Lord Colgrain
Main Page: Lord Colgrain (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, before I address the report, will noble Lords allow me to digress a little? My interest in this building and, subsequently, R&R came about when I was a member of your Lordships’ Finance Committee. There were two incidents while I was a member that made me realise: there are some fundamental issues that we are all going to have to overcome. The first was when we were looking at Big Ben and the very significant overrun on the budget. I forget the exact figures; I think that the original budget was £24 million and that we finished up at about £80 million.
One of the questions we asked was: why are there such overruns on things such as the stonework? We thought that these were relatively straightforward matters to be investigated. Why had they not been using things such as cherry-pickers to look behind the stone to see whether water had ingressed and there was decay? We were told that cherry-pickers could not be used because of the peregrines nesting on the tower. When it was pointed out that peregrines nest for only three months of the year—so, what was wrong with the other nine months?—we did not get an answer. We realised that perhaps a little more work could be done in that regard.
The second incident was to do with Westminster Hall. I was up on the roof talking to the workmen there. Noble Lords may recall that the cupola was damaged by a bomb during the Second World War. They were trying to extract it or work on it, and it became a much more complex issue than they had appreciated. They had to take gas bottles up on to the roof but, in order to comply with health and safety regulations, they had to take the gas bottles down off the roof at the end of every working day. This meant that, for a variety of reasons, the gas bottles were being used for only two hours during the eight-hour day. When we asked whether it was possible to have an exemption so that they could be kept up there, the answer was no. Again, I found myself thinking, “We’re going to need a certain amount of change in our working practice in the whole Palace”.
This goes back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about Notre-Dame. I went there about 18 months ago, and was there at 10 pm. Behind the hoardings I could hear the noise of all the workmen, who were working 24 hours a day. When R&R came about, the suggestion was made by the Finance Committee that it might be possible to see whether we could have workmen on site here 24 hours a day, but that was pooh-poohed. It was out of the question; it was not going to happen. I wonder why. There is something generally wrong with our approach.
Let me come back to Notre-Dame for a second. A senior military man was given that role because it was seen as a major logistical exercise. Again, there is probably a lesson there for us—I will come back to that in a second on the actual report. It is also heartening to know that the senior carpenter, who was using medieval tools to do the axe work on the central part of the spire, was an Englishman. That is rather gratifying. I am sorry for digressing too much.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am really enjoying this. Forgive me but I have to conclude, after only 10 years—well, nine and a half years—in your Lordships’ House and 28 years down the Corridor, that the default position in the Palace of Westminster is always to say no.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I extend my thanks to the Senior Deputy Speaker and his office for the time they spent with me following my Question for Written Answer on this subject; I worded my Question loosely but they were most helpful in ensuring that I was provided with all the information I sought.
I congratulate all concerned on the annual progress report before us today. It is clearly presented and provides most of the details likely to be asked about by Members of both Houses, including a layman such as me. There are three particular questions that I would like to ask. The first relates to funds expended, which have been mentioned many times already this afternoon. I hugely appreciate and applaud the work undertaken over many years by the four Peers sitting in front of me.
The subject of R&R has been discussed in one guise or another since 2016, when substantial costs started being incurred. When I submitted a Written Question in July 2022, I was told that the costs paid for by the Lords since 2014 were then £58 million, made up of staff costs of £7 million and contractors’ costs of £51 million. I was also told that the then Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body and the then restoration and renewal delivery authority had run up costs of £212 million for the two years between 2020 and 2022, which included £33 million in salary costs and £151 million in contractors’ costs. I have now been told, in a Written Answer dated 8 January, that the investment to date in the R&R programme totals £377 million, with a further £91 million authorised for the current financial year. To date, therefore, Parliament—or, rather, the taxpayer—has incurred actual forecast costs of approximately £450 million, a sum of money that is almost impossible to comprehend.
What do we have to show for this? Under “Key Milestones” on page 28 of the report, we are told that R&R surveys are ongoing, as are early and enabling works design and decant plans. All these were in train when your Lordships previously voted for and agreed to a full decant. We are also told that the strategic plan is published again, and the budget is approved again. Since the Palace design options are ongoing and neither costed proposals nor an invitation to tender for the works has been initiated, does it not seem that the budget is optimistic, it being so located in the report without a very heavy qualification?
Unless the Executive in the Commons commit to initiating the plan, we are going around in circles, albeit ever-deceasing ones. Given the current Government’s self-imposed budget restraints, is there a realistic possibility of this initiation happening? I and many others had hoped that the fire at Notre-Dame in Paris would have prompted the then Government into action, since we know that this building is a fire hazard and that if it was any other building in the country, it would be closed as being unsafe. If authority for R&R is agreed, does the current composition of the management team and its structure lend itself to a senior industrialist at its head? That is what would be needed for there to be any chance of R&R being executed on time or on budget, unless we follow the French example.
Would, for example, Sir Alastair Morton, favoured by Margaret Thatcher on Eurotunnel and later John Prescott on Railtrack, consider that he could work with the delivery board’s expenditure, scrutinised by R&R client teams, House finance teams, the delivery authority board, the R&R programme board, the R&R client board and the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission? Can the Senior Deputy Speaker indicate how this structure can be made sufficiently commercial such that the plan can be enacted when a positive vote for full R&R comes about?