Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

rose—

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I am willing 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.