Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

“(f) to require the Delivery Authority when allocating contracts for construction and related work to have regard for the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment.”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(h) to undertake, and publish, an annual audit of the companies that have been awarded contracts for the Parliamentary building works, with a view to establishing their size and geographical location.”

Amendment 7, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability of ensuring” and insert “need to ensure”.

This amendment requires the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster (rather than requiring it to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that such facilities are provided).

Amendment 4, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to ensure that economic benefits of the Parliamentary building works are delivered across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, in terms of contracts for works and in any other way the Sponsor Board considers appropriate.”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.”

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“( ) See also paragraph 7A, which makes provision about the appointment of the first external members.”

This amendment signposts the new paragraph 7A inserted by amendment 9 (which deals with the appointment of the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body).

Amendment 9, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

“Appointment of initial external members

7A (1) The person who, immediately before the commencement day, was the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as the chair of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 2.

(2) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is to be treated as being for a term of 3 years.

(3) A person who, immediately before the commencement day—

(a) was a member of the shadow Sponsor Body (other than the chair), and

(b) was not a member of either House of Parliament,

is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as a member of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 3 (external members).

(4) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) is to be treated as being for a term ending with the last day of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the shadow Sponsor Body was established.

(5) An appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 1 month beginning with the commencement day unless, before the end of that period, the appointment is confirmed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 do not apply in relation to a member who is appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3).

(7) In this paragraph—

“the commencement day” means the day on which section 2(1) comes into force;

“the shadow Sponsor Body” means the body, established in July 2018 in connection with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is known as the shadow Sponsor Body.”

This amendment provides for those who were external members of the shadow Sponsor Body immediately before clause 2 comes into force to be appointed as the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to keep to the Bill and the amendments. I know that a man of great stature like the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to lead the House where it is not supposed to go. I think that he was giving way to Mark Tami.

[Mark Tami]

To reinforce your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to say that we have had these arguments for ever and a day. We could have them again, but this debate is about the governance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hence I am sure Sir John will now go back to where he wanted to be.

[John Redwood]

I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My colleague and good friend is making a powerful speech. In describing the raid on the Scottish lottery budgets at the time of the Olympics, he is highlighting that what is happening here is another not very well disguised London subsidy from the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. This is why the Union is creaking. I say to Scottish Tory MPs who acquiesce in this: “You are not Unionists if you are doing this; you are submissionists. You should be making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any subsidy that goes to London.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Come on—let’s stick to what the debate is about.

[Neil Gray]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought it was a perfectly reasonable intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am the judge of that, not you, Mr Gray. Come on!

[Neil Gray]

Returning to the London Olympics, at the time, 4,200 Scottish companies registered their interest in providing services, while fewer than 200 actually secured any business. Most galling of all was that £135 million of legacy funding was made available for grassroots sport, but to be distributed by sports governing bodies south of the border. No extra funding was made available for Scottish sports governing bodies. There is no doubt that that experience left a bitter taste. We are not here to debate the London Olympics, but that is the last major infrastructure project similar in status to the restoration and renewal project, which is London-based, without full Barnett consequentials and with a similar delivery model—I will come back to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that there is too much capital expenditure in London and the south-east on this project. I remind him of the massive expenditure on the two aircraft carriers built in Rosyth in southern Scotland, at enormous expense for the Union’s taxpayers, for the benefit of Scottish companies and Scottish labour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a debate on amendments and Members are meant to be speaking to those amendments. I am not going to let the debate drift wherever people decide they want it to drift to. We will now go back to Mr Neil Gray. We need to get back to where we should be.

[Neil Gray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been referring to a relevant project, which was similar in status to the one under discussion today and one from which we should have learnt lessons. My colleagues and I have done our very best to be constructive in all our dealings on this issue, but there will come a point where we will have to ask for how long we can be ignored on an issue of fundamental importance to us, which is the fair share of resources. I fully expect this project to go beyond £10 billion, when all is said and done. If the project is Barnett-ised, that would mean a transfer just shy of £1 billion to Scotland. Right now, the Government are unwilling to contemplate not only some form of capital investment spin-off, but even a subtle instruction to the Sponsor Board to ensure contracts are secured across the UK. That is not acceptable and there must be a revision of that approach.

On the other amendments, we will support Labour’s amendment 1 on blacklisting companies. Amendment 5 is a little bit concerning for me. I understand the intention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but as I have said before this project will throw up irreconcilable conflicts which will make for very difficult decisions. One will be the conflict between access for members of the public versus heritage. Amendment 5, as well-intentioned as it may be, will make it far more difficult to make this place more accessible to disabled people. Besides, if this is just going to be a project to empty everything out and return it all back as it was but a bit cleaner, then what on earth is the point? The building contributes to the culture here, which is elitist, inaccessible and out of date, and that must change. We support amendment 6 as a way of improving the Bill, but it does not in itself satisfy our desire for greater emphasis to be placed on the Sponsor Board and the Delivery Authority to ensure the project has discernible UK-wide benefits.

In conclusion, I intend to press my cross-party amendment 4 to a Division to test the willingness of the Government to do more than just talk about this being a UK-wide project. We have seen what happens in the past: they are no such thing. We need concrete action to confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

—and we should have part of that story—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might be more helpful to the Chamber if the hon. Gentlemen had this discussion afterwards.

[Tim Loughton]

If the hon. Gentleman turned up to meetings of the all-party parliamentary archaeology group more often, we could have the discussion there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, or listening to, in respect of the Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

That table is part of the heritage of this place. It is thought that it may have been broken up by Cromwell to symbolise the fact that the monarchy was over and the new rule had begun. It is a really important part of the Palace’s heritage, and I think that it should be brought back from the museum and displayed here, with a considered explanation of where its origins and historical significance may lie.

If we look at the façade of the whole Palace, we see, for instance, the inspiration that came from the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, going back to the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

It is remarkable that what I have described in those few vignettes has made this such an important building, and continues to contribute to its importance. People come here not just to see the building with all its wonderful statues, carvings and other features, but to see the living embodiment of a Parliament that is working and doing its daily business in this place. Much of what we discuss is relevant to what we can see in the basement, in the roof, in Westminster Hall or in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.

After detailed evidence sessions, the Joint Committee concluded that the Bill should

“recognise the significant heritage which the Palace of Westminster embodies.”

The Government welcomed that recommendation in principle, and said that they would look into it further; but alas, since then—as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—we have heard no new arguments for not listing heritage in the Bill.

I know that the Minister will argue that the considerations that I am trying to insert in the Bill are covered by planning law, and by the various agencies—English Heritage, as was, and others—which will have an input. However, things that have happened in the past have led to the neglect or destruction of major features in the House. I think it is crucial—and sensible—that when the Sponsor Body is carrying out all its other important functions, someone should be able to ask, “And how does that preserve, or promote, or make more accessible or available or better explain, the archaeological, historical and architectural importance of this building?” That is all I am asking. I do not think it unreasonable, and I think that many others, in another place, will advance a similar argument. Many of them have, perhaps, been in the Palace for many more centuries than I have, and will talk with more authority.