Baroness Brinton
Main Page: Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morse, who set out the scene wisely on how we manage a future that will undoubtedly change.
I thank the committee, the staff and the contractors for their work on this marathon of marathons. I also thank ParliAble for advocating for disabled staff and parliamentarians. I am particularly grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had with an architect and some of the staff to discuss disability access in the proposed committee rooms and Lords Chamber. I will return to disability access as my principal point in a minute.
First, though, I was for a decade senior bursar of first one and then a second Cambridge college, both of which had listed buildings. Partial decants or, worse, the “muddling through” option, are financially irresponsible and utterly impractical—I have tried them. We are finding the current works difficult, but that is nothing to these two options. So, frankly, for both the public purse and the smooth running of both Houses of Parliament, option 1, the full decant, is the only sensible option.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to say that costs should be annualised. Cambridge college bursars discussed this matter regularly in my day. The older colleges thought that 100 years minimum was probably quite a wise move. Indeed, when we were discussing chapel repairs, the kinsman of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, George Reid, senior bursar of St John’s, turned to the bursar of Emmanuel, founded merely in the 17th century, and said, “You modern post-Reformation colleges”. This period of time that we are considering is absolutely vital for us. We are not building for the next 50 years—indeed, if we go for the “muddling through” option, it will not be done in 50 years—but perhaps we are following Barry and doing it for the next 200 years.
Turning to accessibility, I want to start with the bullet point on accessibility on page 13, which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to. It mentions
“an average enhancement from the current 12% step free access to circa 60% across the Palace and greater coverage in public areas”.
The improvements to the visitor routes are really helpful, because the public have found it very difficult. But I am concerned that only 60% step-free access—the detail of what that means is unspecified—will still mean that parts of the Palace will be no-go areas or that there will be equally bad alternative routes. I use these daily, as do my other colleagues in wheelchairs, and they are long, slow and sometimes reliant on other people’s intervention. For example, when I wish to go into one of the W committee rooms off Westminster Hall, I have to go to the stair lift and find a member of staff, who has to ring the member of staff with the key, who then has to come back, unlock the stair lift and turn it on for me. I have to repeat the same when the meeting I am attending has finished. On one occasion, it took half an hour to find someone, so effectively I missed the meeting. I know that in theory that should not happen, but it does.
The ministerial corridors immediately behind the Speaker’s end of the House of Commons are also inaccessible because the lift is behind a stone arch and you cannot get a wheelchair through it. If you go the long way around, because of the way the stairs work, you have to leave your wheelchair on a landing from the wheelchair-accessible lift and go upstairs, which is fine for those who can do it. I understand from the 60% figure that some of these things will not be dealt with, and that concerns me.
As I have already mentioned, we hope that the fully restored Palace will last 200 years, and it is absolutely vital that the vast majority of the Palace is accessible—fully accessible, including step-free. I have already mentioned the tourist route being more accessible, but why, oh why, are the two lifts by the Commons cafeteria linked when one of them is too small for wheelchairs? By the way, the same is true in Portcullis House: the only way to get to the lower ground if you are coming from the top floor is to get into the next lift, go down to the ground floor, get out and then call the lift to go to the lower ground floor. That sort of practicality is something that gets lost in mechanical design because it is convenient to have two lifts side by side that operate together. The problem is that, when I am going from Portcullis House back into this building to vote, I can miss the vote. So, I am really grateful that the House still allows me to vote remotely, because otherwise it would be hit and miss. I cannot use the escalator; I get completely stuck. I am making this point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would make similar, or perhaps different, points about wheelchair users. We cannot use the building as it stands now in the same way as everybody else, and most people are not aware of those issues, which is completely understandable.
Security now means that heavy doors are shut when tourists are going through. Normally, in any other building, you would hold them back with electric magnets, or you would have a pass reader and they would open automatically. I am told that that will not happen, partly for heritage reasons and partly for security reasons. Because of my condition, I cannot open the heavy doors. I have had to ask permission to have the doors just outside here from Peers’ Lobby into this corridor held open for 10 minutes after the House rises because otherwise I literally cannot get out without somebody opening those doors. I really hope that the committee will look at the disability issues in the day-to-day life of different people. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would have many points about how he and his guide dog have to navigate the building.
I move to committee rooms and the Chambers, including this Moses Room, in the future. This space and the space opposite are the only places that wheelchairs can fit in this Room. We cannot get into the back row, we cannot get down to the top end, so if we were Ministers or shadow Ministers, we could not participate, we cannot get out at the back and once we are in place, we block everybody because they cannot get past the wheelchairs. I know that work on the Moses Room is planned, and I am really grateful, but it is the mindset for the design of the future that I am most concerned about.
I am particularly concerned about the Lords Chamber. I thank the Lord Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Black Rod for listening to my concerns and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I am really grateful; it was much appreciated. Politicians want to sit with their groups. Even Cross-Benchers would describe themselves as politicians, although they are not in a political party. It is good that, unlike the Commons, our House has what my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester describes as the “mobility Bench”—the nobility on the mobility Bench.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in the Chamber the other day that she found it very difficult sitting beside me when I was being a Front-Bencher because people immediately assumed that she was in the same party as me. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I sit beside each other the whole time, and we quite often have to sit beside each other and argue completely different points. That changes the dynamic of how the politics work. It is not like the European Parliament or other modern ones where you may even be seated alphabetically. In our House, it really matters.
I was very disappointed that when the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I met the people to look at the plans no disabled politicians had been talked to before they were drawn up. In the plans that we saw, we could not get our wheelchairs around the new committee rooms planned on the main committee room corridor. There is no facility for a Minister or shadow Minister from the main opposition party to speak at the Dispatch Box because you cannot get a wheelchair in there. There will be some tip-up seats, which is good, but that will still mean that some people who are not in the main parties will not be able to sit with their colleagues. I do not believe that this matter is yet being addressed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, we are now reaching the key decision-making point. Nearly 200 years ago, Peers and MPs would have been carried upstairs, in or out of their bath chairs, to get into the Chamber. Today, many disabled Peers and staff still find the Palace seriously problematic to navigate and participate in, including not being able to fulfil their roles politically. To put it at its simplest, do we really want a disabled parliamentarian in 150 years’ time to face not being able to speak from the Dispatch Box? I hope these issues can be readdressed.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the phrase I used when I began about sharing frustration has been articulated in one way or another by all noble Lords. At the root of this is responsibility but also our profound concern about a building that symbolises so much of which we should be so proud in our country. I underline that I acknowledge the force of your Lordships’ contributions. It underscores the significance of what we are all about in seeking to preserve, restore and renew this iconic symbol of our democracy.
I was reminded of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the dilemmas of Powderham when I got the stats about the size and complexity of the Palace: 34 acres, 1,100 rooms, 65 different floor levels, 100-plus staircases and the whole building sharing the same water, power, heating and sewage systems, many of which are more than 50 years old and have, as we know from experience, reached the end of their lifespan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the pipes. We have hundreds of miles of pipes and cables needing replacement and interconnecting voids and ventilation shafts adding to the complexity of removing services and managing asbestos. I was intrigued that we have not referred to this as much as we should. I am very mindful that, particularly following the bomb in the House of Commons, in the House of Commons area of the Palace there is a far greater preponderance of asbestos because it was part of the building material of the time. Therefore, different parts of the Palace will have different complexities.
The other thing that we have all acknowledged is with all the options that I have articulated and that noble Lords have rightly expressed, as I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it is inevitable that everyone already has their own preference. A lot of it is rooted in us having been round this before. However, if we use this year for good will, all the options will represent a multi-billion-pound, multi-year investment. We know that these options will amount to significant costs. I hope that those monitoring our dialogue today will note that I did like a concept from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I have often thought about the discussion that we have to have with the nation regarding the cost of this work. I like the concept of annualising the expenditure. These are eye-watering sums, but if we annualised them over that period, we could contrast them better with some of the investments that we undertake on behalf of the nation.
I should also say that my understanding is that in the polling that has been undertaken the vast majority of people in this country wish to see this building restored and renewed. One of the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was “courage”. I also agree with “tenacity”, “action” and “decision-making”, but we should have the courage as the responsible people of our generation to make the right decision.
From the outset, I acknowledge the work that has been done. We have noble Lords who, on our behalf, have been in these meetings over the years. They are assembled on the front row: the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Vaux and Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. All have made a profound difference in their analysis of doing things better.
I was very struck by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Mr Barry’s War must be a compulsory read. For anyone who has not read it, this comes alive. People went mad at that time, so let us not get into that territory, but it shows how we should be cautious of parliamentarians in how we embark upon our dialogue on what is a major building work.
A number of points were raised about surveys. I am not aware of any survey being duplicatory but I understand that we now have had 880 locations surveyed to date, including 353 House of Lords internal spaces and 80 House of Lords external spaces. I also thought, particularly with regard to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, about the survey information now being mapped out digitally to create a 3-D digital model. That now replaces thousands of individual drawings and files. That picks up on how we use the changing technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned air quality. Looking at my notes, one of the surveys and the emerging findings include analysis of air quality to understand levels and concentrations of air pollutants for different areas of the Palace to inform future ventilation designs.
I also was struck by some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, raised about, in effect, benchmarking and the London Olympics. In fact, the programme has benchmarked programme costs across other major UK construction projects such as the London Olympics, Manchester Town Hall, the King’s Cross regeneration, Crossrail et cetera. Delivery costs when looked at per square metre are broadly comparable, for instance, to the redevelopment of the Canadian Parliament.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Deech, raised the question of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. It is not my place or in my ability to express an opinion on the Bill itself today, but I can acknowledge that all three R&R delivery options require use of part of Victoria Tower Gardens. The precise use differs slightly over the three options. Parliamentary authorities are in contact with government, given the proximity to the Parliamentary Estate of the Holocaust memorial, on how this can be managed. However, I am very mindful of what many noble Lords have said about the matter.
I turn to the issue of health and safety. Again, this is a very substantial area. I was particularly struck by some of the points made on health and safety and the points on fire raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Clerk of the Parliaments as corporate officer for the House of Lords is responsible for the safety of those within the House. The corporate officer must be assured that the Palace is safe to ensure the obligations and duty of safety to staff and visitors are met. I know that the Clerk takes his responsibilities very seriously and works closely with colleagues across Parliament with the Clerk of the House of Commons, who also has that responsibility to review and monitor health and safety. Their view is that the House is safe. The Clerks issued a joint safety pledge in May last year, and Parliament published a new health and safety strategy in December.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised safety concerns about EMI. Both Houses and corporate officers are committed to ensuring the absolute safety of all, whatever the option. When we come to look at these decisions, with the partiality that I understand we all will have, so far as this year’s work goes, we need to have a thorough, detailed analysis of the three options. For whatever reason they have been decided on, we have to go back in a bit of history, which I do not think is valuable today. The rigour with which these three options will have to be considered by the Houses is obviously supremely important, including things such as accessibility during construction, how that might ever be performed, and how we can be safely accommodated in that option. All those are going to have to be, and will be, considered.
However, the absolute priority in any of the options that require a continuance is the safety of those who work and visit here. That is where the House’s administrations continue to focus on improving the safety culture and processes to ensure that all are safe at all times. Because it is timely, I also want to refer to fire, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a very important feature. Any noble Lord here who has not undertaken the annual fire training should do so; I must say, the figures are not great in many of the groups. It is our responsibility to organise ourselves to undertake that training.
The fire safety improvement works were a major programme that ran from 2012 to 2021. Interestingly, picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the installation of a high-pressure water mist system throughout the basement was part of that. The mist system controls and prevents fire spreading from the basement. Recent upgrades have also improved the life safety aspect. Part of that work has been the compartmentation of the Palace so that we can ensure that we get people out. There is also the installation of a wet riser in the Victoria Tower and a dry riser and sprinklers in the Elizabeth Tower. So the authorities are looking at all aspects of innovation. I will take the point back about the roof and any other areas. As we are undertaking this work, fire safety is of supreme importance. A lot of that work was done prior to R&R, keeping people safe. However, part of R&R is also keeping the building safe, which is where we have continuing challenges.
Accessibility was rightly raised quite strongly in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, outlined some of the situations where we simply must address how we can do things better for people who are part of the parliamentary community and visitors across the Parliamentary Estate. It is very important, not only in the statute but in terms of the work that is going on, to ensure that we have step-free access improved from the current 12% to about 70% across the Palace, with much higher coverage in key and public spaces. This is an area where work is needed both now and in the design of the temporary accommodation because, whatever option is decided on at varying points, temporary accommodation will be needed. I am sending a message to everyone involved in the design and consideration. There have been some one-to-one meetings with Members but, if any noble Lord has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with officials here, I would warmly welcome such a meeting.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, although I am very grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had, my point was that it came after the design process rather than us being talked to beforehand. Accessibility and disability will not be the only specialist areas. People do not know what they do not know. It is not clear. I make again the point about the political nature of some of our work meaning us operating in different ways. Outsiders just do not understand it.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Baroness has outlined where we have been at fault in the past and now. We should be doing far more preliminary consideration before we get to a point where we can start. There have been a number of recent examples where I have expressed my own view, asking: why on earth was this not considered from that accessibility point of view at the very beginning? Rather than saying we have done rather well, we could have done even better. So I understand that and I agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Morse, was very open about costs. Obviously he brings enormous experience to these matters, and how fortunate we are. I was very struck by one of the areas that may, I hope, be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. The National Audit Office examines, certifies and reports on the delivery authority’s annual statement of accounts. The NAO also undertaken two value-for-money audits of the R&R programme, to date feeding into the Public Accounts Committee inquiries. The noble Lord referred to the additional £91 million which has been approved for the delivery authority and the R&R client team. For the sake of completeness, one should also include the £6 million forecast to be spent this financial year by Strategic Estates to develop the EMI option. I thought it was important that there was a complete picture of where we are at with those costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, also spoke about EMI. I reiterate that all the options will be measured against the same criteria. Health and safety, and building fabric conservation—which involves the critical work needed to the basement—are areas where there is a complete understanding that both Houses need this with as much of a comparator as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made an important point. Much of the work of the client team is with the considerable new membership in the other place. This is a major exercise in familiarising Members of Parliament who have come afresh with the challenges of this Palace and how we restore and renew it in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, referred to commercial expertise—I am somewhat looking at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, here, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morse, from before. That is precisely why the four external members of the programme board, with their own experience of major programmes and commercial prowess of making value for money, which is of the top order, are with the parliamentary team. Commercial expertise is much better entrenched now.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised access to and involvement in the QEII design plans. Again, this is an area we need to be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said we should have a new site or whatever. I am nervous of this—I am going off-script as it were—but I know that a lot of work went into considering a range of sites and locations. After many millions of pounds were spent on consideration of alternative and temporary accommodation, the QEII, for a variety of reasons, was considered to be the optimum site for us to remove ourselves to. However, I take the point, and all of what has been said today will be considered.
The noble Earl referred to the QEII Centre. It is obviously important that, with the delivery authority leading on the design work for QEII, we re-engage on any future design—particularly, from my point of view as Chairman of Committees and Senior Deputy Speaker, on having the best technology that we can for our committee rooms, for instance, and ensuring that accessibility is absolutely entrenched in the design. All of these are areas that I personally think we should look at very strongly.
I will conclude, given the time, by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I will look at Hansard because there may be some areas of detail that I can respond to. I have tried to cover some of the guts of what we are all about. All I can say is that this year will be very busy. I hope it will be a productive year because I am prepared to say that, if we do not make the right decision, we will all be responsible.