Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What recent estimate that body has made of the total cost of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

The Sponsor Body, supported by the Delivery Authority, is currently developing the detailed plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs and timescales and the full detail of the work needed for restoration and renewal. It will be put before both Houses for a decision before works commence. Securing best value for money is fundamental.

[David Simmonds [V]]

Given that the House has debated the subject numerous times, supported the Joint Committee’s 2016 proposal and passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, does my right hon. Friend agree that continually re-examining the scope and cost of the project increases the risk that we are not making our national Parliament fit for purpose and runs the risk of us having our own Notre-Dame moment with our beautiful and historic building?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the terrible fire at Notre-Dame, which serves as a reminder to us all of the risk to our great heritage assets. He is also right that putting off works tends to increase costs eventually, so I agree entirely about the time sensitivity of action and thank him for his timely reminder.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

What assessment that body has made of the procurement opportunities for businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency as part of the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

Restoring Parliament will use UK materials wherever possible and create jobs and apprenticeships in the supply chain across the UK, from high-tech design to traditional stonemasonry. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the project has already engaged with a Harrogate business providing professional services on procuring works on a value-for-money and UK-wide basis.

[Andrew Jones]

I am grateful to hear that—I did not know about that Harrogate business. In addition to promoting opportunities for businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough, I was trying to get at an underlying point: the wider the contracts and benefits of the restoration project are spread around our country, the broader the support will be for the large sum of money involved in it. I am sure we have all heard people say, “You lot down in Westminster—”, as if Parliament has nothing to do with them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this project has the capacity to either compound or militate against that?

[Damian Hinds]

I do agree. My hon. Friend is right: it will be a large sum of money, and it is essential not only that best value is secured for that money, but that the benefits of it are spread, and visibly so, across the country. The programme is currently working on its supply chain plans and is already recruiting. The shared apprenticeship scheme is an example of an innovative approach to make sure that smaller firms can also share in the benefits of the programme.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

What assessment that body has made of the procurement opportunities for businesses in Hastings and Rye constituency as part of the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

Restoring Parliament will benefit businesses in the UK, using UK materials wherever possible and creating jobs and apprenticeships nationwide—including, I hope, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—in fields from engineering and high-tech design to traditional crafts such as carpentry and stonemasonry.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

The restoration and renewal programme will cost billions, but at the same time it will employ thousands of British people. The Sponsor Body is required to procure and manage the contractors and supply chain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in doing so, it can help towards delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda by ensuring that businesses, contractors and so on from our more deprived socioeconomic areas across the UK have real equality of opportunity to access the variety of employment opportunities afforded by the programme?

[Damian Hinds]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is quite right. The programme is currently developing its supply chain plans to help to ensure that the benefits of the programme are felt across the country. There is also an innovative loan scheme for apprentices to be employed by the programme and then loaned to businesses working on the restoration, and dozens of young people from more disadvantaged areas will be offered paid internships and placements in a partnership with the Social Mobility Foundation.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to promote the use of UK steel in the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

The restoration and renewal programme will create investment nationwide through a supply chain involving hundreds of businesses. Building materials will be sourced domestically wherever possible, including high-quality UK steel.

[Charlotte Nichols [V]]

The Palace of Westminster is our nation’s flagship building and the home of UK democracy. It is only right that in procurement for its restoration we do all we can to support UK manufacturing and jobs. At a difficult time for the steel industry, an infrastructure project of this size and profile would no doubt be a huge boost for the sector. Will the right hon. Gentleman please outline what measures will be taken to ensure that steel used in the renovation and restoration of Parliament is bought in Britain?

[Damian Hinds]

I concur with the hon. Lady, who has consistently championed the UK’s high-quality steel sector. We do not yet know the exact steel requirements for the project, but there clearly will be a requirement. The project will obviously comply with public sector procurement rules but within those, as I said in my previous answer, we will seek to source materials domestically wherever possible. I confirm to her today that the programme is planning to sign the UK steel charter, an initiative from the sector that aims to maximise opportunities for the UK economy and UK steel producers.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

What opportunities there will be for Members to contribute to the restoration and renewal programme in the next 12 months.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]]

The restoration and renewal sponsor body plans a range of opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to contribute. Consultation is planned on design options that are now in development, to help to inform further work. The Sponsor Body will continue to provide regular updates to colleagues and welcomes the opportunity to hear views. Of course, I am available at any time to hear and convey points, questions and issues from colleagues from all parties.

[Antony Higginbotham]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We all want to see Parliament restored to a good state of repair, but my constituents and I have concerns about the significant costs that have been spoken of. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that before any major costs are incurred or the project proceeds too far, much more time will be allocated for debate and discussion, including contributions from Members elected in more recent general elections who were not present for the debates on the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019?

[Damian Hinds]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important point. Although the scheduling of House business is somewhat beyond my own domain, clearly debate about the future of our national Parliament is incredibly important, and the debate last year, as he will remember, was oversubscribed. Many newer colleagues have also taken up one-to-one briefings, and 63 MPs made submissions to the strategic review call for evidence. Importantly, it is in the legislation that there must be a vote of this House for the main gate business case decision to be made.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

What steps the Sponsor Body has taken to ensure that local residents and businesses have been adequately consulted on the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]]

The restoration and renewal programme has engaged regularly with neighbours and will continue to do so, especially at those moments with most opportunity for meaningful input. To date, it has included group sessions as well as meetings and briefings, including with Westminster City Council. Engagement with local businesses and residents—my hon. Friend’s constituents—will continue, particularly ahead of the submission of planning applications.

[Nickie Aiken]

Is the Sponsor Body aware that, as well as the restoration and renewal programme, work on the UK holocaust memorial and learning centre will, subject to planning permission, be taking place in Victoria Tower Gardens from 2022 for at least three years? Can the Sponsor Body give assurances that it will seek to ensure that there is minimum disruption to public access to the park from the combined and sequential effects of these two projects on this much loved local park?

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, the Sponsor Body is aware of the exceptionally important initiative that she mentions. As plans develop, the R and R programme will, of course, liaise closely with the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, the royal parks and others locally to carefully understand the impact of the different projects on the park, and how those impacts can be mitigated.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

What steps are being taken to consult disabled stakeholders on the restoration and renewal project.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]]

This is a vital issue. The programme is committed to improving accessibility in its detailed work on the outline business case, which will form the scope for the restoration and renewal project. It is engaging regularly on this issue with the House administrations, with representatives of staff with disabilities, and with independent accessibility and inclusion technical experts.

[Florence Eshalomi [V]]

I thank the right hon. Member for his answer. Our historic Houses of Parliament are rightly an attraction for visitors from all over the world, but they are also a place of work for thousands of employees, including MPs’ staff. My assistant, Harry, uses a motorised wheelchair, and I have seen at first hand how he is unable to navigate most of the building on his own, facing difficult doors, steps and other obstacles. Despite the best efforts of the House staff to mitigate these issues over the past seven months, he is still not able to move around the building independently. Will the right hon. Member agree to meet me and Harry to discuss the renovation project, and to ensure that additional views are taken into account to make our Parliament a truly modern workplace for everybody?

[Damian Hinds]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue and Harry’s case. Of course I will be more than happy to meet both of them. The programme has established an accessibility and inclusion panel that meets monthly, with representation from both Houses’ diversity and inclusion teams and from ParliAble, which, as she will know, is the workplace equality network for parliamentary staff with disabilities. The recently established public engagement strategy identifies accessibility topics, and engaging with disabled people is a particular priority. Plans are also being developed to engage more broadly with all staff working in Parliament, including of course those with disabilities. But in the short term, I shall look forward to meeting her and Harry.

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

Agricultural Transition Plan

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We do work with the devolved Administrations on the design of future policy. There will be a co-ordinating group on future policy. We also work with all the levy bodies through the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and the devolved equivalents of those, on a joint approach to marketing our fantastic food and produce around the world.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is right that the equipment and technology fund and the transformation fund should focus on core agricultural business and productivity, but can my right hon. Friend also reassure me that his Department will continue to support farm diversification, which has been so important to so many Hampshire farmers?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and I can confirm that that will be possible. We made some changes to the Agriculture Bill that was brought through this Parliament to ensure it could support farm diversification projects to help farmers add value.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What assessment the sponsor body has made of the potential merits of establishing the parliamentary estate and its immediate environs as a planning authority.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

The sponsor body has not assessed the merits of the approach recommended by my hon. Friend, but that was considered by the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill. It recognised that there was no easy way to streamline the process but that engagement is key, and that is the advice that the programme seeks to heed.

[Henry Smith [V]]

I encourage the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body to look again at Parliament creating itself as its own planning authority, as in the past there have been difficulties carrying out parliamentary works when that has involved Westminster City Council, the Greater London Authority and others. I believe that that would create a much easier method for restoration and renewal. Will my right hon. Friend look at this issue again?

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, wider planning considerations affecting the parliamentary estate are a matter for the parliamentary authorities rather than the programme itself. I just mention that enacting the change that he mentioned would require primary legislation or an amendment to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which, as they say in House business management circles, would have to compete against other priorities.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

When the sponsor body plans to commence the decant of Parliament in advance of the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

On current plans, decant would be in the mid-2020s and the proposed approach to the works and the schedule would be put to both Houses for agreement before that. While the restoration work continues to be vital, we are currently reviewing the approach, and we of course welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and all colleagues.

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not the case that these plans have now effectively been mothballed and scrapped, and that Parliament is not going to proceed with the full refurbishment as originally planned? If that is the case, what measures will be put in place to maintain this wonderful historic building and keep it safe from fire and damage?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the risks from fire, flood and falling masonry. He was of course a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, and those works remain vital. We all have in mind the need for the uninterrupted effectiveness of Parliament in scrutinising the Government and in working on behalf of our constituents, but we also know that we must do that while providing the good value for money that is rightly demanded by our constituents, and that is what is at the heart of the current review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

What assessment the sponsor body has made of the potential merits of reducing the cost of the parliamentary works programme as a result of the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]]

I am sure that covid-19 is going to cause all of us to think afresh about many things. For the restoration and renewal project, value for money is clearly vital—indeed, it is a statutory obligation. With the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority now substantive, we will conduct a strategic review that will consider the trade-offs and compromises that could be available. But of course, any such decisions would be for Parliament to make.

[Michael Fabricant [V]]

May I associate myself with the comments made earlier about 650 super-spreaders returning to Parliament?

We are currently spending in the order of several million pounds to repair the roofs and the brickwork, and to stop fire damage to that marvellous building, the Palace of Westminster. That is all correct. However, as my right hon. Friend said, there is perhaps some doubt as to whether R&R will go ahead, so I may I ask him to ensure that huge amounts of money are not now spent on a project that would cost between £4 billion and £8 billion to complete, if it is ever done at all?

[Damian Hinds]

I think it is rather more than several million pounds that has had to be spent by Parliament just to keep its own operation going. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the business case would have come before Parliament for decision anyway. It was always envisaged that once the Sponsor Body was set up in law, there would be a review of certain aspects of the programme. But in these current circumstances, and with what we know now, it is right that that review will now be broader and deeper.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—