Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What discussions the (a) Prime Minister and (b) Prime Minister's staff have had with the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body on the (i) timeline, (ii) cost and (iii) logistics of relocating the House of Lords to York.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

There have not been discussions of that nature with the sponsor body, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the recent exchange of correspondence on the restoration and renewal review, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his candid reply. Stakeholders in York expended time, energy and money on the House of Lords proposals the Prime Minister announced in January, so to learn today that the Prime Minister did not engage in due process is, quite frankly, shocking; it just shows his populist virtue signalling to my city and the north. Will the right hon. Member communicate to No. 10 that, if the Prime Minister is going to put forward proposals, he must go through due process before wasting time in places like my city, where people desperately needed the jobs that he was proposing?

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Lady might have inferred something from my answer that was not actually there. To be absolutely clear, the sponsor body of the restoration and renewal programme works within the remit provided by Parliament and is currently conducting a review, looking at a range of options to make sure that we get continued, uninterrupted and sound operation of this place and secure value for money for the British public.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When he plans to provide an outline business case for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

On current plans, the proposed approach to the works and the funding would be put to both Houses for agreement in 2022. This is subject to the outcome of the strategic review, which is due to conclude in the autumn.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear! It is eight years since one report said that we had “a looming crisis” in this building, and four years since a Joint Committee of both Houses produced a report, on 8 September 2016, which stated that we were facing “an impending crisis.” Since then we have had years and years of more new problems in the building than we are able to cope with. There is no sense of urgency about this crisis. Get on with it, for heaven’s sake.

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there really is a sense of urgency. Of course, he was a distinguished member of the Joint Committee, and he is right about the risk of fire, flood and falling masonry in this building. Progress has of course been made, but a lot has happened in the five years since the original proposals and it is therefore right that we have a review, which is proceeding at some pace, with quite an aggressive timetable, and will report in October.