Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

They will be fully empowered if we continue with the proposals by April this year. In every discussion that the Lord Speaker and the Speaker have had, that issue has been foremost on the agenda.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answers, but I would like to correct him on one point. The two commissions met on Monday, but we did not discuss this issue at all because the Commons commissioners left prior to this discussion taking place. There was a very valuable meeting on coronavirus, but there was no discussion between the two commissions on this issue because the people from the Commons left the meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, hit on a very valuable point about interference in the project. The joint commission—a committee of both Houses—met for months and months, supported by a lot of expertise and work from experts and professionals in their field. It came up with an option that it thought the most cost-effective and least risky for the future of this building. This was then endorsed by an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker aware that, for each year of delay, the bill increases by around £100 million? On top of that, there is the increased maintenance of the building and we lose the opportunity to have a building that is more cost-effective by not doing the work needed on this one. The biggest risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, comes from politicians chopping and changing their minds, as Mr Barry’s War, an excellent book, which I recommend, illustrates. If Ministers want to change the process, will they have to repeal the legislation and bring forward a new Bill? Have there been any indications from government Ministers that that is the case?

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

The answer to that question is no, but I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I quoted precisely from the joint statement. That is very important and this project continues. She asked about the timeline; I remind Members that in 2012, an independent options appraisal was undertaken and it was endorsed in 2016. The 2012 independent appraisal said:

“There will be irreversible damage if major works are not undertaken.”


Those of us who meet to discuss this keep safety in our minds, because we have to protect Members, staff, contractors and the 1 million visitors who come into this Chamber. A number of keen observers of Parliament on social media have tweeted this week:

“This is history repeating itself. Who will carry the can when a catastrophic event happens at Westminster and one or more persons get seriously hurt or injured?”


We have to keep that in mind when we are meeting as a joint commission. The timeline is long and the safety elements are urgent; we continue in that way. Other comments are speculative and we will leave that to that realm.