Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Newby and Baroness Doocey

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, this building is like a patient held together with bandages and sticking plasters when only serious surgery can restore it to health. Advice from a range of experts makes it clear that the best way forward is for Members to move to temporary accommodation while the intrusive and very disruptive work is carried out.

It was precisely because making this happen would be so difficult and controversial that Parliament put into statute a sponsor body for the project to act independently and supposedly free from political interference. However, ever since the ink was dry on the Act of Parliament, the sponsor body’s work has been sabotaged by powerful Members of the Commons who want the Palace to be restored and made safe only so long as it causes no inconvenience to them personally and they can remain in the Palace while the work is carried out. Meanwhile, the functions of the delivery authority, which needed to undertake extensive surveys, have also persistently been held back by restrictions on access. So short-term expediency and convenience have won, while the longer-term interests of this Parliament have lost.

So what now? We now have to examine the new arrangements and ensure that they are fit for purpose. If we are no longer to have an independent sponsor body and the project is to become the province of Parliament, it follows that the new arrangements should at the very least be more accountable, but I worry that the new structure will not live up to that ambition. There is to be a programme board with day-to-day responsibility for the project. It is to be

“as small, as senior and as stable as possible to support its effectiveness, but as large as necessary to reflect the range of key stakeholders that need to be represented.”

Meanwhile, the client, in theory replacing the sponsor body and instructing the programme board, will be the two commissions of the Commons and the Lords sitting together. Having been a member of the commission in this House for four years, I say with great respect to its individual members that I am not confident that those arrangements will result in accountability either. Each commission is a large, opaque body and is noted for neither its transparency nor its swift decision-making. So I worry that this structure loses the independence the sponsor body set up but gains us nothing in accountability.

This is important, because Parliament’s in-house record of managing very large- scale projects on time and on budget is dismal. Every very large project, from Westminster Hall to the Elizabeth Tower, has run vastly over budget and miles behind the original timescale. Unless there is very careful oversight, there is no reason to believe that the limited restoration and renewal now on offer will not suffer the same fate.

We have to ask whether the commissions as client of the programme board will really devote the necessary time and be sufficiently independent to scrutinise this project. Of course, the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons will do its best to keep an eye on progress, but it already has an incredible workload. The National Audit Office will likewise continue to conduct its in-depth analysis of whether what has been spent provides value for money for the taxpayer, but both bodies have the whole gamut of public spending to look at, and their accountability mechanisms rely entirely on very busy Members of the Commons. Meanwhile, they both act retrospectively, blowing the whistle after vast sums of money have been spent rather than identifying problems coming down the track and raising the alarm.

I wish the commissions, the programme board and the delivery authority well, but I have very serious reservations about whether today’s SI really leads us to a better, more robust and more accountable means to achieve restoration and renewal. Regrettably, I fear that we are setting up overlapping echo chambers that, despite the best of intentions, will result in less transparency, less accountability and ultimately less chance of delivering a successful project. I very much hope that events will prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the very fact that we have to contemplate a new structure for undertaking this work shows what a dismal period we have been through, lasting many years, with huge amounts of work, vast expenditure and virtually no output. Although everybody agrees that major works are indeed essential, we just cannot carry on as if things will carry on.

The three issues that this proposal attempts to deal with have been aired by a number of speakers. Until the structures are set up and operating, the jury will necessarily be out as to whether they will be successful.

The first issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised, is: what is the prospect of this body being any better than its predecessor in actually taking any decisions? The answer is that the previous structure was prey to the whims of one or two powerful people in the Commons. The decision-making structure here, being vested as it is in both commissions sitting jointly, at least means that we will not be subject to whimsical decision-making. That might be a modest expectation and aim, but frankly, given the history of this project, if we can avoid that it will be a major step forward.

The second issue relates to the cost and scope of the project. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, there has been a lack of clarity on budget, scope and timescale. In asking for a prospectus that is crystal clear on all those fronts, he is slightly crying for the moon, because, as anyone who has ever done anything in an old building knows, once you start you find that there are problems that you did not know existed. Saying, “We know this is going to cost £X billion and that’s the cash limit”, would be a rather unsatisfactory way of proceeding. We need to know what we want to achieve and the process for getting there, because everything else flows from that. That is what the current process seeks to achieve.

On cost, I completely agree that the original approach is unsustainable in the current climate. The original approach, which we saw in most detail in the plans for decanting your Lordships’ House, was almost on the basis that money was no object. It was terrific: in some of the options we would have had a roof terrace and all these wonderful things, and offices for everybody—far more than there are now. That was unaffordable then in reality, but it is doubly unaffordable now.