Finances of the House of Commons

Debate between David Winnick and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am very well aware of that. The principle is that we should recover the appropriate costs. It would be quite wrong for this House to subsidise anyone from outside in the provision of any facility. It is a matter of retrieving the appropriate cost for an event. That goes back to the principle that I set out at the beginning of the debate. I ask hon. Gentlemen to let me get the exact truth of the matter and give it to them, rather than carry on and possibly make a mistake. The Chair of the Administration Committee might be able to give a fuller answer.

The Palace of Westminster is a heritage site, an iconic building and a major visitor attraction. Most importantly, it is also a working institution in which we work throughout our time as Members of Parliament. It is also a building in which the fabric is at, or well past, its sell-by date. Some mechanical and electrical elements have been nursed on by brilliant engineers, but in any other building they might well have been replaced quite a long time ago. It is clear that a major project of renewal and restoration is required. The Commission’s internal report suggested a number of possibilities, and three broad strands were chosen. It was decided that, as the matter was so important, it should be looked at by external experts who can look both at the robustness of the business cases and at the cost, so that we have the very best possible advice. It has always been my experience that money expended at the start of a process on good understanding of the problem, so that we bottom out and scope the project, saves a great deal of money later on.

Broadly, the three main options are: a rolling programme with no decant—something like we are doing now—but with quite significant changes to working patterns; a rolling programme with a partial decant; or a complete decant to get everything done quickly. Those options will be appraised by the professionals. In order to get the best possible people to do the work, a contract has been put out to tender. I hope to be in a position to announce to the House before we rise for the Christmas recess who has won the tender and the details of it. They will then commence work, which will enable a decision to be made based on robust professional work at some point early in the next Parliament.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that vast sums of money are being spent and will continue to be spent to ensure the upkeep of this building? Nevertheless, decanting must come at some stage because the money that is being spent will not, of course, bring about the total work that is clearly required. I worry that if we continue to delay the decision it will cost much more. I hope that by the end of the Parliament the decision will be reached so that the work that clearly is required—a completely new building, on this present site, of course—can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I understand that there is precedent for that. The purpose of the independent options appraisal is to consider all those points. The critical point is that no decision will be possible until the next Parliament, so no decision will be taken on whatever option may be thought best until sometime in the next Parliament. It will be the Parliament after that before the decision is implemented. The key factor is that all Members of both Houses want to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer, who will ultimately be paying for this. That should be the guiding principle, provided we can work appropriately.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Since £30 million a year is spent on both Houses for essential maintenance, and recognising the state of the building as described in the report last year—widespread defective mechanical and electrical services, fire risk, asbestos and so on—should we not reach a decision more quickly on the rebuilding of the Palace, and not leave it in a state where each year we are spending money when, at the end of it all, rebuilding will have to take place?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely good point—one that has been considered in the essential maintenance work that is going on. Clearly, the mechanical and electrical services in particular have to be brought up to a safe and workable standard so that we can occupy the building. I believe that time and money spent now in getting a really thorough appraisal will produce the best value result overall, but we have to keep spending money to ensure that the building is safe and proper to use.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to reassure the hon. Lady that at this stage, with the Commission not yet having received the report, all options can be placed on the table. However, the option that is ultimately chosen will follow best practice, best value and the best advice that we receive.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It would be totally unacceptable for the House not to sit for three months, so I hope we will continue with September sittings. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the patching-up work is going to be very costly and possibly carry on for years, it would be far better to reach a brave decision and do the job properly from the start?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As I said, from my experience in another life, I have found that it is usually better to take two or more years and get the job done than to be inconvenienced and unable to work properly for 10 years. I stress, however, that we are at a very early stage; it is for the professional advice to be given first, and then for the Commission to make a decision in the light of that advice.