a clear strategy. It is not necessarily as simple as consultation; I mean a serious public engagement strategy which would allow us to tell who would actually benefit, how their voices had been collected and heard and how they had been reflected in the proposal. We would not consider proposals which could not provide us with that obvious proof of public benefit.
What we are considering here, for all the reasons we know and which the noble Lord has again spelt out, is a national project of the greatest public benefit that we could conceive of. By not acknowledging that in the Bill or making clear plans to involve and listen to the voice of different communities around the country, we are missing a massive opportunity. We also neglect our public duty.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Did I follow my noble friend correctly in thinking that the lottery might fund parts of the restoration and renewal work? I would strongly deprecate that. This should be paid for by the Treasury.
Baroness Andrews
No, my Lords, I did not say that. I was making a hypothetical case that, were such a grant to be considered—I am not saying that it would be—it would have to satisfy different conditions. Of course I agree that this is a public project for national Treasury funding.
I have now lost my thread completely. This is the second time that my noble friend has interrupted me when I was developing my strategic thinking. I return to the principle. It is extremely important, for all the reasons we know, that this change is owned by the people we are here to serve. It is absurd not to recognise them in the Bill or to give them a voice.
We know how to do this, although it is complicated. At what point do you start involving people? How do you structure it? How do you reach out? How do you collect the voices, as it were? But we do it every day in major and minor projects around the country. It is not a miracle; it is a science.
To take just one example before I close, the National Museum Wales has, I am delighted to say, just won a national museum of the year award. In its redevelopment, which involved a great deal of new building, it involved thousands of people from all manner of excluded groups in the local and national community. The result has been transformational in their and our understanding of what people expect from a national museum.
This is not a museum. We have a much greater duty. But those principles and methodologies can certainly be adopted and followed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments and the spirit in which they have been moved and spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
In my involvement both in the Joint Committee and in taking part in debates, I have been very conscious that we are here as trustees. That has implications not only because we have responsibility—we have to get on with it, because we would not be thanked by the public if we dithered and an accident happened which destroyed part of this important part of our national heritage—but, as trustees, we are temporary. There are 650 Members of the other place here by election. Those of us who are here are, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, at the hand of the grim reaper or may choose to take retirement. That makes it important to remember that we are here but there is a great public out there, to whom we owe responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, it is important that we try to understand what they want from what is, in fact, their Parliament—a place where they can engage with not only Members of Parliament but Members of your Lordships’ House. How can they get their views across? How can we use this place for education, so that we bring up a new generation of citizens who want to take part in the democratic process?
The amendments are directed at engaging the public more in what we are doing at the moment; I suspect that those who know about it are somewhat cynical about it, so an explanation of why a large amount of money is being spent might go a long way. They are also trying to gauge what the public wish to see in how we spend that money. When the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about access and people wanting to talk to their MPs, I reflected on the fact that, when we voted earlier this evening, my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath asked me, if I got a chance when I spoke this evening, to say that he thinks that it would be a good idea to have a coffee shop in the Royal Gallery because it is a large space that is not used for much else, except on historic occasions, but which could clearly be adapted and changed. I rather suspect that, on first hearing, people would say, “Oh, we can’t do that”, but has anyone ever asked? It would be a good place for that, in the same way that Portcullis House has become a meeting place for discussion and discourse for Members of the House of Commons—you can take people there. That is perhaps worth thinking about if we want to engage the public more.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that we are trustees, or custodians, of this Palace of Westminster, which ultimately belongs to the public that we exist to serve. Clearly, we need to ensure that, through this programme of works, the Palace that belongs to the public and the people who occupy it are in a position to serve the public better.
I also support the need for public engagement with and consultation on these works. I would counsel one thing, however. During the debate, I have been a little worried by comments about attempts by us to help the public to understand better what this project is all about. At the moment, those of us in positions of great privilege and some power think—too often and mistakenly—that we are the ones with all the information and that we need to impart it and impose it on other people. As has been made clear by other noble Lords in their contributions, we want to understand better what the public expect from their Parliament and reflect on what they want so as to influence how we change.
However, I would go one step further: we must be frank and understand that the process of consulting people is another opportunity for us to show that we are changing and that we want to serve them better. I want us to ask about what it is that people want to see us change in terms of our behaviour as parliamentarians. If we can understand better what they want from us in terms of how we behave—to show that we take them seriously and listen to them in carrying out our work—we should consider what we need to do differently in terms of how our building is formatted, refurbished and renewed to make sure that we are better placed to show that we are listening and responding, and to give people confidence that that is what this is all about.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said about making much better use of the Royal Gallery. I referred to this in my speech at Second Reading. I wish him luck because it will mean taking on the fully entrenched forces of the officialdom of the House, but I will willingly make one last attempt at getting a coffee bar in the Royal Gallery. I will join the noble Lord; perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might also commit themselves. It may be that, if all the party leaders and many noble Lords converged on a maximum point of pressure, we could persuade the authorities of the House to act. This might be the moment: if we have a series of speeches on this, a revolutionary change that would make this place far more accessible could be brought about. Part of the problem with the House of Lords is that it is largely inaccessible to the public because the points of entry are so narrow and constrained; it is almost impossible to get here unless you have an appointment with a Peer who meets you. The number of meeting places that are not offices is also limited. Perhaps we will have brought about a revolutionary change by the end of the debate.
I am very sorry for interrupting my noble friend Lady Andrews. I was anxious to interrupt her because, when she mentioned the lottery, I could see the Treasury’s eyes gleaming at the prospect of possibly being able to pass on large parts of the cost. It is important that we establish that this is absolutely a public project. If the Victorians could build this extraordinary Palace—Mr Gladstone was very mindful of the public finances—we in this generation can certainly live up to our responsibilities.
Lord Blunkett
For the record, Mr Gladstone came on to the scene for this particular building a bit late, did he not?
Lord Adonis
Actually, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when a large part of the work was being carried out. I assure my noble friend that Gladstone took a keen interest in the allocation of the public finances; my noble friend and I can correspond on this matter afterwards.
The amendment moved by my noble friend seems at one level to be a statement of the obvious but, on another level, the fact that it needs to be stated is of some importance in itself. The two changes that he essentially wishes to make are: to enlarge the sponsor body’s duties to include promoting to the public the work of R&R; and to add to the sponsor body’s duties consulting not only Members of each House but members of the public. That should not need to be said; it ought to be obvious that that should happen. However, there are two reasons why this is important. First, I do not think that the Government are racing to accept the amendments; I am looking at the noble Earl. If so, there must be some reason why. It is precisely because the actual duties will be expanded in a way that the Government think will be distracting to the sponsor body. Why would the Government regard them in that way? They impose additional duties.
However, those duties—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was completely right about this—are exactly what we would and should expect of the sponsor body in two respects. First, it is a matter of self-interest: the body is going to spend a lot of money—the figure of £4 billion has been touted before but, from my intimate knowledge of how infrastructure projects go, I think that we can safely assume that it will be significantly larger. When the inevitable controversy comes, as it will, about the cost, overruns, delays and everything else, the sponsor body, your Lordships and the other House of Parliament need the ultimate protection possible, which must surely come from having engaged with the public and having proper public promotion and displays. Westminster Hall needs to be full of displays about the work that will be undertaken and we need the visitor centre to do the same. That is important. Secondly, part of the justification for the spending on this work is that it will enhance public access significantly.
To extend the point about what happens at the end of restoration and renewal, not having proper citizenship education is part of the problem. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has done more than any other Minister—in history, I would venture to suggest—to put citizenship at the core of what we teach in schools. It is hugely important. However, we still do not pay nearly enough attention to it. In particular, we do not make visiting Parliament, engaging with parliamentary institutions and meeting parliamentarians a systematic part of secondary school education, as it should be. Since the Germans’ massive renovation of the Bundestag’s beautiful old buildings in Berlin—at the behest of British architects, as it happens—they have had comprehensive programmes for schools and schoolchildren proactively to visit Berlin, tour the German parliament and meet their parliamentarians. We do not do that here. Even with all the expansion we are talking about, the creation of a visitor centre and all that, it all depends on people wanting to come here, whereas we should be proactively engaging. This problem goes to the wider issue: the further one goes from London, the more disengaged people feel from their parliamentary institutions, not least because they hardly have any contact with what goes on here. Their schools are much less likely to come here.
I am struck when I meet school parties—some I show around; many I just meet when I am walking around the Palace—and ask where they come from. They disproportionately come from London and the area immediately around. Why? Because if you have to proactively seek to come here and cover expenses and things of that kind, it will particularly be private schools—we come back to this issue—who will come here. We have to end this. We are now in a massive Brexit crisis because of the massive alienation between a large part of our people and our parliamentary institutions.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes the point well, but I think he is too limited in his analysis of the problem. It is not just that schoolchildren do not understand the parliamentary democracy they live in. They do not see for themselves the opportunities that lie in the Civil Service and other forms of public service. There is a massive disengagement between schools and universities and the whole ethos of public service. There is a good argument that that kind of personal contact with Parliament would do a huge amount to invigorate a sense of public service that is missing at the moment, particularly in the schools to which he refers—schools outside London and non-grammar, non-independent schools.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I agree with every word the noble Lord has just said.
What I would like to see in this Bill—as noble Lords know, I always try to push things to extremes—is a duty on the sponsor body to see that, once the restoration and renewal work is completed, there are facilities and arrangements in place for every schoolchild in the country, during the course of their secondary education, to visit the Houses of Parliament, have a tour and get the opportunity to see the work we do.
Baroness Byford (Con)
I have to take the noble Lord to task on engagement in schools north of the south—if you see what I mean. Not enough of us take part in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, but many do, and I assure the noble Lord that the majority of schools I go to are not private but state schools, and they engage through citizenship. They are often either GCSE-level or sixth-form level—I have been to a couple of primary schools as well—but they do come down. With this project we have a chance to enlarge on that, but I would hate to think that people following this debate would think that we do not engage already. On the whole—I cannot speak for others—I have been to state schools, certainly not private schools.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness on her work. I did not say that we do not engage at all; I said that we do not engage nearly enough. The overwhelming majority of state secondary school pupils across England do not have any engagement, will not have come here on a visit and will not have met their parliamentarians. We should take that as a criticism of us—this institution—because it is.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett is pushing the door further—which he does so brilliantly on these occasions —so that we at least recognise in the Bill that the public exist and that the promotion of public engagement should be a duty on the sponsor body. These amendments seem entirely uncontroversial, unless the noble Earl is going to argue that they are distracting to the work of the sponsor body. If he does, I hope that at the very least he will agree to consider that issue further. If they are distracting, we are admitting that engaging with the wider public is a distraction to the work of the very body and the restoration and renewal programme that should seek to serve this wider public interest.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate—I have an amendment a little later—but it seems to me that we are touching on an extremely important subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for tabling these amendments. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has just said, we need to make some practical suggestions. I entirely agree with him when he says we must have exhibitions in Westminster Hall—of course we must; people must know what we are doing—but we need to take them out to the country. I would like to see an exhibition on our restoration and renewal programme in every town and city hall in the country. It is not impossible—indeed, it would be very easy to do it—and modern technology makes it easy to simulate, project, let people have virtual reality shows and all the rest of it. We ought to go to every town and city in the country, so that whether it is Lincoln, where I live, or Wolverhampton, the city next to the constituency I represented for 40 years, people should be able to go and see.
There should be a follow-up, of course, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is right that we should get as many schoolchildren as possible, because it should be part of the citizenship education of every child in this country to come to Parliament. Citizenship is a Cinderella subject; it is badly neglected in many schools. They pay lip service to it, but do not engage in the way they should.
I go further, because I believe we should also endeavour to ensure that people in every university in the country know what we are doing. After all, it is from the universities of this country that most elected parliamentarians —and, indeed, most appointed parliamentarians—in the future will come. If we are to engage in a proper way, we need to do it systematically, practically and with concrete suggestions such as those I am putting forward. Whether it is part of the renewal body’s remit to draw up that programme or whether it wishes to set up some committee of both Houses to discuss the practicalities, that detail is a little further down the line, but that it should be done is very important. Indeed, it must be done.
We are embarking on an enormously expensive exercise. I believe it is totally justified. Democracy is beyond price, and this is the greatest secular building in our country, but it belongs to everyone. This is the people’s Palace—the people’s Parliament. They should know what is being done, why and how. After all, at the end of the day they are paying for it. I would like to see a practical programme drawn up, and nobody would be better able to direct and help in that than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. If he wanted to get a few like-minded souls around him, I for one would very happily be involved.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I will just correct the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because he said this place belongs to everyone. With respect, it does not. We were talking about having a coffee bar in the Royal Gallery—which is a wonderful idea—but a few years ago I asked if I could have a concert there in aid of a charity. I asked Black Rod—not the present Black Rod, of course—who was in charge of the room. He said, “No, you can’t”. I asked, “Why?”. He said, “It belongs to Her Majesty and she won’t allow it”. I asked, “Who advises Her Majesty?”. He said, “I do, and I shall advise her not to”. I asked, “Why is that?”. He said, “It’ll wear the floor out”. It was one of the stupidest reasons. In planning, building regulations and everything else, this is technically a royal Palace. We have to sort all these things out before we end up finding we cannot do something because of some idea that has been around here ever since the place was built.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and some of the later ones, particularly those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I was sad that I was not able to take part in the Second Reading but I hope to make up for it now.
For me, the pertinent questions are: who is the restoration and renewal project for, and what is it intended to achieve? The Bill is incredibly unambitious. It is designed to keep things roughly as they are—or, in some cases, exactly as they are—to serve those people who currently occupy the building, whether MPs, Peers or staff. I love the idea of a coffee bar in the Royal Gallery—it might warm it up—because it is almost unusable at most times of the year. However, it is only partly right if we look to MPs, Peers and staff for what is appropriate for the future.
Public engagement has to be at the heart of the project. If we do not engage the public properly, they will not see this as a good use of money. We are talking about billions of pounds of public funds from the Treasury and it must not look like an upgrade for our offices; it has to look like part of the national fabric. We must therefore involve the public in renewing the heart of our democracy.
It is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy that no Parliament can bind its successors in law, and yet this Bill will do exactly that. This building will be set in stone for decades. It will take a decade to start the work and a decade to complete it and in that time we will not take into account the fact that our society is moving on. The public can be more radical than we are. We tend to get stuck in mud with our processes. We have a new clock, a new system with the Lord Speaker and so on, but these changes have been incredibly slow. Public engagement will suggest more radical things than we do here.
Once the building is done, there will be no opportunities for moving on, changing our systems or doing anything new or perhaps more democratic. Whether it is introducing an elected Chamber, electronic voting or whatever, it will be much harder because people will say, “We cannot do that because we have just spent billions on recreating what we had before. It will not fit and we cannot spend any more money”. This country has undergone massive constitutional changes over the past couple of decades and it is illogical to persist in the way we are going when society is moving on. We cannot afford to be blinkered about what is happening around us. For these reasons, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, are essential. The sponsor body must have as one of its central purposes the duty to ensure that its work accommodates future concerns, changes and political developments. If it does not do that, it will be seen as a huge waste of money.
I would go even further with public engagement and say that we should parallel the sponsor body’s work on restoring and renewing the building with establishing a citizens’ assembly, which is what Theresa May should have done with Brexit. Such an assembly could offer a way in which to restore and renew our whole political system. A Government with vision past the next few months would breathe life into a new era of citizenship and change public engagement for the better. This place is not a museum but a working building, and we have to accept that work sometimes changes.
These amendments are vital. I regret that they have been watered down—I would have supported the unwatered-down version—but I will support them at any further point in our work.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendments, which are important. I also endorse everything that has been said about citizenship and education, and the role that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has played in that.
The Bill is unfortunately titled. The title is somewhat misleading because it places the emphasis on restoration and renewal of a physical entity—the Palace—rather than the restoration and renewal of Parliament as an institution. That should be at the heart of informing the debate as we go forward because we have to configure the Parliament in order to fulfil the functions that both Houses fulfil.
In its recent report the Liaison Committee endorsed the view that we have a number of functions which are not confined to the legislative-Executive relationship but encompass as well the legislative-public relationship. We should see this through the prism of not only the relationship between Parliament and government but the relationship between Parliament and those outside who the institution serves. I endorse the point that we are trustees. We need to look at it in that perspective and consider how we can configure or reconfigure space to fulfil those functions. That should be the driving force. We should look at it dynamically in terms of our functions, not as some fixed physical entity.
Reinforcing that—this point has been touched upon—is the context in which the discussion is taking place: how people outside see the institution, which, at the moment, is not positive. The recent audit of political engagement by the Hansard Society tracked the extent to which there is dissatisfaction with the way our system works. The proportion of respondents who feel that the system of governing needs a great deal of improvement stands at 72%—the highest level it has been in the audit series. The level of distrust has been a change of kind and not only extent. By that I mean that people used to distrust MPs; now they distrust the House of Commons. That is a challenge that we have to face up to and address. We have to see it in that context.
We need to think about how we relate to those outside the House in the way that has been stressed, and I agree with most of what has been said. That encompasses not only seeking to educate but, as has been stressed, engaging with people outside Parliament—not only in terms of restoration and renewal but how we craft an institution that can continuously engage with people outside.
The noble Baroness who has just spoken seems to think that we are going to be stuck with whatever the fixture is. However, one can anticipate that and have flexible space that is adaptable to needs as they change over time. In that context we need to anticipate and address the, if you like, known knowns and think about the known unknowns and the extent to which the Palace may be configured on that basis.
We need to configure space so that we can enable greater interaction between Members and those making representations and, has been stressed, those who wish to be present for proceedings. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. It reinforces my point about not just seeing the Palace as a fixed body but that dynamic of how we relate to people outside, creating space here for that purpose but thinking how we can configure it in such a way so that we can engage with those outside who cannot come here as well.
I wholly endorse what has been said. It is important that it is in the Bill, for the reasons that have been given. It should be at the forefront of what we are doing. My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to it basically as a secondary function, for reasons I understand, but we should stress it as a primary function in terms of what this institution is about. That has to be at the forefront throughout the work that is undertaken and, for those reasons, I endorse the amendments.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Smith and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bethall.
A number of themes have emerged from the discussions over the past 50 minutes. The amendments were eloquently outlined by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and that set the tone for the rest of the debate on group five. There has not been a voice against the amendments and I would not like to be in the noble Earl’s place in trying to respond across the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, touched on the rebuilding of civic trust. He is absolutely correct. There is a misconception about the restoration and renewal project among those outside who do not know much about it that it is about us improving the place for the benefit of parliamentarians and spending large amounts of money in doing so. We all know that it is actually about maintaining the heart of our democracy and the benefits it brings as a centre of education and heritage.
A number of noble Lords spoke about education. I have been in the House only for a year and one thing I went straight into was working with the education and schools engagement team. For those who have not had that opportunity, I highly recommend it. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about reaching out to all secondary schools, but some of the most engaging conversations I have had have been with primary school children. My noble friend Lord Adonis is correct that not enough schools are coming into the House, and we should encourage that more. We should use this as an opportunity to reach out further; the sponsor body should have the ability to do that and should hold it at the forefront of its mind when thinking about what the Palace should look like once we go through this process. It should think about engagement with education and schools. That would be to all of our benefit.
There are other organisations across civil society, including the trade unions. To go right back, the Joint Committee’s recommendation was that the sponsor body should,
“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”.
When this was in its infancy and being pulled together, there was talk of a public understanding of Parliament.
We all know what happens with large infrastructure projects—and this will be a large infrastructure project. Too often, sometimes for unforeseen reasons, they overrun in time and expenditure. Parliament will not have the time to do the work on this—there is a lot of other work that Parliament needs to do—so putting it in the Bill and adding it as a responsibility for the sponsor body will help us to deal with some of those issues. If we do not get out there and tell the story of restoration and renewal, we could see many of the criticisms and problems that have arisen with other large infrastructure projects.
To touch on another amendment, we should ensure that businesses across the UK benefit from the economic advantages that the project will bring. Some of the contracts should go out across the UK, and that should remain at the forefront of the sponsor body’s mind.
If my noble friend Lord Adonis gets his wish and we end up with a coffee shop in the Royal Gallery, I am more than happy to help out as the first barista. I support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Bethell for tabling these amendments. As has been clearly explained, they seek to require the sponsor body to promote public understanding of and engagement with the restoration and renewal programme. The amendments would also require the sponsor body to have regard to these matters and to develop a strategy for consulting the public.
The first thing for me to say is this: the public will absolutely and undoubtedly want to understand how the restoration and renewal of the Palace is progressing and what it means for them. That is exactly why the shadow sponsor body is already engaging with the public on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is doing that because one of its main strategic priorities is to:
“Open up the Houses of Parliament, improve access and encourage a wider participation in the work of Parliament”.
Those are exactly the things that noble Lords have been advocating. That priority is not just about filling the Public Gallery. It is very much about securing public buy-in to the work of Parliament, and you cannot do that without making the public aware of the biggest thing to happen to this building for 180 years: the R&R programme.
Lord Berkeley
I am a bit confused because the Minister said that accepting my noble friend’s amendment would divert the sponsor body’s activity from the main activity, which is to build a new Palace, but he also said that it is doing it anyway. If it is doing it anyway, the amendment is surely all right.
Earl Howe
The point I was seeking to make is that if you set out in the Bill something that looks quite distinct and separate from the main task that the sponsor body has before it, you risk distracting it. What we are saying to the sponsor body is, “Yes, public engagement is vital, you are already doing it, so you should do it in the best way you can because you know best how to deliver R&R”. That is the position I come from. Therefore, there is no need to change the wording of the Bill. We should not be frightened of leaving the Bill as it is because we know that the sponsor body has its heart in the right place in a way that reflects exactly what noble Lords have been talking about this evening.
The restoration and renewal of the Palace should increase the number of visitors and see that visitors have an even better experience. I absolutely agree that R&R also provides the opportunity to re-engage the public in how democracy functions in the UK. The programme will develop better educational facilities, and it has been suggested that the additional chamber in Richmond House can be used to engage schoolchildren in our democratic process. That would be added value from the R&R process.
I just want to say something about building in a statutory duty to consult. I have talked about the need to avoid being over-prescriptive but, over and above that, the Government are concerned that placing a statutory duty on the sponsor body to consult the public, as prescribed in the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell, is a particularly onerous requirement. Public engagement, as I have said, is essential for the works to succeed, but a duty to consult, I would strongly argue, would divert resource and time from the essential job at hand, which is to formulate proposals on the design, cost and timing of the works for parliamentary approval.
Let me turn briefly to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, requiring the sponsor body to have regard to non-cashable benefits when assessing whether the programme delivers value for money. Clause 2(4) (b) to (h) contains a wide range of non-monetary benefits to which the sponsor body must have regard. They include safety and security, the environment, accessibility, educational facilities and the spread of opportunities to secure economic or other benefits across the UK. These benefits, which are, of course, important, have got to be balanced against the need to ensure that the works represent good value for money, as required under Clause 2(4)(a).
Value for money is core to the programme, and we consider that that has to remain explicit in the Bill. If we go on adding other non-monetary matters to Clause 2(4)(a), we run the distinct risk of watering down the explicit imperative of achieving value for money for the works, which is something that the Bill as drafted ensures the sponsor body must have regard to. Therefore, I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would be detrimental to the Bill.
Lord Blunkett
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and their support. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that one reason that I have worded things as I have was spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in respect of the original Long Title and the scope of the Bill—to ensure that my amendments are in scope.
I shall just say what I said at the beginning. I am very keen to gain consensus on this so that when we come back on Report people will have had a chance to think about whether they really are against it, using the argument that it is already being done so we do not need to do it. Apart from the fact that I have a long-standing and historic commitment to engagement, participation, democracy and citizenship, I tabled these amendments because the Joint Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be able to confirm this—examined this issue in detail and came up with the proposition that we should enhance the Bill by encouraging public engagement and democratic participation, which is the core of what our democracy is all about. This is the heart of our democracy, and we were concerned about the pushback against the proposal.
I discovered that there was an original sponsor body mission statement—it is in the text of the interviews with the Joint Committee—that included public engagement and it was taken out, so noble Lords will understand my suspicion about what is going on here. I really do not understand who is advising and pushing the Government against these amendments, but I will withdraw on this occasion on the grounds that we will be back in September.
I recall the occasions when my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker and my noble and learned friends Lady Scotland and Lord Falconer came to me in the eight years when I was in government saying, “We’ve got a problem in the House of Lords”. I asked, “What’s that?”. They said, “Our own side is in favour of the amendments being moved by the other side and we’re likely to lose. What shall we do? Shall we come to an agreement and do this gracefully or shall we go down fighting on something that we didn’t intend to fight about in the first place?” We are all in agreement are we not? Everyone has said tonight that this is a good thing that the sponsor body is doing, but the Government still feel that they have to oppose putting it in the Bill. I just say to the Government: please, over August have a good holiday and let us come back and agree a few things.
Lord Blunkett
“(ii) (after completion of those works) all parts of the Palace of Westminster used by people working in it or open to people visiting it,”
Lord Blunkett
Amendment 7 is grouped with Amendment 17, which would insert a new clause into the Bill. I will be brief, as we have been over this issue tonight. There is a really important message to the world out there, as we said a moment ago, and it is on accessibility. We discussed this briefly at Second Reading. It is not a question of access to but access within the building for staff, parliamentarians and, where appropriate, visitors. The message should be that we are going to make this an exemplar project, learning from what has been done at some of the most historic features in the world and building on them, and learning from what is happening with the development of new technology to enable access for people with particular disabilities, possibly in a way that was not true even a few years ago.
I shall not overegg the point—I shall be very brief. It is crucial that those who carry out this project, including the designers, the delivery authority and the companies that are taken on to do the work, are absolutely clear that we are intent on making as much as possible of this place easily accessible and usable for people with a whole range of disabilities. To do otherwise would be betrayal.
I have been approached very gently—people are very gentle with me these days because I am getting to the point where they do not have to knock me about in the way that they used to. They have been telling me that rooms 6/12, 6/13, 15/28, 15/79, 8/95, 8/96 and 15/22—noble Lords will notice that we are going backwards in terms of age here—are not very accessible. There are rooms in a couple of turrets with stairs that make it impossible for a wheelchair to get up there. I accept all that. The interesting thing about being approached and nudged about how difficult it is, is that it displays the mentality with which people approach these issues. They approach them from the point of view—they have been told, presumably—of how difficult they will be. That is why I want these amendments in the Bill; if they are not accepted by the Government, I will want them to be voted on in September. I am determined that we will send a message from all parts of this House that we are going to make everything we can accessible.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
If I may help with that, there are apparently 65 changes of level; so, not 65 steps but 65 places where the levels in the House change. I do not know if that helps.
Lord Blunkett
I am grateful to the noble Baroness; until I was nudged along, I did not know anything about this. I am enlightened by it, and it is all the more reason why we should have absolute clarity that we are going to tackle the issue. I will give noble Lords one example: there are steps currently that are completely unusable by certain members of staff and parliamentarians. The problem looks really difficult but if, without damaging the heritage, you put in a moving staircase that is accessible only by people with a particular card to activate it—this will be possible in the 20 years it will take before we come back into this place—you could do it. This is what I said at Second Reading. We are fighting the “mind-forg’d manacles” that William Blake referred to. We have to put these aside and use a bit of common sense. If noble Lords do not like the amendments, they should come back with something that meets the requirement. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I have every faith in the sponsor body as it stands at the moment, but, as I said earlier, people will not be there. I am trying to future-proof what we do. If we do not do it for people with disabilities, we are not doing it for ourselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, because I have added my name to his second amendment. In the Joint Committee, we had long discussions about the whole question of access, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has said, about access within the building once one gets in. I want to support the noble Lord in his desire to get something written on to the Bill with regard to disability. We had long discussions in Committee about this. It is a matter not just of people getting into this building but, once they are in the building, of how they get around it. The figure quoted in one of the briefings we had is that currently only about 12% of this building is accessible to people with a disability. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has indicated, there will be rooms in this building that will not be accessible after renewal and I am sure that is probably right. I think it falls on the sponsor body itself to decide what is an acceptable percentage: if it is 12% now, are we talking about 25% or 30% eventually?
The other thing that we had a long conversation about was how people come into the building in the first place. The Cromwell Green entrance is totally inadequate for our needs now. It sometimes takes people an hour to get in, and if it is raining it is pretty miserable. Access to the building needs to be looked at as well.
I will not pre-empt the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, but it is not just those with physical disabilities who have difficulty accessing the building—those in wheelchairs or like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, have difficulty in getting around. There are also people with hearing disabilities, but I will leave that issue to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
There are many ways in which this building could be made much more friendly and supportive of people so that we could use everyone’s skills that otherwise would not be included. I am very happy to have put my name to this amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be more supportive of this one than of some of the others. When I broke my ankle last year, as I reflected at Second Reading, that made me realise the true difficulty of getting around this building; I think there are something like 90 different stairs, and many of the lifts are not accessible. If I can go further, some of the ladies’ and gentlemen’s facilities are totally inadequate for those with disabilities. This is an opportunity to put those basic needs right.
My questions for the shadow sponsor body are: where are your priorities going to come in this? In view of where you are going, what way can you see of achieving that while recognising that some of the building will not, I suspect, be suitable for getting the sort of access that most of us would like to see? I am hoping that my noble friend will be more encouraging later. I am very pleased to support these amendments.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I spoke about some of these issues in response to an earlier amendment. All I will say is that the amendment asks for a report for the building to be fully accessible, which I support, but to achieve that and the things that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have mentioned—including lifts, toilets and other areas that are currently inaccessible—will involve some massive works in this building and they will be very expensive. They will also reduce the amount of space available for other things, but I am sure that they have to happen.
My Amendment 17A proposes that the same criteria that my noble friend has put in Amendment 17 in respect of this building when we come back are also applied to the temporary accommodation that we might have in the QEII or wherever.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, to some extent my contribution has been prefigured, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for that. I strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has said. I particularly want to pick out his phrase about making this an exemplar project.
In the many discussions that I have had over the years about making this place accessible to people with physical deficiencies, if you want to put it that way, or disabilities—I speak as someone who is not profoundly deaf but is quite deaf and certainly needs his hearing aids—all too often the attitude and the response have been grudging, a sort of reluctant admission that under the Disability Discrimination Act they have a duty to do it, but it is certainly not one undertaken with great joy.
I would have thought that this building—as we are a national Parliament and representatives of a democracy that in other aspects is trying to promote civilised values around the world, and here I am thinking of the work of our international development department, our Foreign Office, God bless them, and others, where we are constantly saying that we set an example—should surely set an example when it comes to access for those of limited mobility or with some other disability.
I want to put a word in for my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Thomas of Winchester, who, as noble Lords will know, make their way around this building in electric wheelchairs. This brings into focus the fact that our different priorities are in conflict. A whole lot of additional fire doors have been put in, which make it virtually impossible for those two noble Members to proceed around the building other than with an assistant to open and close the doors. Various arrangements have been put in place for the doors to be left open during sitting hours and so on, but for all sorts of reasons—some might say bureaucratic reasons—those commitments do not always work.
Each of my noble friends has personal stories about the problems they have had of being trapped behind those doors waiting for somebody to come and open them. There are challenges, but there are solutions. One can imagine that in 10 or 15 years’ time, it will be entirely feasible for every door and every electric wheelchair in this building to be fitted with a transponder, and for the doors to open when a wheelchair approaches. However, the idea of anybody thinking of or implementing that seems a very long way away.
As for deafness, I am inclined to say: do not get me started. Can we at least make sure that the new provision complies with existing law? This building does not comply with existing law and although people have wriggled and squiggled when they have talked to me about how they believe they have put in place various so-called first aid measures to make it okay, it all comes down to the person with the disability fitting into a system which, frankly, does not work or deliver. We certainly need to make sure we have standards that comply with existing legislation.
We need to consider what standards we as a legislature will impose upon employers and other public buildings when we get to 2035. Will our standards for them have risen? If so, can we make sure that we design our standards to do that as well? In fact, I would go further than that and say we ought to set outstanding standards and aim to be best in class for a public building in the United Kingdom—and why not best in class throughout the world? We need to see what that would mean and how we would make it work, rather than reluctantly dragging this along behind us and seeing what we can get away with.
This debate fits somewhere in between the debate we have already had on public engagement and the one we are going to have on future-proofing. I will just make the point that if you exclude or do not engage with people with disabilities, you are not doing the job that we set out to achieve in the first set of debates. I will not use all my ammunition on future-proofing at this point, but when we get to those amendments, it is worth remembering that not just the standards but the expectations of people in 20 years’ time will not be lower than they are now. If we are not achieving current standards now, simply doing things the same way in the revised, upgraded building will not do it.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. He has much more experience than I do of both being a guerrilla and sitting at the big desk taking the decisions. In so far as I can give him any support from either of those dimensions, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I very much support these amendments. My noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, have picked up on the importance of catering for not just those with physical disabilities but those with non-physical disabilities, which are not always visible and which we are therefore not aware of.
I want to make one point, because if I do not, I suspect nobody else will. At the moment, there are parts of the Palace which are difficult, indeed inaccessible, for anybody who suffers from acrophobia—a severe fear of heights. There are real difficulties. I am conscious that architects do not take that into account when designing new buildings. Some buildings are extremely problematic. I want to put that on record because I suspect otherwise nobody else will, but it needs to be taken into account.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we fully support the amendments from my noble friend Lord Blunkett, which would place a duty on the sponsor body to ensure that all parts of the completed buildings used by people working in them, or open to the public visiting, are accessible, and on the delivery authority to publish a report on how it will ensure that the restored Palace of Westminster is fully accessible to MPs, Peers, visitors and staff with disabilities. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is absolutely right to highlight with his Amendment 17A the importance of provisions for disability access in temporary buildings under the project.
The Government’s response to the Joint Committee promises that,
“the works to the infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster will ensure that the Palace is more accessible for those with disabilities”.
We welcome the shadow sponsor body’s commitment to ensuring that improving access will form part of the vision and strategy, and to aim for access for everyone. However, the term “more accessible” must have the definition and clarity of what actually needs to be achieved as set out in these amendments. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is right to seek a firm commitment in the Bill on what this vision and aim must cover and will mean in practice, and to make sure that the Bill requires the relevant bodies to have a legal obligation to ensure access for those living with disabilities. Of course, there are already obligations in statute, such as the Equality Act, but the Bill needs to make it clear that this is a core intention behind the restoration.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Smith asked the noble Earl to explain the remit of the disability sub-committee proposed by the Government during the passage of the Bill in the Commons. Can the Minister provide any further information on this, or undertake to write to noble Lords on the proposed committee’s work and role?
I would like to raise the important issue of how the R&R programme will interface and communicate with our parliamentary committee structures. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to this at Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point. I serve on the Services Committee, which has a special meeting in early September with the R&R team. The committee has been very careful to ensure that the current extensive parliamentary works programme always has a view to what is proposed as part of R&R.
On disabilities, the committee was told at its last meeting by one of the R&R team leaders that currently, only 12% of the Palace has compliant step-free access. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned this. The potential for replacing non-compliant lifts in their current locations is limited and when combined with local interventions such as ramps would increase the accessible area only to around 30%. Initial investigations indicate that providing an exemplary level of non-discriminatory access for people with disabilities and limited mobility would require the complete re-provision of lifts throughout the Palace. This is just one aspect of the scale of the challenge the sponsor body has to, and must, deal with.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Byford for tabling these amendments. The Government are grateful for the opportunity to work with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to bring forward his Amendment 7 today and its improvements to Clause 2(4)(e).
The Bill currently provides that the sponsor body must have regard to the need to ensure that any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the parliamentary building works are carried out, and the Palace of Westminster after the works are complete, are accessible to people with disabilities. It is also already part of the shadow sponsor body’s vision to provide exemplary standards of access for everyone to a restored and renewed Palace—a far cry from the 12% referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. However, we have welcomed the opportunity to work with the noble Lord further on this very important issue.
The Government support this amendment, which specifies that:
“In exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must have regard to … the need to ensure that … (after completion of those works) all parts of the Palace of Westminster used by people working in it or open to people visiting it … are accessible to people with disabilities”.
In the words of the noble Lord, this is to make exemplary standards of access for everyone, a phrase also used in the vision document for the sponsor body. We consider that this amendment strikes the right balance between ensuring that the sponsor body has regard to the need to make the Palace as accessible as possible for people with disabilities and operating within the parameters of existing legislation, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
To be clear, as several noble Lords mentioned, some parts of the Palace are likely to remain inaccessible. In particular, in the less-visited extremities of the Palace of Westminster the provision of step-free access is unlikely to be practicable. However, Amendment 7 will give members of the public with a disability access to the parts of the Palace they need to access, and parliamentarians, staff and contractors access to the areas they use. In response to the question about how much more of the Palace will be available—which I think was originally asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—I undertake to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on that point and on the point about committee scrutiny, if I may.
Turning to Amendments 17 and 17A on reporting, I must express some reservations. We believe that these amendments reflect concern about the degree of commitment to ensuring disabled access. Given our agreement to Amendment 7, we believe that these amendments are no longer necessary. Amendment 17 would require the delivery authority to lay a report before both Houses, setting out what steps it will take to ensure that the restored Palace of Westminster is fully accessible for people with disabilities. Amendment 17A would require that report to cover any building used temporarily by Parliament during the works, as the noble Lord explained.
As I have already set out, the Government agree that these works are an opportunity to make the Palace more accessible for people with disabilities. That is why the Bill requires the decant locations to be accessible for people with disabilities, and I have just outlined our support for the noble Lord’s Amendment 7 to strengthen that commitment. The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster said in its report in 2016 that the two decant locations were recommended not only for their locality and legacy benefits, but for the opportunities they present for greater accessibility. Indeed, it was a key recommendation that:
“All temporary accommodation should be designed with accessibility in mind, and make suitable provision for Members, staff and visitors with a disability”.
Under the Bill, the sponsor body and delivery authority will need to formulate proposals relating to the design, cost and timings of the works. This will form the outline business case, which must be approved by Parliament before the substantive works can proceed. It will include proposals on how the programme intends to make the Palace and the decant locations accessible for people with disabilities, in line with the spirit of Amendment 7. In formulating these proposals, the sponsor body will need to consult parliamentarians. This consultation will be an opportunity for Members to feed in what they feel is required on disabled access, as well as on other important areas such as safety and security, environmental sustainability and value for money. We are concerned that such a report on the specific issue of disabled access alone could reduce clarity and accountability in governance.
Noble Lords will appreciate that a balance needs to be struck between several factors in restoring the Palace. In considering access for people with disabilities, the sponsor body and delivery authority will need to comply with any legal obligations, such as those under the Equality Act 2010 and planning law, given that this is a grade 1 listed building. Any proposals put forward to Parliament for approval will also need to balance the various requirements for the programme, including those specified under Clause 2(4). For the programme to be truly independent of Parliament, the sponsor body must have the freedom to make those judgments. We are concerned that the report prescribed by these amendments could override these other requirements and blur the lines of accountability for different elements of the project. For the reasons outlined above, the Government support Amendment 7 relating to disability access, but have reservations on Amendments 17 and 17A relating to disabled access reporting. I hope noble Lords agree not to press those two amendments.
Lord Blunkett
My Lords, my mother told me never to look a gift horse in the mouth. I never quite understood what that meant—especially in my case. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and am happy not to move Amendment 17 and to agree Amendment 7, on which we now have consensus.
“(ga) the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster;”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park. Noble Lords will be aware that Members in the other place considered an amendment that proposed that the sponsor body should have regard to the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site.
There is no disagreement on the Government’s part about the sentiment underlying this. We agree that the works undertaken during R&R will need to ensure that the architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster is preserved for future generations. Originally, as I explained at Second Reading, we were of the view that the best way of achieving this was through the existing planning processes, which will be legally bound to safeguard the grade 1 listed status of the building. We have also been cautious about the idea of including the UNESCO heritage status of the Palace of Westminster in the Bill, given that this designation also covers Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church.
Nevertheless, we recognise that there is support in both Houses for the Bill to specify that the sponsor body should have regard to heritage. Because of that, the Government committed in the other place to bring forward an amendment on heritage in Committee. We have therefore tabled this amendment, which we consider strikes the right balance between the preservation and protection of the Palace’s heritage, and the need to deliver the renovations and accessibility modifications that would improve the functionality of the Palace.
The Government have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss this approach with a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Cormack, the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Andrews, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am genuinely pleased that all the noble Lords we engaged with supported the drafting.
The purpose of the restoration and renewal programme is to secure the Palace, and restore and renew it for future generations. The heritage of the Palace is central to this, so this amendment will set into the Bill a duty on the sponsor body to have regard to the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster. This is one of a number of matters for the sponsor body to have regard to, so will need to be considered alongside others, such as disabled access. In that sense, it seeks to ensure that the Bill strikes the balance between restoring the Palace of Westminster and renewing it. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, my Amendment 11 is grouped with the amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. Having had conversation with him, for which I am extremely grateful, I am perfectly content with the wording that he has referred to.
However, I want to draw to your Lordships’ attention —briefly but forcefully, I hope—one thing that worries me very much. While we sit here, one of the most historic parts of the Palace of Westminster is crumbling. If I asked one of your Lordships to go and get a handful of dust, you might think that I was referring to Evelyn Waugh and go to the Library, but you can get a handful of dust by going to the cloister.
Some of your Lordships may not be familiar with the cloisters, mainly because, until very recently, they were not very good offices for a number of Members of the other place. They are adjacent to the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. They were damaged by, but mainly escaped, the fire of 1834. They were damaged again in an air raid in 1940. Both those unfortunate incidents were followed by restorations—after the fire by that of Barry and after the air raid by that of Scott—and both those restorations were meticulous.
The cloisters date back to the reign of Henry VIII—1520 or thereabouts. They are among the finest cloisters in the country. If you go to them now and if you are proud of this great Palace, you will feel ashamed. I was there just 10 days ago and took a friend who was an architectural historian. I will be going again very shortly, taking the chairman of Historic England, because there is real concern. That is not only because the fabric is in such a parlous state and because this is one of the most historic parts of the Palace of Westminster but because there are no current plans to begin restoration. It is even suggested that nothing much can happen until after restoration and renewal is complete. That would be a total scandal. It would be a terrible neglect of one of the most historic parts of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for our conversation. I am grateful for the recognition signified by the amendment to the Bill that he has moved, but that is only the beginning and it is not enough. If we are to be serious about restoring and renewing this great Palace, that commitment has to extend to every part of it. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in her place, because she was an exemplary chairman of English Heritage before it was changed—where English Heritage looks after the properties and Historic England looks after the rest. She will know that what I am saying is right. It is tremendously important that the danger—I am not using the wrong word—facing the cloisters at the moment is dealt with as quickly as possible.
This ought to be one of the true jewels in the Palace. It is of enormous architectural and historic importance because, in the Oratory Chapel in January 1649, the death warrant of Charles I was signed: one of the most seminal moments in our history and in the evolution of our parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. We should be making more of it. It was an office for a few Members of Parliament; it is now disfigured and defaced by radiators, and the stone is crumbling. If we are going to mean what we say about restoration and renewal, we must restore this extremely important part of this great Palace of Westminster and, I suggest, make it available to members of the public to see it.
I use this as an example to underline the need for my noble friend’s amendment. It must become an integral part of the Bill, but that is just the beginning. I would like to hear from my noble friend, when he winds up this brief debate, that he will go and have a look himself and that he will do all he can. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, will also go and have a look, because we need to put it right. I do not have to beg to move, because I am merely tagged on to my noble friend’s amendment, but I draw it to noble Lords’ attention with sadness but determination. It is a determination that I hope noble Lords will share.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I shall be very brief. First, I thank the Government most warmly for the amendment they have brought forward. It is an exemplary amendment: it has none of the conditions attached that I thought might have been tempting. It is a simple, elegant and comprehensive statement of what it is we must take care of and it has the right balance of technical and emotive language. So I am very grateful and I can say that Historic England, with which I still have a continuing connection, is extremely pleased and grateful to the Government for this. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is absolutely right.
We heard a very powerful speech at Second Reading from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which warned us, essentially, not to be completely obsessed by the simple presentation of a Victorian building. He was absolutely right, but very much of the medieval Palace—in fact most of it—has disappeared and the cloisters are the most significant part of the archaeology and architecture left, so we should have a special care for them. I am not entirely certain whether they are designated as being at risk. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is meeting the chair of Historic England, because we can get very good guidance as to what to do. In my experience, you can always do urgent conservation and repairs, so I see no reason why that should not happen before R&R starts properly, let alone before it finishes, because, frankly, there will be nothing left if it is the stone itself that is so fragile. I would be very interested to know what comes of that meeting, and so, I suspect, will many Members of the House: maybe we can follow that up informally, or maybe through the estates department of the House, to make sure that we know that action is being taken.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak relatively briefly, I hope, on this issue. I welcome Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and I thank the Minister for his comments. My noble friend Lady Andrews spoke at Second Reading, as did other noble Lords, about the historical significance this building has, and I am pleased that that has led to the amendment today to ensure that a duty is placed on the sponsor body to have regard to,
“the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster”.
The amendment addresses the concerns felt across the whole House and we welcome it.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in a sense, what he is saying is the very basis of the restoration and renewal programme. I said before that we all recognise that there is that line to be trod between the necessary changes to the building and preserving its historical fabric. The whole basis of this programme is that, while we recognise the historical and archaeological implications of the building, we adapt it for modern use. He made a point in his amendment about us returning to the building. If we were not going to return to the building, we could just have a museum and patch everything up as it is now. However, because we are returning to the building, we need to have those types of adaptations and improvements. The only reason so many of our historic buildings have survived is because they have been adapted to modern use. If you go back to history, the reason why we have so many old buildings is because they have been kept in use and modernised over many years. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, makes reference to the building’s status as part of the UNESCO world heritage site, as that is an important distinction to make. The point of his amendment, which is well made, is covered in Amendment 8, so we are grateful to the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for their welcome of the wording of the amendment before us. It resolves very neatly the concerns raised by many noble Lords and indeed many Members of the other place, and I am genuinely glad that noble Lords feel that it is entirely appropriate.
I hope that I can briefly give some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on their perfectly understandable concerns about the condition of the medieval cloisters. First, I assure them that Cloister Court is part of the Palace of Westminster. That point is material, because it means that it will be included in the restoration and renewal works. Furthermore, however, the House authorities are planning some exterior conservation works in Cloister Court before restoration and renewal begins. Following that, the whole Palace, including both the external and internal spaces of Cloister Court, are in scope for the restoration and renewal works. With those words, I hope that my noble friend in particular will be at least partly reassured on his concerns.
Lord Blunkett
“( ) the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works facilitate future developments in remote connectivity for the purposes of outreach and parliamentary engagement.”
Lord Blunkett
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 13. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Byford, for their support in this. Without delaying the House, because we have been over quite a lot of this ground, this is about future-proofing and future connectivity: the way in which we foresee in the future the important element of building in the way in which we will be able to provide for this institution to be literally in the 21st century. I do not want to overegg this, because we have gone over some of the ground about participation and democracy, but it is important that the sponsor body has as one of its key elements the way in which the House can be prepared for any substantial constitutional and parliamentary reform in the future. It does not interfere in any way with the other elements we have discussed over the last five hours, but it would ensure that there was a clear remit which, again, the delivery authority would understand as well. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Future proofing is the end of some of our previous discussions, so a great deal of the ground has been covered in one way or another. We need to future proof against possible constitutional developments, developments in public expectation and changes in technology. These two amendments cover that very well.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that whenever we talk about constitutional change, a whole lot of people freeze and say, “We don’t want to build in constitutional changes with this; that would be pre-empting another process”. I point out that over the timescale of this project, a lot of constitutional change will take place, independent of repair, restoration and renewal, and we need to ensure that, at the end of it, we do not have a building that does not accommodate the changes that will have been made.
If we wind the clock back 20 years, there was no Westminster Hall debating chamber in the other place. It is now a very important part of the other place, and I would not mind guessing that in 20 years’ time it will be seen as even more important. In this debate we have talked already about a more profitable use for the Royal Gallery—not necessarily financially profitable but how we might use it.
If we spend five or, perhaps, 10 years in the QEII, I have little doubt that our procedures will adapt to that building in ways which people will be reluctant to give up when they come back to this building—whether it is a simple thing, such as somewhere to plug in your iPad when you are sitting on the Benches, or something else that we have not even imagined. All these things need to be clearly in the minds of the sponsor body and the delivery authority.
It might be said that we should not be offloading this responsibility on to the sponsor body. I agree with that, but the alternative is that this House and the other place confront the questions of constitutional reform themselves. My imaginative capacity is insufficient to see how that would happen. I think that the reality will be that the sponsor body will come back to this House and the other place and will say, “We can do this, or we can do that”. Then we might find that we are at last engaged in the kind of thinking that, at the moment, everyone shies away from.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, my name is added to Amendment 12. In the Joint Committee, we said that it was easier to see what restoration was about, but the renewal part exercised quite a bit of our time. In other words: what sort of Parliament did we want and what sort of involvement with democracy did we want? We have talked about the outreach programme and the educational facilities, and I shall not anticipate my noble friend Lord Bethell in moving his amendments. I felt surprised at that stage that not enough thought had been given to renewal and its opportunities. I have no qualms about mentioning that again when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is in her place, because I know that she is well aware of the hopes that the shadow body has—but the Bill does not place enough emphasis on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, spoke about technology. In 10 or 20 years’ time, we will be able to communicate in a totally different way from the way we do now. We talked about the outreach programme run by the Lord Speaker, where individual Peers go out to schools and schools come here. With modern communications, that can be done virtually; there is enormous scope for us to relate to the general public in a totally different way. I will say no more on that because we had good discussions earlier—but I will say that it would be a shame to miss the opportunities in the Bill, and I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I also support the excellent amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. There are two amendments in my name in this group. They are practical, nitty-gritty measures, but I hope that they will not be brushed off for that reason, because they are important. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, put it very well in his comments: engagement on R&R will not happen until the options are fully understood and one gets the feeling that one is making informed choices.
It is imperative that those options are clear from the outset, and we do not know what the options on educational facilities and participatory democracy are at the moment. I am hopeful for the Wallace/Adonis café—I look forward to drinking my latte there—but that anecdote has become a metaphor for our vision. There is simply no information or a clear, thoughtful prognosis on what could be done with the building. There is talk of glass ceilings over the courtyards and someone tells me that we can clear out the ground floor, but I have no practical knowledge of whether these things are at all possible. My amendments would apply to the Bill after Clause 4, but they address Clause 2(2)(b), which commands the sponsor body to,
“make strategic decisions relating to the carrying out of the Parliamentary building works”.
To do that, it is absolutely imperative that the body has, at least in outline, an idea of what could be done to further the educational facilities and participatory democracy.
We are talking about intellectual leadership here. I know that the Bill is largely about the administrative structures of the bodies involved, but other considerations are also important. We talked about culture and hard-baking public consultation into the way in which this project conducts its business. I have found that, in major infrastructure projects, the intellectual leadership is often—and quite rightly—with the engineers and project managers, whose thoughts are dominated by the practical considerations of budgets, timetables, M&E, air conditioning and the physical practicalities of getting the job done. Here, we are talking about something that is softer but still important. If we leave the intellectual leadership of this project to the people who govern the practicalities, these important considerations will not be baked into the project at an early stage.
Noble Lords will be familiar with me urging for major investment in public consultation. However, to carry out that consultation, you have to understand a little about what kinds of practical options there are for enhancing the educational facilities and access to the House. That is why it is worth while investing in the budget for the right professional services to put together a clear report on the options in these two areas. I strongly recommend that they be written into the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I have no problem with Amendment 12—the lead amendment—or Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, but I am afraid that I have my doubts about Amendments 13, 14 and 19. I think that they will place a burden on the sponsor body with which it will not be able to cope, because it would have to decide what it understood by “major political and constitutional reforms” before any reforms have taken place.
Coming back to my earlier comments, we need an adaptable space that can be fitted with changes that Parliament itself may wish to make to meet the demands made of it and to engage with those outside it. As Amendment 13 stands, there is a problem with referring to,
“major political and constitutional reforms”,
without stipulating what one means by that. Similarly, in that amendment and my noble friend’s, there is a reference to, “inclusive participatory democracy”. If that is going to stay in the Bill, the definitions section will have to be amended to explain what that actually means for the benefit of the sponsor body.
So I think there are problems with the stipulations in these amendments. I understand where my noble friend the Minister will be coming from in responding to them. A lot more work would need to be done; otherwise, the danger is that the amendments will confuse rather than clarify.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments before us, especially the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith on Amendment 14 and will touch on Amendments 18 and 19.
The amendments in this group broadly consider different aspects of the future Parliamentary Estate. I turn first to Amendment 12, which deals with remote connectivity. This House earlier discussed the wider issue of engagement, and I believe there is a consensus—nearly full consensus—that prior, during and after the work we must consult as much as necessary. Future technology should be considered, introduced to the estate where possible and accommodated into the future arrangements if this can be to the benefit of maintaining engagement with the wider community and public.
Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, relates to the need for a modern working environment for parliamentary staff. More than 8,000 people work on the estate, and present conditions for many of the staff are insufficient. The sponsor body must have regard for this and factor in the opportunity to improve working conditions during the programme. It should consult with trade unions and other organisations about working conditions.
Finally, Amendments 13 and 19 focus on participatory democracy, while Amendment 18 relates to the educational provision on the estate. Parliament should and can be an inspiring place and offer incredible opportunities to learn about how democracy works. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who talked about this being a very special place and still feeling awe, even after spending three decades in the other place and this place. We feel it when we bring visitors and guests in here. There is an opportunity through this process to expand on that and to open that opportunity up to more people.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, talked about future-proofing, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, touched on issues relating to Amendment 13. My understanding and reading of the amendment are that it talks about the capability and ability to absorb and deal with future changes. It really just opens up the possibility; it does not force or drive any future constitutional changes but just deals with allowing us and the body to deal with the capabilities of any future changes.
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Bethell for tabling these amendments on education, outreach, modernising the Palace as a workplace and democratic renewal. As the amendments cover a wide range of issues, I shall respond to them individually.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would require the sponsor body to have regard to the need to ensure that the works facilitate future outreach activities, are capable of accommodating future constitutional reforms and promote participatory democracy through the works. The Government agree with the noble Lord that the works should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate any future reforms in either House, be they political or constitutional, and facilitate opportunities for outreach and engagement.
The nature of the work will itself present excellent opportunities. For example, some have suggested this could be a legacy use of the Commons decant chamber, as Richmond House will be incorporated into the permanent Parliamentary Estate and will have flexibility built in to enable a range of legacy uses.
It is a matter for both Houses to determine any reforms to their procedures, and it will be important for the programme to facilitate rather than impede such developments. The shadow sponsor body has explicitly stated that part of its vision is that the programme will,
“Help facilitate any procedural changes that may be requested by either House”.
Any future procedural changes will not necessarily be contingent on the restoration work.
Under the Bill, the sponsor body has a duty to determine the strategic objectives of the works and to make strategic decisions relating to those works. The sponsor body is required to consult parliamentarians on the strategic objectives of those works. These are matters which should be properly considered at that stage, alongside other considerations raised by Members of both Houses, in order for the sponsor body to assess what should be the overall priorities for the programme rather than these being on the face of the Bill; then the outline business case will set out how the priorities will be realised.
As my noble friend Lord Howe has explained, work is already being undertaken by the shadow sponsor board to develop a public engagement strategy. This is being developed in consultation with both Houses in order to deliver on the Bill’s requirement for the programme to deliver facilities for education and for visitors in future. It is part of the shadow sponsor body’s vision to help Parliament to connect people with the past, present and future of parliamentary democracy through engagement with its rich heritage.
The shadow sponsor body has agreed a goal to:
“Help facilitate any procedural changes that may be requested by either House”,
as part of its functionality and design strategic theme, which commits the programme to:
“Deliver a building which supports Parliament’s core function as a working legislature, both now and in the future using high-quality design and technology”.
The shadow sponsor body has also stated in its vision to ensure the building enables public engagement with the proceedings and wider activities of the two Houses. This strategic approach was also endorsed by the Commissions of both Houses in May of this year.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, which would require the sponsor body to have regard to the need to create a modern working environment within the Palace of Westminster. The Government agree that the works must take into account not only the requirements of parliamentarians but, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, of all the staff who work within the Palace, ensuring that their needs and requirements are properly taken into account. As I noted in my earlier remarks in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the shadow sponsor body has, as part of the functionality and design strategic theme, a commitment to deliver a building which supports the core function of Parliament as a working legislature, both now and in the future using high-quality design and technology. The shadow sponsor body has already identified this as a key priority for the works. As part of its vision for the programme, the shadow sponsor body is committed that the restored Palace will have a,
“flexible, effective and enjoyable working environment”—
something I am sure all your Lordships are looking forward to.
In turn, this will clearly require the sponsor body to engage with staff. This work is already under way. In late 2018 and early 2019, the shadow sponsor body distributed a questionnaire to all who work in both Houses—Members and staff—complemented by supplementary engagement with teams who have infrequent access to computers. The results of the questionnaire have been considered by the shadow sponsor body and will be communicated to all parliamentarians and their staff in the autumn via the internal newsletter and the parliamentary intranet. The shadow sponsor body has hosted workshops with House staff on current ways of working and been in dialogue with the unions representing Members’ staff—MAPSA, Unite and the NUJ—as well as with the HR teams in both Houses who lead on discussions with staff trade unions. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, in whose names the amendment stands, will agree that the fundamental points raised in the amendment are captured in the priorities of the sponsor body in relation to the nature of the working environment and the consultation with staff that needs to underpin it.
Finally, turning to my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendments on reporting, I must express some reservations. These amendments would require the delivery authority to lay a report before both Houses setting out what steps it will take to ensure that the restored Palace of Westminster provides educational programmes for schoolchildren and opportunities for participatory democracy. The Government agree that these works are an opportunity to build a restored Parliament which provides better educational facilities and opportunities for the public to engage more in the work that we do. Under the Bill, the sponsor body must have regard to the need to provide educational and other facilities. The Bill already provides that the sponsor body and the delivery authority must enter into a programme delivery agreement, which contains,
“provision about the review of the Delivery Authority’s activities by the Sponsor Body”.
A variety of reports will be requested and produced by the delivery authority with regards to the review of its actions by the sponsor body. While this amendment deals with one possible example of such reports, the shadow sponsor body’s preference is to define these in the programme delivery agreement rather than in the Bill.
Under the Bill, the delivery authority will need to formulate proposals relating to the design, cost and timing of the works which reflect the priorities set by the sponsor body. This will form the outline business case, which must be approved by Parliament before the substantive works can proceed. Given the duties placed on the sponsor body in the Bill, we expect that this will include proposals on how the programme intends to develop educational facilities.
As my noble friend will be aware, we strengthened this provision in the Bill in the Commons so that the provision of education facilities is a need rather than being desirable. Furthermore, as part of the shadow sponsor body’s vision for the programme, it is committed to a restored Palace that encourages,
“wider participation in the work of Parliament”.
We are mindful that a balance needs to be struck between a number of factors when restoring the Palace. Any proposals that are put forward to Parliament for approval will also need to balance the various requirements for the programme, including those specified under Clause 2(4). For the programme to be truly independent of Parliament, the sponsor body must have the freedom to make those judgments through thoughtful and creative assessments of the options. Just as in the case of Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, we are concerned that the reports prescribed by these amendments could override these other requirements and risk reducing the clarity of accountability for the works undertaken.
For these reasons we must express reservations about the amendments, but we encourage the noble Lord and others to feed in their views to the sponsor body’s consultation which will be launched once it is established in statute. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Blunkett
My Lords, it is getting even later. I am very grateful for the contributions and for the Minister’s response. I think we will return to some of this on Report. I shall reflect on what has been said. I want to pick up two things. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly drew attention to the fact that the Joint Committee was exercised about the almost dismissive nature of the renewal, as opposed to the restoration, element. That is what has driven me to table my amendments. I am sure my noble friend Lady Smith will reflect on whether she wishes to come back on some of the broader issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I first met 50 years ago this October when we took up our places as undergraduates in the same department of the same university. I am always as prepared to listen to him and reflect as I was in the seminars in those days, so I will reflect on his comments in relation to Amendment 13. I shall not move the remaining amendment in my name, but I ask the Minister, as I did earlier, whether over the summer we may reflect on how we can achieve the goals that I think most people set out this evening in a way that ensures that we are a participatory democracy with connectivity in exactly the way that the Senior Deputy Speaker has been endeavouring to spell out in the work of modernising our committees and connecting with the world outside. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Any strategy or revised strategy published under this section must include the Sponsor Body’s best estimate of the timeline for the Palace restoration works, including likely dates for the decant of each House and the estimated date of completion.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I promise to be as brief as I can. This is a probing amendment that I do not seek to push further. Clause 5 is about consultation strategy. It indicates that the sponsor body must prepare a strategy for consulting Members of each House of Parliament and must keep that strategy under review and revise it where appropriate. The purpose of my amendment is to require that the strategy or any revised strategy which is published under this section includes the sponsor body’s best estimate of the timeline for the Palace restoration works, including likely dates for the decants of each House and, when they have taken place, the estimated date of completion.
In one of the earlier debates, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, talked about large infrastructure projects and the many that have run over budget or over time. Clearly if we are trying to engage the public and keep them on side, that can often be the thing that makes them less receptive to a major project. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that there is some focus on the timeline so that the public are well aware of the likely dates. If there is any reason—there might be a very good reason—why things fall behind schedule, it is important that people know why and that a proper explanation is offered.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I fully support the amendment, although I would go one step further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has rightly identified the planning problems that could occur with Richmond House. I suspect that there will be equal problems with the design of the temporary Chamber for our friends down the other end—the colour of the carpet, the comfort of the Benches and so on. However, the same problems will occur when we start thinking about what this place will look like when we come back. We have been speaking about it all evening but I am referring to the kind of facilities that we want, how much it will cost and what changes there will be. No doubt that will cause delays as well, if only because the Treasury will say that the costs are too high or something like that.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. There should be very regular reports—maybe every six months—on the timescale of the decant and, subsequently, on the refurbishment of this place. But, if he considers bringing it back on Report, he should add something about cost. We are not very good at maintaining costs for things; he knows my views on Crossrail and HS2. Whoever is to blame, we are very good at hiding the real costs or results of programmes for several years then suddenly shocking Parliament and the public. Crossrail was on time and on budget until this time last year; now it is several years late and we do not yet know what the budget is going to be as we have not been told. People must have known about these things, as relating to HS2, several years before the problem occurred.
I hope that we will not have the same problem here. We need to be honest and transparent and set an example with respect to the changes that we have made. I hope the Minister can give us some kind of commitment that such honesty and transparency, and regular updates, will be features of rebuilding this place. It will be very difficult; there will be many changes and probably cost-overruns, which is not surprising when you are working in a building like this, but let us at least know what is going on, in good time.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I will be brief: the situation is worse than that described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, if I can deepen his gloom. With HS2 and Crossrail, with which I was deeply familiar, by the time we came to publishing legislation we knew what the project was going to be. The project was defined; indeed, at the second stage of the HS2 Bill, which had just been agreed by the House of Commons, we knew within a few metres what the line and specification of works would be and so on. We have a defined project—it has just proved much more expensive and problematic to deliver than was conceived. The problem we face with the parliamentary rebuilding work is that we are setting up the sponsor body before we have a defined project.
There is a very good reason for that: we are literally starting from scratch and trying to decide the best way forward, and this probably is the best way forward. I have views on whether we should consider other options —we will come to that in a while—but we are currently at such an early stage of the work that we do not have the faintest clue what the costs will be. We do not have a project description; all we have is a few back-of-the-envelope, broad objectives, a very old costing on the basis of them and a few timelines plucked out of a hat. We also have the potential for massive controversy, which we can already see, about the nature of the decant, where we will go, what we will come back to and so on.
What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is proposing—that there should be best estimates for the timeline at the point at which the strategy is published—is perfectly sensible. There is also another reason why it should be done: it is my view that we are at such an early stage of planning, and the issues involved in the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament are so great—because of the wider context referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, of big questions about the future of our parliamentary democracy—that I do not believe it is sensible to be closing down significant options at this stage; we are at such a preliminary stage in devising what the project will be. I am sorry to keep making this point but, since we will be returning to it in September, I am very anxious to keep it open: we should include the question of where the decant should be—there is very good reason to propose that it should not be somewhere immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament but could be in another part of the United Kingdom—and where the ultimate Parliament will be.
I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said. On the basis of my knowledge of big infrastructure projects and the stage we are at currently, it is very plausible that there could be three or four years’ delay before the decant starts. If the decant does not start until 2028, we will not move back here until between 2038 and 2040. To put some context on this, phase 2 of HS2 is currently scheduled to open in 2032. So, relatively speaking, it is going to take much longer to complete the restoration and renewal of Parliament than to build a 330-mile high-speed line, which is the biggest single infrastructure project in the world outside the Republic of China. Keeping a few options open at this stage is sensible in terms of planning. We should take advantage of the situation at the moment to think a bit more broadly about where we intend our parliamentary democracy to go over the 100 to 150 years ahead, and in doing so demonstrate the same vision that our Victorian forebears showed when they designed these Houses of Parliament to be the centre of an imperial legislature in the 1840s.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I feel that we have already segued into later debates. With due respect to my noble friend, I have to challenge his “back of an envelope” assessment. If he comes to my office, I will show him a huge amount of paperwork—documents that some of us have worked on over the last couple of years. If it was all on the back of an envelope, the envelope would be enormous.
We have gone a little wider than the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but I do think he is on to something. I understand that the question of the Ministry of Defence and the car park has now been resolved—but, I suspect, given the extra cost that would have been involved had it not been resolved, that public attention might well have encouraged them to move a little more quickly than they did. Again, we come back to what we are really talking about here: engagement, information and openness. The more that we can say what is intended to be done, the greater will be our ability to monitor the project.
In most large projects that I know, there is some slippage. Noble Lords are right that this project is at a relatively early stage, but quite a lot of planning has gone into it already. We do not need to say, “This will happen on 3 January 2022”, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his amendment on the important issue of decant and its timeline. His amendment would require the sponsor body to provide its best estimate for the timeline of the Palace restoration works when consulting parliamentarians.
As noble Lords are aware, the full decant, restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is scheduled to take place from the mid-2020s until the mid-2030s. I absolutely recognise that noble Lords are seeking further clarity on those dates. It is very much my hope, and that of the Government, that the work will be completed expeditiously and that we will move back to the Palace as swiftly as possible afterwards. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the works, including the timing of those works. This will form the outline business case, the OBC, which Parliament will need to approve before the substantive works commence. If for any reason the timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. It is at that stage—the presentation of the OBC—that the timing of the works will become clear.
The Government have of course thought about requiring the sponsor body to provide its assessment of timings at the consultation stage, even if it is just a best estimate. The trouble with that is that the sponsor body at that stage will still be in the process of formulating the OBC, and any forecast timings will be at best a very rough estimation. I argue that this would risk setting expectations prematurely. Those expectations would then inevitably need to be revised when the sponsor body placed its proposals before Parliament prior to approval.
I shall give a simple illustration of that. We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on what noble Lords would like to see from a restored Palace. Those aspects of the plan are not the sort of thing that can be nailed down a priori. They are therefore bound to affect the length of time that the works will take.
Furthermore, one essential first step for R&R is the works to Richmond House, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, to enable the decant from the other place. The timing of those works will inevitably affect the start time for R&R—so clearly we would not want to decant before those works had happened. The noble and learned Lord asked where we were in the planning process for Richmond House. All I can say is that the Northern Estate programme is currently consulting the public on its plans for Richmond House. We expect it to make a formal planning application to Westminster City Council by this autumn.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in this debate and indicated some support for the general approach I was taking. I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and thank him specifically for his update on the planning in relation to Richmond House—although I think it was very clear, or at least implicit in what he said, that there are still possibilities of that taking time. There is the possibility of a challenge if Westminster City Council were to give positive approval. So it is quite clear that there could be some factors that could delay decant.
As the debate unfolded, it seemed that there was some support for having some kind of reporting back to Parliament. I note and understand the point the noble Earl made that if we do it at the consultation stage it could raise expectations, and that the appropriate point would be after the outline business case had been made. He said that if there was a material change, the sponsor body might have to come back. I will reflect and consult with others on whether we want to put something in the Bill on that, rather than just leaving it open-ended about what would be a material change. We may want to do something that would require the sponsor body to continue to update us after the initial approval of the outline business case.
Lord Adonis
I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. To some extent, this debate is unreal, because there are already dates out there. We have been debating the dates of 2025 for the decant and 2035 for moving in. At every stage of the preparation of the plans, the questions that will be asked are, “Are you sticking to the 2025 date or not? If not, when is it moving to and how long will it be before you get back?”. The idea that the sponsor body—with its chair and chief exec—will be able to avoid publishing and giving its view on this issue is entirely unreal.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes an important point. When I was on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, our expectation was that we might decant in 2023, but it is now clear that that is no longer the case. Dates have been put out there. We need to maintain public confidence in the project, in terms of not only time but cost. Having been one of the first Members of the Scottish Parliament, I recall well what that can mean in relation to building a parliamentary building. To maintain public confidence, it is important that explanations are given. Often things are no fault of anyone—they are just circumstance —but often it helps to explain what the circumstances are. Therefore, it might merit considering whether we can come back to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“( ) The Sponsor Body shall nominate from among its members a member of the House of Commons and a member of the House of Lords who shall be the principal spokesperson for the Sponsor Body in their respective House.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is that the sponsor body should nominate from among its members a Member of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords to be its principal spokespersons in their respective Houses. This was considered by the Joint Committee looking at the Bill. It thought it a worthwhile thing to do but said that it should not be in primary legislation. Indeed, I would not necessarily want to press the amendment, but this is a useful opportunity for us to be updated on where we are and on the thinking on how we will report back to this House and the Commons on the sponsor body’s work.
As I understand it, the Leader of the House of Commons and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, wrote to the shadow sponsor body with the Joint Committee’s findings and asked specifically about the importance of having a political figurehead for the programme. It replied:
“We note that analogous arrangements already exist in both Houses, with the spokespeople for each Commission responding to oral and written questions”,
and it anticipated that the sponsor body would,
“be invited to consider and agree its preferred approach to the appointment of spokespeople in the autumn, ahead of its transition to the substantive stage”.
It occurred to me on more than one occasion this evening that it might have been helpful if we had a spokesperson from the shadow sponsor body to tell us where it had got to on various things. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, who has had to leave, has sought to do that in a personal capacity. I am not criticising the fact that it has not happened—we are still at a shadow sponsor body level—but one can foresee situations where issues will arise. It would be helpful to have someone at Oral Questions, answering Written Questions or debates in your Lordships’ House, or making Statements and reporting back, just as the Senior Deputy Speaker comes to the Dispatch Box to present reports and respond to them.
I understand that the question of how we deal with this issue might have gone, or is going, to the Procedure Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to get on the record how the House anticipates it might deal with it, so that we can have somebody who comes to your Lordships’ House—and for that matter to the House of Commons—to update us and, to some extent, to be the face of the sponsor body and to answer for it. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I will first say a few words in support of the excellent amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. It makes complete sense to have someone in the Chamber who is able to explain to us the proceedings and progress of the project whom we can ask questions of. To have that in the Bill makes sense. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how that could be achieved.
My amendments have a different purpose, which is to get the voice of the public on the sponsor body from the outset. There is some flexibility in its current composition, described in Part 1 of Schedule 1: the sponsor body will have between seven and 13 members, between three and five of whom will be external members, including a chair. Between four and eight will be Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament or Peers will be in the majority, which makes sense. But there is not much room in those numbers for somebody who could perhaps represent the public and champion issues such as access and education. One of them will need to be a chair, whose focus will be on driving the project forward and managing the sponsor body itself. I imagine one might be a leading person from the construction industry, and another might have major project experience or heritage experience. That is why I would like to ask the Minister how the voice of the public could be best represented at a very high level from the beginning, when the brief for this project is being decided and the strategy formulated.
In many ways, there are fewer concerns about the delivery authority. It will have nine members, who will be more broadly recruited, with only two executive directors and the rest non-executive directors. It is really the sponsor body where I detect a bottleneck. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister explained how it could be tweaked to give more access to a voice from the public.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is sensible because it is not otherwise clear in the Bill how the sponsor body will interact with the two Houses of Parliament. Under Schedule 1, there will be a chair who is specifically required not to be a Member of either House of Parliament; then there will be between four and eight persons among the membership who will be Members of this House or the House of Commons. By virtue of the fact that they are here, people will expect them to give accounts of what is happening, but they will have no formal standing. They will not formally represent the sponsor body and it is not clear, for example, how one would put questions to that body.
If we are not careful—this comes back to the 19th-century experience—in order to interact, people will want to get at the chair and the chief exec, who are not Members of either House. A Select Committee will be set up so that it can call them before it and interact with them. However, it would be more sensible if Members of the two Houses of Parliament are required to be members of the sponsor body. It could be rather like the way we interact with the Church Commissioners; I cannot remember whether it is the Second Church Estates Commissioner who is a Member of one House or who represents the Church Commissioners here. Is it the Bishops? Anyway, it is possible to interact directly with them. Having a similar relationship would be perfectly sensible, given how important this body and its parliamentary work will be over more than a decade.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not intend to press his amendment; what he is actually doing may come from his experience of the work in Holyrood. He may be anticipating exactly the problems and issues we will have. It is as well to get this right in the Bill, rather than having to make significant adjustments and take what might be avoiding action, such as setting up a special committee to interact with the sponsor body because we have no provision for the body itself to have a direct relationship with the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
My Lords, Amendment 22 brings our attention to the relationship between the sponsor body and both Houses. The sponsor body must remain engaged with the wider Parliament throughout the work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made a number of points in this regard.
Amendments 24 and 25 seek to create within the body a new champion for education and a champion for participatory democracy, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The benefits of Parliament for educational and participative democracy purposes are well established and were discussed earlier, so I have no need to go back over them. I hope that the sponsor body will agree to promote both these aspects.
Meanwhile, Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith would introduce the idea of a report to ensure that the Palace is maintained beyond the works. This is an attempt to look to the future and ensure that the Estate cannot fall into its current level of disrepair. The can has been kicked down the road for far too long and work must begin as soon as it has been agreed, but there would be great benefit in reporting on how these works will preserve the long-term future. Be it in a separate account or as part of the pre-existing reporting arrangements, this issue should be given consideration.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for these amendments, which, as they have explained, are about placing further duties on the sponsor body, namely: appointing spokespersons for that body in each House; appointing champions for particular purposes; and to underpin maintenance planning. The amendments are grouped to reflect the fact that they relate to the relationship between Parliament and the sponsor body. I am sure that we can all identify with the arguments advanced for these amendments and I will address each in turn.
The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord would require the sponsor body to nominate spokespeople for both Houses. The Government agree that it may well be necessary to have political figureheads on the sponsor body. However, we come back to the question of how prescriptive we should be in the Bill. The Government’s view is that it is for the sponsor body to determine the role of its parliamentary Members, whether acting as political figureheads or spokespersons, or answering Parliamentary Questions, and that we should not prescribe these things in the Bill.
Having said that, I reassure the noble and learned Lord that the chair of the shadow sponsor body will be invited to consider and agree its preferred approach to the appointment of spokespeople in the autumn, ahead of its transition to the substantive stage. I am sure they will be receptive to that idea. Apart from responding to Parliamentary Questions, subject to procedural discussions within both Houses, the possibility could also be explored of the spokespeople making Written Statements and moving resolutions to agree the outline business case required by the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Again, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly to the Minister for his reply. All the amendments in this group raise important issues. The Minister made a valid argument about how we might use the parliamentary relationship agreement to deal with some of them. As I indicated, provision for how the sponsor body would report to Parliament need not necessarily be in the Bill; the amendment was an opportunity to get an idea of current thinking. I was not reassured by the Minister saying that it would be put back into the court of the chair of the sponsor body, but no doubt that can be worked through and may well be the subject of a Written Parliamentary Question later in the year—it will be interesting to see who answers it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stunell
Lord Stunell
My Lords, debates today have probably added £1 billion to the total cost of R&R. When we look at we have said about disability, constitutional changes, public engagement and future-proofing, I think that we can forget £4 billion and start to look at £5 billion. All that is in square brackets anyway.
This legislation is not a money Bill; if it were, we would not be discussing it. It is a governance Bill, but how we arrange the governance affects how much money is spent. For example, the opaque governance of the process leading up to this Bill reaching your Lordships’ House has already cost us money, because it could perfectly well have come at least a year and probably 18 months sooner, which would have saved money. If it is hard to see how, perhaps I may say that the index of consumer price inflation in the last year was 1.9% and the index of construction price inflation was 2.8%—more or less 1% greater. That 1% leads to the whole project’s expenditure falling one year later than it would have done, which has cost us £40 million on a £4 billion project—probably £50 million—simply by starting a year later than we needed to. That is before we have a plan or a project on the table. My amendment is intended to enable us to avoid unnecessary delay and cost, and to learn from that story and the lessons of Crossrail.
Once upon a time when this project was first floated, the governance model in this Bill was advocated and supported because it was going to follow the magnificent models of UK construction projects where we had at last cracked the problem and, as seen with the Olympics and Crossrail, we could now deliver on time and on budget. We still say that, except we leave out the phrase “and Crossrail”; we only say, “the magnificent example of the Olympics”. What Crossrail illustrated is that once you have a delay you automatically and unavoidably have cost increases. That is not only because it costs money to take longer; it costs even more money to try to catch up.
My amendment is designed to save the large amounts of public money which come from delay in taking decisions about how the project should proceed. A project of £4 billion intended to take eight years is going to spend, on average, £500 million each year. That is not a trivial sum in anybody’s counting and certainly not in the Treasury’s counting. The year’s delay will not cost you all the £500 million but it will probably, à la Crossrail, cost you two-thirds—£300 million, say, will be the cost of holding things back for a year, for one reason or another. So the current way we are going to decide whether we can afford something goes something like this: the sponsor body develops a programme, signs it off and passes it to the delivery authority, which gets the design work and the tendering going and then reports back to the delivery authority, which reports back to the sponsor body, which sends it to the estimates commission, which at that point consults the Treasury. The Bill says it “must have regard to” the information or advice it gets from the Treasury. In fact, three of the Bill’s 15 clauses relate to having to have regard to the Treasury’s advice.
Whatever might be said in some idyllic constitutional theory about parliamentary supremacy, the actual tap is turned on and off by the Treasury. That is no surprise and certainly it is the reality of this piece of legislation. The point is that at least a year, and probably 18 months to two years, after the sponsor body has commissioned the work to be done, the Treasury will say, “Oh, no, sorry, that is not in scope, we cannot afford that. Spread it over 10 years, drop all the stuff about getting into the turrets, never mind Lord Stunell and hearing, let us just have it like it was in the old building and cut costs”. We will still have the delays. Incidentally, it will be very difficult to save as much by cutting things out of the design as it will cost to have the delays—which, of course, is another Crossrail story as well.
What we have is a system where we know it will be the Treasury taking the decision on whether the money is going to be spent, but instead of asking before we start, “Can we have the money to do this?”, we are going to wait until we have done everything and then the Treasury is going to say no. Amendment 23 simply short-circuits that in a very simple way. It says that it is permissible to have a Minister of the Crown on the sponsor body. It does not require that there shall be, and it is therefore still a matter of choice as to whether such a person is appointed or not. What that means is that, at the start of the process and not at the end, the Treasury would be saying what can and cannot be spent. In terms of parliamentary accountability and lots of other things, people will say, “That is completely wrong”, but the Government’s fingerprints are going to be on this and they are going to do their best to wipe their fingerprints off it, which they will be well able to do if they present it in anonymous advice to the estimates commission two years after the process began and the delays will be there.
My amendment allows the Government to find a way of being more transparent about taking the inevitable decisions that the Treasury will make and putting those in the public domain at the earliest moment. I know that I do not have too many friends on this, but I have given the House an option, which it does not need to exercise but which in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, a future Administration and the future House will be very grateful for, so that they can indeed save any more delays than those that will by then already have accumulated. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. If I understand his argument correctly, he seems to be expressing a lack of confidence that Her Majesty’s Treasury will come up with the money and deliver on the funding at the end of the project, and to avoid that he is suggesting putting it on the committee that is deciding what the project should do and what money should be requested.
I understand why the noble Lord made his arguments, and, as I said, I listened carefully, but I am not persuaded by them. This is a parliamentary project, not a government project—that is an important distinction to make. There are times when I suspect that there may be battles between Parliament and government on this, although I hope not. I hope that in bringing forward the Bill, government is showing its intention to recognise that the work has to be done and paid for.
Baroness Barran
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for tabling his amendment, which, as he explained, would allow a government Minister to become a member of the sponsor body. I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for reinforcing the point that this is a parliamentary project and that we need to make that clear at all times.
I understand from the noble Lord’s speech at Second Reading that his key concern was about the potential lack of transparency around the Treasury’s advice on the estimates of expenditure, which in turn could lead to delays, waste and extra cost, as well as the need for Treasury buy-in to the project. The noble Lord has again articulated these points clearly tonight. He also stole the next part of my notes when he explained exactly how the process worked. However, I should add—I did not catch the noble Lord saying this, so I hope he will forgive me if I missed it—that the estimate is laid after it has been reviewed by the estimates commission and there has been consultation with the Treasury. The estimate is then laid before the other place for approval, including any comments made by the Treasury. I am advised that this is more transparent than the current estimates process for the funding of Parliament. To be clear to the House, this provides the opportunity for the Treasury to comment on the annual estimate, but it does not provide it with a veto. Furthermore, in terms of approval for the parliamentary building works, the Treasury is not given a role in respect of the outline business case. That is exclusively a matter for Parliament.
At Second Reading and again tonight, the noble Lord argued that a Treasury Minister could sit on the sponsor body, as recommended by the Joint Committee that examined the Bill. The role of the Treasury in this project is as an external party looking inwards, with the ability to review and advise upon the sponsor body’s annual estimates. The Treasury’s comments on the annual estimate will be laid before Parliament with the estimate. Therefore, the advice of the Treasury will be available when the House of Commons considers the estimate, and that provides for a clear role for the Treasury. The sponsor body and Parliament will therefore have transparent access to the Treasury’s views on the value for money and affordability of the project, which I hope addresses the noble Lord’s concerns around the transparency and the timeliness of that advice. Our view remains that, if a Treasury Minister was a member of the sponsor body, it would compromise that and could restrict the Treasury from being able objectively to assess the sponsor body’s annual estimates. In the light of these arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Stunell
I thank the Minister very much for her reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her words of comment on the amendment. She asked whether I trust the Treasury. If I replied yes to that, I would be the only person in this House who did. The Treasury rightly considers itself the guardian of the nation’s purse. In my experience, from both inside the system and looking at it from the outside, it is very rare for the Treasury to say, “Why don’t you take more money? Why don’t you speed up this project?”. I think we can all anticipate that the role of the Treasury in this is to be the gatekeeper of money. It sees that role as reducing the flow of money, particularly if Members of both Houses arguing the case for hospitals, schools, aircraft carriers and goodness knows what else, at the expense of this self-serving project for Members. You can see the national newspapers and media joining in that school.
The idea of someone turning the tap off is real. The only question is whether we have a system where we turn it off at the end of a long process, thus wasting a lot of money and time, or whether we turn it off at the beginning, so that we know we have to take 20 years, not 10 years, because we can spend only £300 million a year, not £500 million a year—as the case may be—in which case, we can design the project on a completely different timescale and get efficiencies that way.
The Minister said that the Treasury’s advice will be published. Yes, it certainly would be, but the question is whether the estimates would have been trimmed as a result of the advice given and the dialogue that goes on. The estimates commission “must have regard” to any advice that it receives from the Treasury. If the Treasury says, “You can spend only £400 million”, and the estimates commission is being invited by the sponsor body to spend £600 million, it is not statutorily in its power to put the £600 million figure on the table in front of Parliament, because it “must have regard” to any advice. The Minister may say that that is incorrect, in which case I should like to have that on record.
I will not pursue this tonight, not just because of the time but because I have no one here who agrees with me. I just say that I think that this is a problem that will come back to haunt us, and I may yet say something at the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) A report under this paragraph must in particular include information about persons to whom contracts in respect of the carrying out of the Parliamentary building works have been awarded, in particular—(a) their size, and(b) the areas in which they operate.”
Baroness Quin
“( ) The Sponsor Body must prepare and publish a report giving an assessment of relocating the Houses of Parliament for the duration of the Parliamentary building works to a location outside of London.( ) The Sponsor Body must make arrangements for the report to be laid before and debated by both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 29 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Adonis and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I did not speak at Second Reading as, owing to previous commitments, I knew that I could not be present for the opening and closing of the debate, but I attended for a good part of it and followed it closely. As we know, one of the frustrations of our work is that we often do not know business long enough in advance to prevent such diary clashes. I was struck by some of the speeches at Second Reading: in particular those of my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who both showed me that the building I had worked in for so many years as a Member of either this House or the other House was in such a dramatic state of dereliction and decay and just how huge the task facing us is.
A colleague and friend, looking at this amendment, said, “Is this the Geordie amendment, then?”. As much as I would like Parliament to be based in Newcastle or Gateshead, the amendment is much less ambitious. It asks simply that the sponsor body prepare and publish a report giving an assessment of relocating the Houses of Parliament for the duration of the parliamentary building works to a location outside London; and that the sponsor body must make arrangements for the report to be laid before and debated by both Houses of Parliament. That seems a very reasonable amendment, particularly as the study would be prepared concurrently with all the other things being done and therefore not involve delaying the timetable further. Although the idea of relocating Parliament outside London in the way proposed has been mentioned before and some have talked about the cost of doing so, as far as I am aware, no official work on such an option or the cost of doing so has yet been be produced.
At Second Reading, my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes spoke of the desirability of locating Parliament outside London; by doing so, they spoke effectively against overcentralisation and overconcentration in our capital city. Both my noble friends and I know that the idea of relocating Parliament, either temporarily or permanently, has been around for a long time. Indeed, in her Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon reminded us of ideas from the 1960s, such as for a new, permanent capital called “Elizabetha” to be built on land between Harrogate and York. Even as a schoolgirl, I remember that idea giving rise to a lot of excited comments in local newspapers in and around Tyneside as a result.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that I am emphatically not in favour of building on that attractive landscape and I am not proposing the Elizabetha solution. Even the name “Elizabetha” for such a new capital reminded me of that hugely entertaining book by Bill Bryson, Down Under; noble Lords may know of it. Bryson describes the debates that went on in Australia over the construction of the new capital, Canberra, as the seat of Parliament and the occasionally ludicrous names that were suggested, such as “Sydmeladperbrisho”—I think that noble Lords get the point—or, even more weirdly, “Thirstyville”; I can just imagine the comments in the press about MPs and Peers moving there.
I also looked at some of the Hansard entries from the time when the Elizabetha idea was put forward. Some Members in the other place spoke in favour of Parliament being established north of the Trent—it seemed like a good idea to me—midway between Thameside and Clydeside. However, some of those debates make for depressing reading. For example, that oft-controversial MP, Willie Hamilton, bemoaned that our building here was not built and not equipped for a 20th-century role. Here we are, saying rather similar things, except that we are now in the 21st century. Through my amendment, I hope simply to look at out-of-London options; for example, looking at either using existing buildings outside London or at what new facilities that might be suitable could be found outside the capital.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am interested in what the noble Baroness says. Does she accept that, if you take the United Kingdom from the top of Shetland to Land’s End, the midpoint falls round about Dundee? Would she favour that option? It would make my journey shorter.
Baroness Quin
I would, yes, partly because there is a direct train from my local station—Alnmouth—to Dundee.
There is much that I could say but the hour is late so I will truncate my comments. I noticed that, in response to my noble friend Lord Adonis at Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Smith talked of concerns about the costs of relocation. She also mentioned the European Parliament’s different centres of activity. As a former MEP, I am conscious of the European Parliament’s travelling circus—although, in its defence, the Parliament is sadly unable to take or address that decision because, by treaty, the member states must agree unanimously on a seat for the Parliament; they have so far failed to do so, which is both costly and wearing for all those involved. However, I am not suggesting anything like the European Parliament arrangements in my amendment.
In response to my noble friend at Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that,
“in October 2012, the House of Commons Commission, and at that time the House Committee in the Lords … ruled out the option of constructing a brand new building away from Westminster and no further analysis will be undertaken of this option”.—[Official Report, 8/7/19; col. 1682.]
Those remarks are not relevant to this amendment, however, because nothing in this amendment calls for either a brand-new building or permanent relocation. I note that the noble Earl also said, in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Foulkes, that he would make some information available to my noble friend and other noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, about past debates and decisions on this subject. Obviously, since I did not speak at Second Reading, I have not received that information, but I would be grateful to see it before Report.
Finally, I know that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon is very supportive of the idea that all regions and nations should benefit from the restoration and renewal project. Indeed, there has been a general welcome across the House for that approach. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, that is somewhat separate and does not in any way negate the issue raised in my amendment.
In conclusion, this is a modest amendment asking merely that the sponsor body prepare a report about the costings of a temporary relocation outside London and report back to Parliament. Given that that body has to come back to Parliament in any case with a number of other estimates, it would be perfectly feasible for us to ask the sponsor body to undertake this study. What I and my co-signatories are asking for is reasonable and feasible, and I hope—even at this late hour—that the amendment finds some favour this evening.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree that this is a modest amendment. It is a totally irrelevant amendment that is in no way helpful to making progress on the basic question of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
We go back a long way in examining what we should do about the state of this building. At various stages, reports have been received from consultants saying how much needed to be done; the commission has retreated from that in view of its cost; two more years on, another consultant’s report has been sought; and on and on as things have clearly got worse. Finally, by the narrowest of margins we came to the point where we decided that, no, we were not going to relocate; we were going to decant and get this iconic building restored to meet the needs of Parliament in the 21st century. Now we are starting once again trying to look backwards. What is the point of getting another estimate for relocating somewhere else, unless it is to compare the cost of that with the cost of what is now proposed for the restoration of this building?
Secondly, I believe that the British public has been persuaded—I pay tribute to those involved in putting the case—that this is necessary expenditure. They have been willing to contemplate the likely sum of money involved in achieving the end of restoring this building. In their view it is an iconic building—and now we have the idea of going somewhere else. What would we do with this building except make sure it had to be restored? We would not allow it to crumble, so this is extra expense on top.
There is also the fact that we are a Government in Parliament—so how can we continue in the way we have traditionally done if there is to be a huge geographical separation between the Government and the legislature?
In my view, the whole thing is madness. Having spent far too long worrying and arguing about what we should do, and having so far achieved the assent of the public to this enterprise, I regard it as an absolute farce that we should now start wasting even trivial sums of money looking again at the costings of alternatives. We have delayed far too long. We are now resolved to move forward. It is quite right that we should think of all the considerations involved in that, but to start looking back at this stage is futile, absurd and irrelevant, and should be abandoned immediately.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in opposing the amendment. This is not an imposition we should place on the sponsor body.
I start with a technical point, because the amendment is deficient in that it says:
“The Sponsor Body must make arrangements for the report to be laid before and debated by both Houses of Parliament”.
We can impose a duty on the sponsor body to lay a report before Parliament; we cannot give power to the sponsor body to make arrangements for debates in either House of Parliament.
I would link the substance of the amendment to our earlier discussions and relate it to a point that has not been raised and which leads me to be somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is supporting this amendment. If we have a temporary Parliament elsewhere, it is not only the cost of relocating Parliament, the cost of relocating parliamentary staff, the cost of relocating government so that it is near Parliament and the cost imposed on all those bodies that are in London because they want to make representations to government and Parliament and who would have to move, but, in relation to what we were discussing earlier, Parliament needs to be accessible to the people. They need to be able to come here. We need their visits and they have to be able to come and watch what is going on. They can do that because London is at the centre of the transport infrastructure—it is easier to get to London.
Where else in the country will you be able to create a transport infrastructure in the time available for this temporary relocation so that schoolchildren and any member of the public who wants to come and observe Parliament can do so? It will be extraordinarily difficult—indeed, impossible. London has the convenience that enables us to fulfil that particular function. The proposal is not feasible and it is not a burden that we should impose on the sponsor body, because it has far too much to do already.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am surprised that, as a resident of Hull, the noble Lord thinks that London should be the centre of everyone’s attention in transport infrastructure.
Lord Norton of Louth
I did not say it should be; I said it is. That is the reality.
Lord Adonis
That does not need to be the case. Depending where you choose to locate your temporary Parliament, it could have good transport connections. I understand that we are talking about 2028 or 2029 for the move. That will be after the first phase of HS2 is opened in 2025, which will make a dramatic change to the economic geography of this country. I am trying to persuade my good friend the Mayor of West Midlands, Andy Street, to rename Birmingham International as “UK Central” because that is where it will be in terms of accessibility. It will be more readily accessible to most parts of England in terms of proximity than will London when HS2 is opened. The noble Lord has set out an old way of thinking which does not take account of the other changes that are taking place.
To bring Parliament closer to a large part of the country in the interim period is desirable, as we are going to have to move out anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, asked what is going to happen afterwards. The plan is that we would move back here. However, there will have to be an interim which will incur huge expense. The doing up of the QEII Centre and Richmond House and all the associated facilities will involve massive expense.
The suggestion in the amendment is well worth looking at. It would not involve any delay. I know the noble Lord is anxious that the sins of the past—ceaseless delay—are put right, but there will be no delay. It would involve the presentation of an assessment of the option alongside the presentation of the plans. Clause 7(2) provides that no work can take place until specific parliamentary approval is given. It states:
“No Palace restoration works, other than preparatory works, may be carried out before the Sponsor Body has obtained Parliamentary approval for … Delivery Authority proposals in respect of those works, and … funding, up to an amount specified in the approval resolution, in respect of phase two works”—
and it sets out elaborate provisions thereafter.
So there would be no further delay. Other work would be carried out alongside it; it keeps an option open; and it takes account of changing circumstances, including the dramatic improvement of the transport infrastructure which will make other locations accessible. It also meets the wider concerns which most of us share—the reason this issue is so live—that Parliament is too remote from the people, and not having all of the centres of government and parliamentary authority located in London would be one way of distributing power more evenly across the United Kingdom.
My own view is that this is a good idea whose time may not quite have come—it certainly has not come at 10.55 pm, a few days before Parliament adjourns for the Summer Recess, with 10 Members present in the House. But its time may be coming and, in the context of wider debates that will take place on constitutional reform in the light of Brexit—including what might well be a decisive move towards a federal United Kingdom in the not too distant future—may come soon. Therefore, making preparations to assess it now is sensible.
I am reasonably laid back about it because of the timeframe for the work. We will not, in any event, have the presentation of the full costed plan to which Parliament can give approval for two years, as we were told at the beginning of Second Reading by the Leader—but I suspect it could be longer than that before we even get the plan. We may not move to decanting into the temporary facilities for the best part of a decade, and it could be the best part of two decades before the work is finished. I suspect, therefore, that what is needed at the moment—as I am anxious to do and as my noble friend did in her very able speech—is to plant the idea in the public mind. In particular, we should encourage political leaders outside London—who are already starting to be interested in this idea—to begin to develop it further. The context of this may change dramatically in the years ahead.
Lord Norton of Louth
As noble Lords have said, the reason for the delay is the complexity of having to adapt the estate here, which just emphasises the difficulty of creating or finding space elsewhere where we can do what we are seeking to do here.
Lord Adonis
In many ways, it is actually much easier to do it if you are building on a greenfield site next to a major transport interchange such as Birmingham International, where the National Exhibition Centre is. That would be much simpler than the hugely complex, difficult and historic estate here. I wrestled with exactly the same argument on the question of whether we should upgrade a 200-year-old railway line to provide additional rail capacity between our major cities or build a completely new line. Often, building completely new is a good thing.
This is a debate that will run for the next few years, and we have done a good job of planting the idea. I strongly encourage my friends and colleagues who are mayors of the major cities and city regions in the Midlands and the north to advance this idea further. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, but I suspect that he has not heard the last of this, by any means. Whatever decision is taken in this Bill, we will return to this, because it is a fundamental issue about the governance of the United Kingdom, alongside what will be a £5 billion, £10 billion or £15 billion investment—who knows what the final figure will be?—in the future of Parliament. I do not think that we will be able to keep these big strategic issues off the agenda.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this amendment because it has started a debate which I have supported for a long time. Maybe she should have gone one step further. We are talking about a report on the temporary relocation of Parliament outside London, but if you are going to build a new temporary Parliament, be it in Richmond House or outside London, there is a cost attached, and I suspect that the cost would be not very different either way. The work in Richmond House will not be prefab but extremely glossy, expensive and difficult, as it so often is with building in a capital city. And we can forget for the moment what will be done in the QEII—although I suspect it will be lovely. There is actually an argument for building something somewhere outside London, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and staying there.
This place has to be refurbished because, as many noble Lords have said, it is in a bad state, but it could be used for educational purposes and conferences. That is what they do in Hungary: they built a parliament in Budapest—almost mirrored on this place—and the architect got a second prize for doing it. Hungary now has a parliament with a single chamber and the other half, which I have been to, is used as a conference and education centre. It is a lovely building and it works really well. If we really wanted to maintain a link with this place, we could still use it for the State Opening of Parliament and then go and do our work somewhere else. There are a lot of options.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I always have a sense of déjà vu when discussing this issue. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lady Quin for contacting me prior to the debate. My noble friend Lady Quin’s amendment is somewhat different from those we have seen before. It is not about relocating Parliament but about a temporary relocation while the works are being undertaken. I have listened carefully to what has been raised today, and I wonder whether we are almost having two separate discussions. There is a challenge with this project so that all nations and regions of the UK feel engaged with it. I might have made a slightly different argument in pushing for this.
We face three things as a country: economic inequality, democratic disengagement and a loss of confidence in the political system. They have been raised at different times when talking about this issue. However, I am not convinced that moving Parliament necessarily addresses them. Having said that, the proposal before us today is about the restoration and renewal of this building to provide a home for a 21st-century Parliament. My noble friend Lady Quin referred to the comments I made at Second Reading about the administrative capital and the plans to build it on the Yorkshire moors. Other countries have done that. That is a completely separate issue from what is facing us today, which is the restoration and renewal of this building. There is nothing that says that in future, if as a nation we want to take that decision, we could not do so, but we would have to accept that the cost would make the cost of restoration and renewal pale into insignificance because Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as part of a system involving government, civil society, business and the Civil Service. I have always taken the view that we need to keep those elements of governance of the country together and have those communications.
A huge challenge to this programme is to address the issue of benefiting the regions. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in particular, has some interesting ideas and I hope the Government will pursue them and will be a little more positive than they have been to date on engaging young people and others throughout the country. However, issues of confidence in the political system cannot be addressed by this programme. The costs would be greater than if we have to do the work here. However, there is nothing to stop Parliament at any time looking at creating a new administrative capital if that is what it wishes to do, but I do not think this Bill is the right place to address that. If there had been new arguments that could have persuaded me otherwise, I would have been happy to take them on board, but I am still not persuaded that this programme is the right time to be looking at a different site, even temporarily.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for their amendment, which brings us back to the vexed issue of decant. The amendment would require the sponsor body to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving an assessment of relocating the Houses of Parliament, for the duration of the parliamentary building works, to a location outside London.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster suggested that the Commons should decant to the Northern Estate, including Richmond House, and the Lords should decant to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. I can only underline the words of my noble friend Lord Haselhurst: those recommendations were based on substantial analysis of where Parliament could be relocated during R&R. This included a pre-feasibility study commissioned by Parliament in 2012. Just to clarify what I said at Second Reading, that study looked into the preliminary business case for R&R and considered whether Parliament should decant and, if so, whether it should be to a location outside Westminster, whether temporarily or permanently. It concluded that because the,
“geographical proximity of Parliament to Government is of significance … substantial additional costs would be incurred”.
On the back of the pre-feasibility study, the House authorities commissioned the independent options appraisal. This was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which considered the various options for R&R. In its report the committee noted that it had considered the proposal to temporarily relocate Parliament during R&R. It concluded, as was well summarised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that,
“the option of temporarily locating Parliament outside London during the works, while attractive in many ways, carries an unacceptable burden of cost and inconvenience, which would otherwise be avoided”.
It reached that decision as Parliament currently owns a number of buildings around the Palace of Westminster, such as the Northern Estate and Millbank House. These buildings provide both office space for Members and many committee and meeting rooms. If Parliament were to relocate during R&R, it would mean abandoning these buildings, thereby increasing the costs associated with decant.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. In its report, the Joint Committee brought our attention to the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who served as Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service for a decade. He described how he had,
“no doubt in saying that Parliament needs ready access to Ministers and vice versa. Departments also need ready access to Ministers and vice versa. It is an old-fashioned syllogism. The three need to be closely co-ordinated if Government is to work properly”.
I hope to convey that there has already been substantial work to assess whether the permanent or temporary location of Parliament should be outside London. On the back of that work, the matter was decided by Parliament in the Motions passed in 2018. Furthermore, contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I have concerns that the noble Baroness’s amendment, however well intentioned, might seriously delay progress on R&R. Significant work has already been undertaken to identify the decant locations and to formulate designs for the Northern Estate. If we were to decide to decant to somewhere else at this stage, we would need to start the process all over again.
I just do not think that we should go back and unpick the clear decision taken last year or the substantial work that has already been undertaken. To do so risks delaying this important, and urgent, project. Many of us would say that the work is already overdue. We absolutely must secure the Palace of Westminster—a grade I listed building, part of a UNESCO world heritage site and the home of UK democracy—for future generations. I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords of the problems that this building faces. Falling masonry, sewage leaks and the alarming number of fires caught just in time all demonstrate the pressing need to pass this Bill and get on with the job. We simply do not have time to delay.
So, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that the Government must express significant reservations about this amendment.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I thank all Members who have taken part in this short debate. To describe it kindly, I would say there have been mixed reactions, with some thinking the amendment far from modest and quite over the top, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley feeling it did not go far enough. The issues raised will not go away. We need to think imaginatively about how we rebalance our country to tackle overcentralisation and overconcentration. I will reflect on what has been said but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Tuesday 3rd September 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (30 Aug 2019)
“(i) to promote public understanding of the purposes of the Restoration and Renewal Programme.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5. These amendments, taken together, are designed to address a number of concerns—raised at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others—on the twin themes of engagement with specific categories of individuals about the restoration and renewal programme and promoting an understanding of the purposes of the programme, in ways I will explain more fully.
First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his constructive and collaborative approach in working with the Government to formulate the wording of the amendments now before us. The Leader of the House and I were sincerely impressed by the passion and sincerity with which he made his case, and he succeeded in persuading us that appropriate amendments to the Bill were warranted. I hope the House will agree that we have arrived at a good place in this respect.
The first amendment seeks to ensure that the sponsor body promotes public understanding of the purposes of the restoration and renewal programme. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill detailed the importance of the public understanding the restoration and renewal programme. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, tabled an amendment in Committee that was quite similar to the one we are debating today, and he was supported by a number of other noble Lords in the arguments that he put forward.
As noble Lords may recall, I outlined in Committee why that amendment was not strictly required, given what the shadow sponsor body has set out it will do in promoting understanding of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. For example, the restoration and renewal programme’s current purposes, as set out in its vision and strategic themes, includes the aim to:
“Open up the Houses of Parliament, improve access and encourage a wider participation in the work of Parliament”.
Nevertheless, we have listened to this House and recognise the desire of noble Lords that this amendment be included in the Bill to place this specific duty on the sponsor body.
The second amendment in the group relates to staff and public engagement. This amendment would require the sponsor body, in formulating the strategic objectives of the parliamentary building works and making strategic decisions relating to it, to seek the views of those employed by Parliament and working for Members, as well as the public at large. Again, as noble Lords will recognise, I outlined in Committee the engagement the shadow sponsor body has already started to undertake with staff and will be undertaking with the public in the future. For example, the shadow sponsor body circulated a questionnaire to Members and their staff with the aim of understanding what they would like to see from restoration and renewal of the Palace. I understand that the shadow sponsor body will publish these findings in October. Furthermore, the body will soon be considering its public engagement strategy.
Since the conclusion of Committee, we have had the chance to consider this matter further. We recognise the will of this House that provision should be made in the Bill to ensure that the sponsor body engages with staff and the public in undertaking its work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, again for his collaborative approach in formulating this amendment. I am sure that he, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made a similar suggestion in Committee, and members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee will welcome this amendment. It will ultimately be for the sponsor body, once established, to determine how it fulfils this duty, but I am sure all noble Lords will join me in encouraging the sponsor body to build on the engagement the shadow sponsor body has undertaken to date.
Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that the sponsor body will carry out the works with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process, especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, once again for agreeing to work with the Government on this amendment. The pre-legislative Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill, of which the noble Lord was a member, argued that the term “renewal” requires an outward-facing approach to the UK Parliament’s role at the centre of our democracy. In Committee, I outlined that the Government agree that the outputs as part of restoration and renewal should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate any future reforms which could facilitate opportunities for outreach and engagement. I was pleased to report that the shadow sponsor body had already outlined, as part of its strategic vision and themes, the aim to,
“reconnect people from across the UK with their Parliament through improved education and visitor facilities, physical and digital access”.
I also outlined in Committee the excellent work already done in this area through various parliamentary engagement and outreach programmes across the UK. The UK Parliament’s education and engagement service engaged more than 2.2 million people in 2018-19, of whom approximately 1.4 million were engaged face to face. The quality of this engagement is reflected in the feedback from 94% of participants, who rated it “good” or “excellent”. Furthermore, the education service also welcomed 70,226 school visitors in the year to mid-April 2018. The Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools programme has seen more than 2,000 Peers in Schools visits since the programme began in 2007. The education service also trained more than 2,900 teachers to help them engage their students in learning about Parliament and democracy. Nevertheless, we have listened again to the will of this House that an amendment relating specifically to remote connectivity and outreach programmes should be included in the Bill. In considering this matter, I encourage the sponsor body to work with Parliament’s education and outreach team in order to build on the excellent work it is undertaking.
The other two amendments, Amendments 3 and 4 in the name of my noble friend, are minor and technical; they merely ensure consistent references to the parliamentary building works in Clause 2(4)(b) and 2(4)(g). The Government have sought to ensure that the will of the House is facilitated when it is clear that a particular course of action is preferred. These amendments are a clear example of our determination to see that this is done. Each of the amendments in this group is designed to ensure that the necessary engagement work is undertaken and borne in mind by the sponsor body.
With renewed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for enabling us to achieve the express will of the House on these important issues, I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, understandably, over the summer and this afternoon the minds and hearts of parliamentarians have been somewhere other than on debating the restoration and renewal Bill. However, I congratulate the noble Earl on his new appointment and role, and I want to put it on the record that, if we were able to conduct wider business in the way that I have experienced negotiations with the noble Earl, we might get a lot further a lot faster, and some of the divisions that are bedevilling our country might be settled more easily.
I appreciate that, although restoration and renewal will cost the nation billions of pounds and the Bill might be very controversial, it does not compare with the situation that we are in in respect of our relationship with Europe and all that goes with it. However, I think that, in time, people will look back and be grateful to this House for the work that it did at Second Reading, in Committee and, now, on Report in relation to the measures that we are taking. They will appreciate the importance of getting agreement on restoration and renewal, speeding the Bill through and ensuring that time is not lost in getting on with the works.
I want to reciprocate by saying that it has been a great pleasure to do business with the noble Earl and his team. The Bill team, Cabinet Office officials and Members and officials in this House have been extraordinarily helpful, but none if it would have been possible without the wider support of Members of this House from all the political party groups. I thank and pay tribute to them for their voices not only in Committee but behind the scenes. We have made genuine progress, which is why I withdrew the amendments that I had tabled and agreed to put my name to those spoken to so eloquently this afternoon by the noble Earl. It is really important to understand that this House is not an internal process but the actual beating heart of our democracy. The outward-facing nature of what we are doing, as the noble Earl has described, will, in the years ahead, become critical to people’s understanding, first, of what is happening and why and, secondly, that this is a crucial part of our democratic process. The engagement and participation in democracy and the processes and programmes of this House and the other place will stand the test of time.
The noble Earl said that I had been passionate on this subject. It is quite hard to be passionate about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, but he is right. Underpinning my desire to bring about these changes was the belief that, when our politics are more settled and people come to see the investment that we are making in the Palace and the subsequent and consequent investment in the world heritage site more broadly, they will understand that giving the sponsor body a clear remit was crucial. I just want to put it on the record that when the Bill was considered by the Joint Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear to us that the sponsor body, and subsequently the delivery authority that it will oversee, will take their directions and objectives from Parliament. The one way in which Parliament can now ensure that the sponsor body is clear about what is required and can work in a flexible and positive fashion is to ensure that the Bill is clear. With the help of the Government, and in particular the noble Earl, I think that we have been able to make it a lot clearer and the sponsor body therefore has a much more positive remit.
Extremely good work by both parliamentarians and officials is going on behind the scenes and I suggest that the sponsor body should connect with what is already taking place in relation to, for instance, the Select Committee engagement team. Two small research projects have recently been publicised, involving small amounts of money, on the work of Select Committees. On the back of the Senior Deputy Speaker’s work on Select Committees of this House, we have discussed the importance of getting that right for the future. I would simply ask the sponsor body to connect with what has already taken place and perhaps—as part of the substantial investment that will go into the physical infrastructure—put a relatively small amount of money into such projects, which can stand the test of time and will be valuable for the future.
I declare my interest, as mentioned in the register, in relation to the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the public understanding of and engagement with politics. I suggest that the work that it has been doing behind the scenes—it made a presentation to the scrutiny committee—should be taken up. The work of the centre, and that of others in the academic field, could be extremely helpful and with relatively small amounts of money—although much more substantial than, say, £5,000 for a research project—could yield fruit. If we get it right now, we will get it right down the line. Although today is probably not the day for me to say much more due to what is going on outside and in the other House, which will be of critical importance to the future of our nation, I think people will be grateful to the Government for their co-operation, and to parliamentarians of all persuasions, for the way in which they have set about ensuring that the Palace of Westminster will continue to be the beating heart of our democracy in the generations to come.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I fully support the amendments on the Marshalled List, particularly Amendment 5 which refers to “facilitating improved public engagement”. I wonder whether there is still a possibility that that engagement could be other than remote. A question was asked in the other place about the possibility of access to the Elizabeth Tower for visitors when those works are completed, in a way that is independent of decant works which by then may have started or be about to start.
This leads me also to inquire whether we have closed our minds or shut the door on access to Westminster Hall. I know that there are complications but, if there were a means of allowing people to come through Westminster Hall on a particular line of route and then exit in the usual way, that would be a more meaningful way for people to engage. Those of us who have taken parties round the Palace on many occasions are impressed by the magic felt by many people, the emotional contact they may experience by being here. To lose that entirely would be a shame. Such access may be impossible in view of the works that have to take place in the Palace, but I hope that we will look at the possibility.
I am minded of what is available in the visitors’ centre on Capitol Hill in Washington where tableaux tell the story of Parliament through the ages. There is also the possibility of viewing a film. Perhaps a passage through Westminster Hall could be allowed and the Grand Committee Room—or the Westminster Hall chamber as it has become known—might also be a place where a film could show the work of Parliament and what it is all about. I hope we have not told ourselves that it cannot be done. It would be encouraging to know that this possibility is at least being investigated so that, by the time we have to decant from the building, there might still be an opportunity for something more than remote access for members of the public.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Howe for the amendments and place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work he has done on securing these amendments. They are extremely important—in particular, as my noble friend Lord Haselhurst would add, Amendment 5.
This might be the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, but we and the sponsor body need to look at it as the Parliament restoration and renewal Bill. It is not simply a case of bricks and mortar; it is about the space and how it is employed for the future. Picking up on what my noble friend said, it needs to be adaptable space. That is the point that needs to be put over to the sponsor body: not only should we use the space in the way indicated by my noble friend but there are going to be changes that we cannot anticipate in the way that we might want to use it. This place was designed originally to accommodate meetings in committee rooms dealing with private Bills. That did not take into account how Parliament would evolve, particularly as a public body. We cannot anticipate all the needs in future, so adaptability is going to be a clear theme.
I reiterate the point that the space can be used to connect with people outside. That is a crucial point that has already been stressed. We need not only to educate but to be able to engage. That would play to the strengths of this House in particular, but the institution of Parliament as a whole needs to be able to connect with people outside in different ways, including in ways that, as I say, we might not able to anticipate at the moment—so we need to have that space available but not rigid.
So we need to be outward-looking and adaptable. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work he has done on this. I was delighted with the agreement that was reached with the Government, so I very much support the amendments before us.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I will add my thanks to all those who have worked during August to come up with a solution that meets not just the needs of those moving the amendments but the sentiments that were expressed during the debate. As a member of the shadow sponsor body, I think that this gives some clarity about the wishes of the House and the responsibilities of the sponsor body when it gets its substantive form.
Right from the beginning, outreach and education have been an absolute priority for the sponsor body. I assure the noble Earl that we have had a lot of discussions with the education and outreach department already, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that flexibility is one of the key things that we are thinking about in design. Obviously not every room in the Palace can be entirely flexible—there are too many constraints, particularly of heritage, for that—but one of our overall objectives will be to end up with a much more flexible space because, as the noble Lord said, we simply cannot predict where we are going to be in future.
The shadow sponsor body has always felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has previously so passionately described, that the renewal of Parliament is not just about the building—that is extremely important to us. When we think about overall renewal, some of the issues are matters of operation—about how we do things—some are procedural and some are cultural. The Houses of Parliament are extremely conservative organisations that are quite resistant to change, so we have to accept that there is also cultural thinking.
A lot of these matters need attention from Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to talk about the need for close working between the shadow sponsor body—the sponsor body, going forward—and the rest of Parliament, and how we do these things together. It is certainly not for the sponsor body to start telling Parliament what its procedures should look like and so on—so there is very much a need for close working on that.
My final point is that it has become clear to me, having chaired a number of sessions—particularly on the question of accessibility, but the point is wider—that there is an awful lot that we could do now. We do not have to wait for the physical restoration of this building. I urge the House to find ways of exploring some of the things that could be done right now to make the building more accessible—and I mean accessible in its full sense in terms of the language that we use and the way that people engage with this place—while we wait for more tangible physical accessibility improvements further down the road.
We need to think about how Parliament creates the space to think about those things when there is so much else going on. If Parliament is to come through what is a particularly torrid time at the moment, we really must give some attention to these matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. Seeing the reference to “remote access” in one of them, I thought it not inappropriate to draw the House’s attention to the tremendous changes there have been in recent years. I first became a Member of the House of Commons 45 years ago. Since then it has changed immensely, largely because of the electronic advances that there have been. The amount of contact with constituents that Members of Parliament now have through emails and so on is one thing. You can also watch Parliament any time you want on the parliamentary television channel. This started with your Lordships’ House, and broadcasting from the Commons followed. There have been tremendous advances and there is no doubt at all in my mind that these have not stopped but will go on in ways that we cannot envisage—any more than we could have envisaged 45 years ago that things would be as far advanced as they are now. So we are not just starting this process; we are hugely advanced along it. It will speed up, in all probability, and of course the sponsor body must take account of it as it goes about its work on this building.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, and their focus on public engagement and awareness. Amendment 1 creates a duty on the sponsor body to promote public understanding of restoration and renewal, while Amendment 2 introduces a need for the sponsor body to ensure the works facilitate engagement and a participatory democracy. Amendment 5 ensures that the sponsor body carries out its duties with the views of Members, staff and the public at the front of its mind. We also welcome Amendments 3 and 4, which strengthen the reference to the parliamentary building works in regard to ensuring the safety and security of staff and the public, as well as to educational facilities.
At the start of the Bill’s passage, one of the main areas on which we sought government reassurance was engagement with the public, as well as with staff and Members in both Chambers. The Joint Committee recommended that the sponsor body should,
“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”,
and we are pleased that the Government now fully accept this. Engagement must be at the heart of the programme of restoration and renewal, as this Palace, as well as the democratic processes and structures it represents, can often feel very distant to many people across the country. It is vital that there is a strong relationship between the sponsor body and the public, so that they have confidence in the programme throughout the process. These amendments help to alleviate our concerns and ensure that restoration and renewal becomes about far more than the necessary bricks and mortar, rewiring and replacement, and sewerage and stairways. They also allow us to change the way Parliament looks and feels, both inside and out.
Like other noble Lords, we read with great interest the results of the 2019 Members survey on R&R, confirming the themes and issues raised during the passage of this Bill in both Houses on accessibility, remote and digital integration, and safety, security and protection. The first survey showed just how vital regular communication, consultation and engagement are now and will be as the programme progresses to its successful completion. In particular, this is a working building for more than 8,000 members of staff, and the omissions in the original Bill on the importance of seeking their views about the works have now been rectified. Amendment 5 is a welcome step forward in helping improve their working conditions throughout restoration and renewal, and this must be an aim for the sponsor body.
In closing, I of course pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his tireless work on these issues throughout the Bill’s passage, and to the Government for their willingness to discuss and address our concerns and arrive at the good place to which the Minister referred.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his very kind remarks and the constructive suggestions he has made. I express once again my appreciation to him for working with us as he has done and for the support he has demonstrated for these amendments. I am grateful, too, to other noble Lords who have endorsed the approach that we and the noble Lord have taken. It has been important throughout the Bill’s passage that we should listen to all Members and, where possible, seek to work with them towards an agreed position. I hope and believe it is clear that we have done exactly that. I thank other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate: my noble friends Lord Norton, Lord Cope and Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Wheeler.
My noble friend Lord Haselhurst asked two questions that go back to the issue, which I know has been considered by both Houses, of whether it would be possible to retain a foothold, so to speak, during the R&R programme in the Houses of Parliament regarding Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower. I can tell him that these matters were partly covered at earlier stages of our debates, but it was agreed by both Houses in early 2018 that the Bill should allow for a full and timely decant of the Palace without retaining a foothold. Analysis by the programme in 2017 found that continued use by Members and/or the public of Westminster Hall or the area surrounding it would be highly disruptive and costly for no additional quantifiable benefit. The costs would be connected to maintaining a secure perimeter in close proximity to construction works and the additional cost to construction from managing a complex and partially occupied site. Having said that, access to the Elizabeth Tower could be a different matter. In fact, it is a matter for the sponsor body and Parliament to decide in due course. Members of the other place and noble Lords will be free to offer their view to the sponsor body on this issue as part of its consultation strategy.
As I said, these amendments build on the current work the shadow sponsor body is undertaking in these areas, in my judgment very capably. What matters now is the future. Like all noble Lords, I look forward to seeing how the sponsor body builds on this work and fulfils the specific obligations the amendments set out.
“(3A) In performing the duties under subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Sponsor Body must make arrangements for seeking the views of— (a) people employed in or for the purposes of either House of Parliament,(b) people working for members of either House of Parliament (whether or not for payment), and(c) members of the public.”
“(ga) the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works are carried out with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process (especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes);”
Lord Blunkett
Lord Blunkett
I should apologise to the House because my lack of surefootedness, if I might put it that way, has resulted in Amendment 6 coming back to the House this afternoon. As Members will recall, we discussed it in Committee and I inadvertently did not press it to the vote, so I had better make it clear from the beginning that I am doing so this afternoon. It is a very simple amendment that fulfils undertakings given over recent weeks and months. I pay tribute to Neil Gray, the Member of Parliament who has been working on this in the House of Commons and with the shadow sponsor body, of which he is a member.
The amendment is about the opportunities to secure economic and other benefits right across the UK. Placing it in the Bill will reassure people across the UK that they will not simply be contributors as taxpayers, but will see benefits in employment, supply and the kind of facilities we want for the future. I will not speak at length because we covered this in Committee, but we have seen it with the Elizabeth Tower. We know from other major infrastructure projects, at least one of which I support, that this can not only yield benefits but get people’s commitment and, if I might use the term, understanding of what is taking place at the same time. I hope this will be a consensual amendment and that we can agree it.
I make one final point. I hope that when the sponsor body comes forward with the options in relation to the extent of investment, it takes an ambitious view, and is up front about what we are going to expend in cash. I hope that we will not get into a position such as we did with HS2 or, for that matter, the Scottish Parliament. It is important to get this right from the beginning. The original estimates, which I will not even mention, were so wide of the mark that it is important that we put them to one side and are clear with the public over a very long period. I noticed that the announcements on education spending made over the weekend were rolled up over the years to double the actual amount that will be spent in the final year of that spending commitment, if it comes to fruition. My good friend Gordon Brown used the same trick when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it does not help, because the public eventually catch up with you.
My little plea to the shadow sponsor body is to be brave, come out with the real figures, make sure that people know that they are over the next two decades and not next week, and then let us go forward together on making this project work. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome Amendment 6 from my noble friend Lord Blunkett, and strongly support his aim to specify in the Bill that the economic and other benefits of the parliamentary building works are supported across the whole of the UK.
Businesses across the UK must benefit from the economic opportunities that large-scale, government-funded projects such as this bring. This must remain at the forefront of the sponsor body’s mind throughout the works. Contracts must be awarded to businesses across the UK, to foster and build greater connectivity between all corners of the country and the Palace of Westminster.
Despite being in London, this building represents and connects with every region, and we know that the key challenge with this project is to make all nations and regions of the UK feel engaged with it, so we support Amendment 6.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for retabling this amendment and reassure him that we continue to support it. As he said, we spoke to it in Committee, and I emphasised the Government’s support. It was very kind of him to take the blame on his shoulders, but it is only fair to say that we were all at fault for this failing to be approved in Committee.
As noble Lords are aware, the amendment places in the Bill a requirement on the sponsor body, in exercising its functions, to ensure that opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom. The Government have always sought to encourage the shadow sponsor body to give thought to how the delivery authority will engage with SMEs and businesses across the UK in their work to restore the Palace of Westminster. The noble Lord alluded to this already happening on other projects being carried out on the Parliamentary Estate, such as work on the restoration of the Elizabeth Tower.
In the Commons, an amendment to spread the economic benefits across the UK gained the support of the House. However, we had some concerns with its drafting regarding procurement law, which I set out in Committee. The Government therefore committed to support the drafting and tabling of this alternative amendment, which addresses those concerns. We consider that this amendment retains the spirit of that passed in the other place, while also adhering to public procurement law, so we are delighted to support it.
Baroness Wheeler
“( ) recommendations from the Sponsor Body for the future maintenance of the Palace of Westminster over the longer term after completion of the works;”
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, this is an important amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. It aims for us to learn the lessons of the past and ensure that we have the necessary long-term plans and steps in place after the new building has been completed and handed back to Parliament to facilitate its ongoing and future maintenance and improvement.
Amendment 7 takes the Minister at his word in Committee, when this issue was raised by us and a number of noble Lords. Our original proposal was to incorporate future-proofing recommendations under the sponsor body’s reporting requirements in Schedule 1, but this amendment follows the Minister’s suggestion that it could better placed in Clause 6 as part of the parliamentary relationship agreement and that recommendations on the future maintenance of the Palace over the longer term be part of the hand-back arrangements.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their helpful discussions and reassurances since Committee, particularly in relation to the sponsor body’s reporting processes and business case development. Obviously, we recognise that the sponsor body will be abolished following the completion of the parliamentary works, so it is important that we have clarity now on exactly how future maintenance of and improvements to the Palace will be facilitated and taken forward. I understand that the latest view from the Government is that it should be included in the sponsor board business case summary and not that of the PRA. I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation of this. I would also be grateful if he would facilitate a meeting on this issue between the sponsor board and my noble friends so that we can be assured that effective future-proofing measures are a key part of the R&R programme.
Throughout this process, we have stressed that we must ensure that the estate does not fall into its current level of disrepair. We had 40 fires between 2008 and 2012; 4,000 windows need to be repaired or replaced; 40% of pipes, ducts and cables will be at critical or high risk of failure by next year; most building services will be at a high risk of failure by 2025; we rely on a sewage ejector system that is more than 130 years old; and asbestos can be found everywhere.
As we said in Committee, the can has been kicked down the road for far too long. While parliamentarians have not wanted to be seen spending money on themselves, inaction has come at a heavy price. We are now spending huge amounts of money on everyday maintenance and repair, and it has been estimated that every year of delay increases the cost of the works by £100 million. We must not get to a point again where the Palace is at risk of a catastrophic failure and the building can be described as no longer fit for purpose. Using the expertise gathered by the sponsor body, it would be of great benefit for the sponsor body to produce recommendations on long-term maintenance—ideally on five-year, 10-year and 20-year plans which can be reviewed. Making specific safeguards now will save us money, save this building and save future parliamentarians from facing a similarly dire situation in a few decades’ time. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I am sure that the sponsor body would be happy to meet the noble Baroness and her colleagues—indeed, any noble Lord on any matter relating to this programme. I may regret saying that, but it is important that the shadow sponsor body and the sponsor body are as open and receptive to Members as it is possible to be. I also give the assurance that future-proofing the work is very much part of the design brief that the shadow sponsor body will be working towards. Anyone who has ever spoken to any of the contractors trying to do the work in this place will know that one of their biggest problems is simply getting access to things—they have all been buried and hidden underneath more modern work. Given this opportunity to take it all out and start again, we would certainly expect one of the outcomes to be the facilitation of future work, be it ongoing maintenance or larger jobs that may need doing in 50 or 60 years.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for speaking to this amendment, which, as she made clear, provides that the parliamentary relationship agreement may include provision about recommendations from the sponsor body for the future maintenance of the Palace of Westminster over the longer term after completion of the works.
Let me say straightaway that I agree it is important that, after completion of the parliamentary building works, the Palace of Westminster is maintained for the future and does not fall back into its current state of disrepair. Having said that, I think that there are other mechanisms better suited to achieving what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve than an amendment to this Bill. I would go further and say that this amendment is not at all necessary. I hope I can provide the House with sufficient reassurance on that point.
This amendment places a provision in the Bill that the parliamentary relationship agreement may require the sponsor body to provide recommendations for future maintenance of the Palace. The contents of this agreement will be for the sponsor body and corporate officers of both Houses to determine. The overarching reassurance I can give about the future maintenance of the Palace over the long term is that this is not at all an afterthought. There are already several mechanisms in place that will shape such maintenance.
First, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, it would not be the sponsor body itself which would be undertaking future maintenance of the Palace. As noble Lords will be aware, it is likely that the sponsor body will be abolished following completion of the parliamentary building works, given that the purpose of the Bill and the bodies it establishes is simply to complete the parliamentary building works—that is, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
That said, the Bill enables the sponsor body to work with the parliamentary authorities to put forward recommendations and practices to ensure that a robust maintenance plan is established for the future. Here I direct noble Lords’ attention to Clause 2(2)(h) of the Bill, which places a duty on the sponsor body,
“to deal with matters relating to completion of the Parliamentary building works, including the making of arrangements for the handing over of the buildings to which those works relate”.
It is common practice with major construction works where long-term maintenance is envisaged for maintenance teams to work alongside the construction engineers in the final stages of the project when major infrastructure is being commissioned. This ensures that a thorough understanding of operating and maintaining the installed systems is provided for. Incidentally, I understand that this kind of training and familiarisation could well extend over the final year of the project.
Therefore, before the sponsor body is abolished and as part of the duty set out in Clause 2(2)(h), the sponsor body may wish to consider training House maintenance staff to ensure they are fully briefed on the new equipment and assist in developing appropriate plans to ensure that, as much as possible, the Palace is appropriately maintained in the future. As it is envisaged that the sponsor body would not be responsible for future systems, it is likely that it would work closely with the House administrations as part of the training on new systems and formulating future plans.
In terms of monitoring the future maintenance of the Palace after it has been handed back to Parliament, House authorities could provide updates on ongoing maintenance of the Palace through the appropriate domestic committees. In addition to Clause 2(2)(h), the parliamentary relationship agreement—the PRA—could also further outline what is expected in terms of future training. The PRA is expected to include an agreement between the sponsor body and Parliament about the process for handing the completed works back at the end of the programme, before the sponsor body is abolished. This would likely include further details regarding the training on the matters I outlined a second ago. However, as I said, Clause 2(2)(h) is crucial in dealing with this matter, given that the sponsor body is likely to be abolished following completion of the works, thus limiting the means to enforce any of the obligations in the PRA.
I said that future maintenance is not at all an afterthought. The shadow sponsor body has already demonstrated that it is thinking about the future maintenance of the Palace. Through the publication of the vision and strategic themes document, the shadow sponsor body has already committed to taking account of the need to deliver an outcome which provides an effective future maintenance solution for the Palace. This document has already been approved by both House commissions and published on the restoration and renewal website. Among other points, the document states that the sponsor body must:
“Deliver a refurbishment programme that minimises but also facilitates future maintenance and improvement”,
by delivering “operational efficiency and longevity”. Secondly, it states that there must be a focus to:
“Optimise operating and capital costs through a focus on whole-life costing; and achieve operating cost targets”.
Whole-life costing means that decisions must be taken based not solely on capital costs but on the sum of those, plus the costs of operation and maintenance over the whole of the operational life. In essence, this means minimising the sum of capital and operating costs averaged over the lifetime of the installation.
I mentioned mechanisms plural. The second point for noble Lords to bear in mind is that the future maintenance of the Palace will also form part of the outline business case brought before Parliament for approval. Importantly, the outline business case will be developed in line with the principles of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book, which require that the costing is done on a whole-life basis. This includes maintenance over any future timeframes as appropriate, which may of course differ between different aspects.
It might be helpful if I explain that, in following the HMT Green Book principles, the business case will adopt a five-case methodology to provide decision-makers with a framework for structured thinking. The cases are as follows: strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management. The consideration of whole-life costs is a fundamental focus of the financial case and is a critical input for the economic appraisal in the economic case. As I have mentioned in previous debates on the Bill, the shadow sponsor body has already given the assurance that the outline business case it prepares will follow the Green Book principles, thus taking this matter into account. Therefore, the requirement and cost of future maintenance will be a consideration during the design stage of the programme, which will require approval from noble Lords.
Thirdly, the Bill already permits the sponsor body to make recommendations for the future maintenance of the Palace. It could do so as part of the reports that it produces, relating to the progress and completion of the parliamentary building works under paragraph 27 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which must be laid before Parliament and published. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the combination of the mechanisms that are already in place to address the future maintenance of the Palace makes her amendment unnecessary. I am sure that, if she wants to discuss this matter further—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, helpfully indicated this—members of the shadow sponsor body would be more than willing to engage with her.
In both Houses, we have outlined throughout the course of the Bill that, at its core, its key aim is to secure the Palace of Westminster for future generations. The process of restoration and renewal offers a great number of opportunities in which we as Members will be able to influence and prioritise what we want the outcomes to be. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the noble Earl for his reassurances on the importance of this matter and for his thorough and helpful explanation of both the reporting and future monitoring delivery arrangements. I feel very reassured. Obviously, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in particular for her willingness to meet with me and my colleagues to discuss this further. I certainly welcome the reassurance, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) A report under this paragraph must include the Sponsor Body’s best estimate of the timeline for the Palace restoration works, including likely dates for the decant of each House and the estimated date of completion.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, when I moved an amendment in Committee seeking a timeline to be outlined by the sponsor body, it was not my original intention to move an amendment on Report. However, having listened to the debate and the comments made, I said at the end of the debate that there was at least merit in considering whether to come back to the issue. I have done that, albeit, crucially, in a different way—that is, with a similar amendment but with a crucial difference.
As was said on a number of occasions when this was debated in Committee, large infrastructure projects have a reputation for going over time and sometimes over budget. Having had the experience of being one of the original Members of the Scottish Parliament, I am certainly well aware of that and of the publish backlash it can sometimes cause. That is why it is important to try to find a way to ensure there is transparency, information and explanation. It is intended not to initiate a blame game but to find a way in which, by sharing information, any possible blame can be mitigated through proper explanation.
Nor is it intended to be a requirement that everything is pinned down to the last day. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said in Committee when she supported my amendment:
“We do not need to say, ‘This will happen on 3 January 2022’, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House”.—[Official Report, 22/7/19; col. 641.]
That is the spirit in which I move this amendment—not that one wishes to be precise to the very day, but rather that there can be an indication as to when some things are likely to happen. That is particularly the case with regard to the decant. As I indicated in Committee, and as was indicated in the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, issues that could lead to delays have arisen in relation to Richmond House. As we progress, it would be useful to know just how that is progressing and, if there are particular problems, that these can be identified sooner rather than later.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, we welcome and fully support the principle behind Amendment 8, which underlines that the work should be carried out without delays and must be cost effective. The sponsor body has said it expects the current timeline for the project to be around 10 years, from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s. Of course, there remains some vagueness around this length of time, and we hope the sponsor body is able to provide a more detailed timeline as soon as possible, with some clarity on milestones and gateways for both the decant and the completion of the full works. Obviously, this will most likely come after the business case has been presented and discussed by Parliament. Nevertheless, providing clear information on timelines and milestones will most certainly be important for public engagement and the engagement of staff and Members. We very much support this amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his amendment, which would require the sponsor body’s reports on the progress made on the parliamentary building works to incorporate a timeline for the works that would include likely dates for decant and completion. As the noble and learned Lord said, he tabled a similar amendment in Committee, to the effect that as part of its consultation strategy the sponsor body must publish a timeline for completion of the Palace restoration works, including details on the dates of decant and return to the Palace.
In my response in Committee, I agreed that all noble Lords would—quite obviously—wish to seek further clarity on dates around decant, and I am in absolute agreement with the noble and learned Lord’s point that the sponsor body should publish details regarding decant and completion of the works not just once but throughout the course of the project. Here it is important to convey that the shadow sponsor body has always explicitly recognised that, as part of the sponsor body’s reports as set out in paragraph 27 of Schedule 1, it would rightly be required to include timescales on decant and the progress of the works. I can confirm that the shadow sponsor body is in agreement with this approach and therefore the expectation is that the reports produced by the sponsor body will include information on the timetable for the works, including details on timings for decant and return to the Palace.
I spoke at some length in Committee on various points addressing the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, I thought it important to clarify what the Bill requires the sponsor body to do as regards reporting. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the parliamentary building works, including the timing of those works. These proposals are provided for in Clause 2(2)(e). Parliament will need to approve the proposals before any substantive works commence. If for any reason those timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. The parliamentary approval of these proposals, as well as the shadow sponsor body outlining its agreement that the sponsor body should include information relating to the timeline for the works in reports it produces, will, I hope, provide noble Lords with the reassurance that this information will be forthcoming.
This is a matter that will surely interest all noble Lords throughout the currency of the works, whether that is before commencement, during or near their completion, so let me again thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I hope that I have provided him with significant reassurance on this important matter.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their comments on this amendment, and in particular for the noble Earl’s reassuring words and the wider clarification of the roles of the sponsor body and the delivery authority in these matters. As he rightly said, the timeline for progress, decant and the likely completion is of interest not just to Members but to the wider public. What he has put on the record today is very satisfactory indeed and we look forward with interest to watching progress. With these words, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Thursday 5th September 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (30 Aug 2019)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal, Lady Barran and Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for their work to ensure the passage of this landmark Bill. The Bill, in the form in which we now see it, is the product of excellent co-operation across all parties in both Houses. I thank noble Lords for their engagement and co-operation in helping to create the robust measure we have before us, in particular the noble Lords who served on the Joint Committee that carried out the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill and those who now serve on the shadow sponsor body.
I express my gratitude also to noble Lords who contributed to debates and tabled amendments, especially the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, all of whom embraced the spirit of collaboration and joint working that ensured that the Bill made swift progress without sacrificing the quality of the scrutiny it received. My thanks go too to all other noble Lords who tabled amendments and spoke on Report yesterday, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. Lastly, I extend my thanks to the excellent Bill team, as well as the restoration and renewal programme team, the shadow sponsor body, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the Whips on both sides and, of course, the clerks, for their support.
Noble Lords across the House have recognised the need for this Bill, which addresses the pressing issue of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and which has been improved thanks to their efforts. The degree of consensus on the Bill across both Houses is reflected in its swift passage. I believe that we all have been keenly aware of how vital a step this is towards ensuring that the historic and iconic building in which we are privileged to serve is safe for staff and the public, that the works are delivered on time and on budget—ensuring value for taxpayers’ money—and, above all, that we have the right framework to secure the Palace of Westminster as the home of the UK Parliament for future generations. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I speak on behalf of these Benches and of my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord McNicol, who helped me take the reins of the Bill from our side when my noble friend Lady Smith became somewhat otherwise engaged with developments elsewhere. I too place on record our thanks to the Government for their co-operation on this Bill and to parliamentarians in both Houses who helped ensure that the Bill is in the good place that the Minister referred to at the end of Report. In particular, I thank my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord McNicol, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Leader of the House for their work and commitment throughout the various stages of the Joint Committee deliberations and the passage of the Bill.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who played such a key role in ensuring that public engagement, consultation, the involvement of parliamentarians and staff in the project and the key issue of disability and public access were at the heart of the Bill. The Bill team has—I agree—worked in a particularly exemplary and collaborative way with your Lordships and deserves special thanks, as do Beth Miller, who provides the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with support, and the excellent team from our Opposition office, Ben Wood and Dan Harris.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may lighten the atmosphere a little. I remember a Lonnie Donegan song which was a reflection of the war for American independence and the red coats fighting a losing battle. It went:
“There wasn’t nigh as many as there was a while ago”.
There are fewer of us in here than there were a few moments ago, for fairly obvious reasons, but this Bill is critical not just to the fabric and well-being of the heart of our democracy—the Palace of Westminster itself—but to a futuristic look at how might restore trust in and engagement with democracy. I am particularly grateful to all those who have played their part in making this a substantive measure which we can be proud of and which gives the sponsor body of the future and delivery authority clear direction in implementing it. I shall not repeat the names of everyone who has been involved, but I endorse entirely the thanks offered to those who have been part of it. I give my personal thanks not just to my own Front Bench but to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has reflected the best of the way in which we can conduct business in the House of Lords.
In implementing this Bill and taking forward the kind of advice that we had from all quarters on all matters in the joint scrutiny committee, it will be critical to draw down on the best possible expertise across the UK. If we do that, we will have something to be proud of in the years to come.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Monday 9th September 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (30 Aug 2019)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Kevin Foster
Given the wide consensus that the Bill has attracted, I do not propose to go on too long—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is nice to be liked. The Government committed to bring the spirit of several amendments that were supported in this House on Report to the other place, with appropriate wording and at the appropriate place in the Bill. We are pleased that these amendments were also supported in the other place and are now included in the Bill. They include an amendment on heritage, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and requires that, in exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must have regard to the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster.
As agreed in the House, the Bill now places a duty on the Sponsor Body to require the Delivery Authority, when considering the awarding of a contract in respect of the carrying of the parliamentary building works, to have regard to the prospective contractor’s policy relating to corporate social responsibility and their policies and procedures relating to employment, including in relation to the blacklisting of employees. I am especially grateful for the collaborative approach and constructive contribution of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) in formulating that amendment.
The Bill now provides that the reports prepared by the Sponsor Body must be laid before Parliament and must include information about persons to whom contracts in respect of the carrying out of the parliamentary building works have been awarded, in particular with regard to their size and the areas in which they operate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for her collaboration in formatting that amendment.
Lastly, in exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must now have regard to the need to ensure that opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for collaborating on that amendment and for his work as a member of the shadow Sponsor Body.
I am sure that the House welcomes the fulfilment of the Government’s commitments to the House that these amendments would be included in the Bill at the appropriate place and appropriately drafted. Other amendments passed in the Lords and are now included in the Bill, and I consider that they echo the will of the House, particularly as they build on the recommendations of the prelegislative Joint Committee. There are also minor technical amendments that ensure consistent references to the parliamentary building works in clause 2(5).
In summary, the Bill has benefited from close scrutiny both by the Joint Committee and during its passage through both Houses. I hope the House, having considered the amendments passed in the other place, will concur with them and support the passing of the Bill as it stands, so that we can progress with these important works and secure the home of this United Kingdom Parliament for future generations.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I start by paying tribute to you and your excellent role as Speaker? I was one of the people who dragged you to the Chair, and you have been outstanding. I will come on to your role with the Education Centre. You have been a stalwart in terms of equality. In your efforts to help me in my role as shadow Leader of the House, you have been exemplary. I will miss business questions, and particularly your jibes at us all. Thank you for everything you have done to uphold the parliamentary system; it has been very good. [Interruption.] That was for you, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill back to this House, and I thank all Members who have taken part in the debates on restoration and renewal. I am pleased that the Bill has come back, and I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who started the push to move the restoration and renewal Bill forward. I want to deal with the amendments—it is important to get them on record—in three chunks, one relating to the Sponsor Body, one to the physical aspects and one to the future.
We have the Sponsor Body, which will be a single client on behalf of both Houses, and that is a good way of working. It will form the Delivery Authority as a company limited by guarantee. Amendments 10 and 12 require the Sponsor Body to lay its reports before Parliament. One of the key things that Members wanted was the accountability of the Sponsor Body to Parliament, and the amendments will ensure that. Amendment 11 will ensure that we know about all the contracts that are awarded to different companies and the people who operate around the estate.
Amendment 1 is fairly important because it is about having regard to the prospective contractor’s policy relating to corporate social responsibility and the prospective contractor’s policies and procedures relating to employment, which is about the blacklisting of people. Many lives have been destroyed by people being blacklisted and not being allowed to take part in contracts. That is extremely important, and I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for ensuring that this has been passed.
Amendment 9 will require the Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that there are opportunities to secure economic or other benefits throughout the United Kingdom. That is key, certainly on our side, and it is one of the reasons why we support this Bill wholeheartedly. We wanted to make sure that any benefits were not just confined to one part of the United Kingdom, but go to the whole United Kingdom.
As the Minister said about the physical parts, it is important to ensure that the historical, archaeological and other significance of Parliament continues. That is covered by amendment 8, remembering that it was 900 years ago when the Anglo-Saxons were first involved in this place—and some of them might still be here.
Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that, after the completion of the parliamentary building works, all parts of the estate are accessible to people with disabilities. I know that the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) were involved in this, and they certainly raised it on Third Reading. If we look at what happens at York Minster, we know we can combine accessibility for people with disabilities with keeping up the building’s historical significance.
As to the future, amendments 4 and 6 strengthen the reference to parliamentary building works in relation to ensuring the safety and security of staff and the public, as well as in relation to the education facilities. Amendment 7 secures your legacy of the Education Centre, Mr Speaker. It makes sure that Parliament’s education and outreach facilities and programme are ensured and that they become a core part of the parliamentary estate and provide a benefit in a greater understanding of Parliament and our democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned the craft school in Scotland. I know that Historic England is aware of it and wants to carry on with this, which could be an outstanding way to ensure that all our crafts—ancient and modern—are secured for our future.
Amendment 2 will place a duty on the Sponsor Body to promote public understanding of the purposes of the restoration and renewal programme, and amendment 3 will ensure that the views of Members, staff and the public are at the front of the Sponsor Body’s mind. Everyone across the nation should feel a part of this project, because this place is in the heart of the nation. We do not have a deadline, as the Olympic Delivery Authority did, so the important part is that we make sure there is a deadline, as Members’ tolerance and the public purse are not elastic. However, I again join the Minister in saying that it is important that this is all secured for future generations, and we support the Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will also be very brief. I, too, want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, following the announcement you have made. You were a huge source of support and encouragement to all of us elected as SNP MPs in 2015, and particularly to me since becoming the Chief Whip. I remember being admonished back in 2015 for clapping in the Chamber, but that reform seems to be progressing forthwith. Of course, you have been a reforming Speaker, and as the Labour shadow Leader of the House said, much of R and R will be a way to secure the legacy of some of the reforms in making this place much more family friendly and much more accessible. Perhaps, in the tradition of the rooms in Portcullis House, there will, in the restored and renewed Parliament, be a Bercow room, in which people can reflect on that legacy.
The SNP has always recognised the need for reform and renewal of Parliament. We have our own views about how much money should be spent and where Parliament should be located, but we accept the progress that the Bill has made. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) has been a member of the shadow Sponsor Board and has engaged significantly on this Bill, including helping to secure what has become Lords amendment 9, which we welcome, so that the money that is spent will benefit the whole United Kingdom and its constituent parts. He cannot be here today, because this morning his wife, Karlie, gave birth to twins—Emmie and Freya—and we congratulate him. I hope that under the proxy voting rules that means that I am entitled to cast two votes on his behalf when we return after Prorogation. We hope that those young girls will grow up in an independent Scotland, and we look forward to their being able to visit the House of Commons once it has been renewed.
The biggest question on everyone’s lips is whether the revised and renewed Chamber will include reclining chairs for the likes of the Leader of the House and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who need to make themselves comfortable. We therefore look forward to the Bill’s progress to Royal Assent and the speaking of Norman French later this evening.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 12 agreed to.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 8th October 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 7 October 2019 - (7 Oct 2019)