Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Main Page: Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Grand Committee takes note of the report from the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report 2024 (HC 228).
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, noble Lords know well that extensive and complex work is required to restore and preserve the Palace for future generations. I suspect, too, that noble Lords share my frustration that we are not further forward than we are. What I intend to highlight as I open this debate is the work undertaken, which is set out in the most recent annual report, and the path towards decision-making.
Most notably, the R&R client board, composed of the two House commissions, agreed and published the strategic case report, which sets out the future direction of the programme. Published in March 2024, the R&R strategic case sets out the three delivery options for how to restore this historic Palace, which the client board agreed should be developed in further detail.
The recommendations of the client board were informed by the extensive work of the R&R programme board in 2023. The programme board considered carefully 36 combinations of scope and delivery approaches to provide a shortlist for how R&R might be delivered. This was judged against a range of criteria, including value for money, health and safety implications, likely disruption to the work of Parliament and lasting benefits, including to accessibility and sustainability. This shortlisting process and the recommendations of the programme board informed the client board’s final decision regarding which delivery options should be developed into fully costed proposals. It is expected that this work will be presented by the end of this year to the Houses to make a decision on the preferred way forward.
The client board agreed to the development of a “full decant” option and a “continued presence” option, as recommended by the programme board, and requested that a further delivery option of a rolling sequenced programme of works to deliver “enhanced maintenance and improvement” also be developed.
Under the “full decant” option, both Houses would leave the Palace and relocate nearby on a temporary basis while the majority of the works are completed. The House of Commons Chamber would be prioritised for return to the Palace. The preferred location for temporary decant of the House of Lords would be the nearby QEII conference centre building for approximately 11 years, with continuing use of the existing southern estate—namely, Millbank House, Fielden House and Old Palace Yard.
The “continued presence” option involves the House of Commons Chamber and essential support functions remaining in the Palace throughout the works. The House of Lords would move out of the Palace for approximately 17 years until the works are complete, again with the QEII conference centre being the preferred venue. Other House of Commons functions currently based in the Palace would be relocated elsewhere on the existing House of Commons estate.
Finally, the “enhanced maintenance and improvement” option would be delivered as part of a rolling, sequenced programme of works. As far as possible, this option would be delivered in a business-as-usual environment, although up to 30% of the Palace may be decanted at any one time. As the client board commissioned detailed work on this option at a later stage in the shortlisting process last year, the timeline for EMI is still being worked through and will be disclosed in the costed proposals, alongside other comparative information.
Noble Lords will wish to know what improvements we can expect to see in the Palace following the R&R works. The client board agreed that a “reasonably ambitious” scope be adopted for the R&R works. This would see improvements to areas such as health and safety, including to fire safety and addressing asbestos; renewal of mechanical, electrical and other services—perhaps this week I should say heating; building fabric conservation; security protection measures; and accessibility. This includes improving audibility and increasing step-free access from 12% within the Palace at present to approximately 70%, with the highest step-free access provided in the most visited and used areas of the building.
This scope was agreed by the R&R client board because it would deliver significant improvements to the Palace for those who work in and visit it, while representing best value for money for taxpayers. These three options are being developed in detail over the coming months by the R&R delivery authority and Strategic Estates. Once this work is complete, all three options will be assessed by the programme and client board. These options will be costed and presented by the end of this year to enable, as I said, informed decisions by the Houses and a genuine choice on the preferred way forward.
Turning to the contents of the 2024 annual progress report, I will first note the expenditure. The annual report sets out the financial performance and expenditure of the R&R programme. In the 2023-24 financial year, the delivery authority expenditure amounted to £75 million, with a further £5 million of expenditure by Parliament’s R&R client team.
In addition to supporting the development and assessment of options considered by the programme board, which I have outlined, activities last year included continued work on complex surveys to the Palace, which are helping to shape the detailed plans for design and construction work. This is enabling the Houses to develop the most accurate building information record of the Palace’s condition that has ever existed and will support maintenance of the Palace.
In 2023-24, 24,500 hours of intrusive survey work was completed, which included eight bore-holes, bringing the total to more than 63,000 hours of intrusive surveys being completed. The deepest of the bore-holes completed last year was 84 metres—275 feet in old money. To put that in another context, the Elizabeth Tower is 96 metres tall. That bore-hole was the deepest to date conducted by the R&R programme and will allow surveyors for the delivery authority to understand further the ground conditions, archaeology and other useful design parameters ahead of the future works.
Archaeological discoveries have included sections of the ancient river walls and piles from the Charles Barry construction. The delivery authority, working with Parliament’s heritage and collections team, also completed its audit of the approximately 13,000 collections objects—paintings, sculptures, furniture, decorative arts and other unique and important objects—to consider how these can best be managed during the R&R programme.
The concept designs for the recommended outcome level for the Palace restoration works and the outline design for House of Lords temporary accommodation also progressed in the last year.
Engagement and communications activity supported the development of the strategic case and informed decision-making by the R&R political boards with the parliamentary community and external experts, and engagement with industry and professional sectors across the UK.
Tours of the Palace basements and the historic Cloister Court continue to be made available to Members and staff. More than 80 Peers have taken this tour since April 2022. I suspect all noble Lords present have undertaken the tour, but I recommend it wholeheartedly. It captures and makes one understand the challenges, and indeed the opportunities, of restoration. Noble Lords can sign up by contacting the R&R client team. One-to-one briefings can also be arranged with R&R officials to discuss the programme in more detail.
Engagement about the programme has not been confined to Westminster. As set out in the annual report, more than 250 representatives of supply chains and small businesses, and local officials in all four nations of the UK, have been met with to highlight future opportunities that the R&R programme may provide to businesses across the UK. It is perhaps a good reminder that this programme can have benefits all across the United Kingdom. Over 50% of the value of contracts awarded by the delivery authority has been to companies based outside London and the south-east.
I hope that what I have sought to outline demonstrates that there has been tangible progress—politically, with the agreement of the strategic case and the three options taken forward for development, and at the technical level to assess in much greater detail the condition of the Palace and develop approaches for how the building could be restored and renewed.
Noble Lords will want assurances that the expenditure spent on the programme has been necessary. Expenditure for the client team and delivery authority is scrutinised in various ways. The client team, as a joint parliamentary department funded by both Houses, is subject to the scrutiny processes faced by the budgets of both Houses’ administrations, such as the Finance Committees of each House. The annual estimate for the independent delivery authority is scrutinised by the client team, the programme board—including its sub-board, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and previously the noble Lord, Lord Morse, both of whom I am pleased to see participating in today’s debate—and the client board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are also members. Finally, there is the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, of which I am a member, receiving advice from the Treasury before it is laid in the House of Commons. The programme also continues to draw on outside, independent expertise to provide assurance on plans. This will help to ensure that costed proposals brought forward are robust, providing confidence to both Houses in the information presented.
While we prepare to take a decision on R&R, work on the Palace is not standing still. Parliamentary teams continue to move forward with projects to ensure the safety of the Palace, and all who work within it, before the R&R works commence. This includes plans to repair the Lords Chamber roof; the Victoria Tower programme, which will commence this year alongside wider stonework conservation repairs; and mechanical, electrical, public health and fire safety replacement of life-expired services to ensure the continued operation of the Palace until the start of R&R.
This explains the direction of the programme and the work undertaken over the last year. I continue to emphasise the responsibility that we all have, as custodians of this historic Palace, for the decisions we will need to make on the way forward. The ongoing work that I have outlined will enable the Houses to make the significant decision on the way forward for the programme based on evidence, and—I emphasise this—to make progress. I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords today. It is a subject on which all of us in this Room and well beyond have our concerns, we are putting in place now what will, I hope, provide us with some lasting solutions. I beg to move.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the phrase I used when I began about sharing frustration has been articulated in one way or another by all noble Lords. At the root of this is responsibility but also our profound concern about a building that symbolises so much of which we should be so proud in our country. I underline that I acknowledge the force of your Lordships’ contributions. It underscores the significance of what we are all about in seeking to preserve, restore and renew this iconic symbol of our democracy.
I was reminded of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the dilemmas of Powderham when I got the stats about the size and complexity of the Palace: 34 acres, 1,100 rooms, 65 different floor levels, 100-plus staircases and the whole building sharing the same water, power, heating and sewage systems, many of which are more than 50 years old and have, as we know from experience, reached the end of their lifespan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the pipes. We have hundreds of miles of pipes and cables needing replacement and interconnecting voids and ventilation shafts adding to the complexity of removing services and managing asbestos. I was intrigued that we have not referred to this as much as we should. I am very mindful that, particularly following the bomb in the House of Commons, in the House of Commons area of the Palace there is a far greater preponderance of asbestos because it was part of the building material of the time. Therefore, different parts of the Palace will have different complexities.
The other thing that we have all acknowledged is with all the options that I have articulated and that noble Lords have rightly expressed, as I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it is inevitable that everyone already has their own preference. A lot of it is rooted in us having been round this before. However, if we use this year for good will, all the options will represent a multi-billion-pound, multi-year investment. We know that these options will amount to significant costs. I hope that those monitoring our dialogue today will note that I did like a concept from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I have often thought about the discussion that we have to have with the nation regarding the cost of this work. I like the concept of annualising the expenditure. These are eye-watering sums, but if we annualised them over that period, we could contrast them better with some of the investments that we undertake on behalf of the nation.
I should also say that my understanding is that in the polling that has been undertaken the vast majority of people in this country wish to see this building restored and renewed. One of the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was “courage”. I also agree with “tenacity”, “action” and “decision-making”, but we should have the courage as the responsible people of our generation to make the right decision.
From the outset, I acknowledge the work that has been done. We have noble Lords who, on our behalf, have been in these meetings over the years. They are assembled on the front row: the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Vaux and Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. All have made a profound difference in their analysis of doing things better.
I was very struck by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Mr Barry’s War must be a compulsory read. For anyone who has not read it, this comes alive. People went mad at that time, so let us not get into that territory, but it shows how we should be cautious of parliamentarians in how we embark upon our dialogue on what is a major building work.
A number of points were raised about surveys. I am not aware of any survey being duplicatory but I understand that we now have had 880 locations surveyed to date, including 353 House of Lords internal spaces and 80 House of Lords external spaces. I also thought, particularly with regard to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, about the survey information now being mapped out digitally to create a 3-D digital model. That now replaces thousands of individual drawings and files. That picks up on how we use the changing technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned air quality. Looking at my notes, one of the surveys and the emerging findings include analysis of air quality to understand levels and concentrations of air pollutants for different areas of the Palace to inform future ventilation designs.
I also was struck by some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, raised about, in effect, benchmarking and the London Olympics. In fact, the programme has benchmarked programme costs across other major UK construction projects such as the London Olympics, Manchester Town Hall, the King’s Cross regeneration, Crossrail et cetera. Delivery costs when looked at per square metre are broadly comparable, for instance, to the redevelopment of the Canadian Parliament.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Deech, raised the question of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. It is not my place or in my ability to express an opinion on the Bill itself today, but I can acknowledge that all three R&R delivery options require use of part of Victoria Tower Gardens. The precise use differs slightly over the three options. Parliamentary authorities are in contact with government, given the proximity to the Parliamentary Estate of the Holocaust memorial, on how this can be managed. However, I am very mindful of what many noble Lords have said about the matter.
I turn to the issue of health and safety. Again, this is a very substantial area. I was particularly struck by some of the points made on health and safety and the points on fire raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Clerk of the Parliaments as corporate officer for the House of Lords is responsible for the safety of those within the House. The corporate officer must be assured that the Palace is safe to ensure the obligations and duty of safety to staff and visitors are met. I know that the Clerk takes his responsibilities very seriously and works closely with colleagues across Parliament with the Clerk of the House of Commons, who also has that responsibility to review and monitor health and safety. Their view is that the House is safe. The Clerks issued a joint safety pledge in May last year, and Parliament published a new health and safety strategy in December.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised safety concerns about EMI. Both Houses and corporate officers are committed to ensuring the absolute safety of all, whatever the option. When we come to look at these decisions, with the partiality that I understand we all will have, so far as this year’s work goes, we need to have a thorough, detailed analysis of the three options. For whatever reason they have been decided on, we have to go back in a bit of history, which I do not think is valuable today. The rigour with which these three options will have to be considered by the Houses is obviously supremely important, including things such as accessibility during construction, how that might ever be performed, and how we can be safely accommodated in that option. All those are going to have to be, and will be, considered.
However, the absolute priority in any of the options that require a continuance is the safety of those who work and visit here. That is where the House’s administrations continue to focus on improving the safety culture and processes to ensure that all are safe at all times. Because it is timely, I also want to refer to fire, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a very important feature. Any noble Lord here who has not undertaken the annual fire training should do so; I must say, the figures are not great in many of the groups. It is our responsibility to organise ourselves to undertake that training.
The fire safety improvement works were a major programme that ran from 2012 to 2021. Interestingly, picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the installation of a high-pressure water mist system throughout the basement was part of that. The mist system controls and prevents fire spreading from the basement. Recent upgrades have also improved the life safety aspect. Part of that work has been the compartmentation of the Palace so that we can ensure that we get people out. There is also the installation of a wet riser in the Victoria Tower and a dry riser and sprinklers in the Elizabeth Tower. So the authorities are looking at all aspects of innovation. I will take the point back about the roof and any other areas. As we are undertaking this work, fire safety is of supreme importance. A lot of that work was done prior to R&R, keeping people safe. However, part of R&R is also keeping the building safe, which is where we have continuing challenges.
Accessibility was rightly raised quite strongly in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, outlined some of the situations where we simply must address how we can do things better for people who are part of the parliamentary community and visitors across the Parliamentary Estate. It is very important, not only in the statute but in terms of the work that is going on, to ensure that we have step-free access improved from the current 12% to about 70% across the Palace, with much higher coverage in key and public spaces. This is an area where work is needed both now and in the design of the temporary accommodation because, whatever option is decided on at varying points, temporary accommodation will be needed. I am sending a message to everyone involved in the design and consideration. There have been some one-to-one meetings with Members but, if any noble Lord has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with officials here, I would warmly welcome such a meeting.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, although I am very grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had, my point was that it came after the design process rather than us being talked to beforehand. Accessibility and disability will not be the only specialist areas. People do not know what they do not know. It is not clear. I make again the point about the political nature of some of our work meaning us operating in different ways. Outsiders just do not understand it.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Baroness has outlined where we have been at fault in the past and now. We should be doing far more preliminary consideration before we get to a point where we can start. There have been a number of recent examples where I have expressed my own view, asking: why on earth was this not considered from that accessibility point of view at the very beginning? Rather than saying we have done rather well, we could have done even better. So I understand that and I agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Morse, was very open about costs. Obviously he brings enormous experience to these matters, and how fortunate we are. I was very struck by one of the areas that may, I hope, be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. The National Audit Office examines, certifies and reports on the delivery authority’s annual statement of accounts. The NAO also undertaken two value-for-money audits of the R&R programme, to date feeding into the Public Accounts Committee inquiries. The noble Lord referred to the additional £91 million which has been approved for the delivery authority and the R&R client team. For the sake of completeness, one should also include the £6 million forecast to be spent this financial year by Strategic Estates to develop the EMI option. I thought it was important that there was a complete picture of where we are at with those costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, also spoke about EMI. I reiterate that all the options will be measured against the same criteria. Health and safety, and building fabric conservation—which involves the critical work needed to the basement—are areas where there is a complete understanding that both Houses need this with as much of a comparator as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made an important point. Much of the work of the client team is with the considerable new membership in the other place. This is a major exercise in familiarising Members of Parliament who have come afresh with the challenges of this Palace and how we restore and renew it in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, referred to commercial expertise—I am somewhat looking at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, here, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morse, from before. That is precisely why the four external members of the programme board, with their own experience of major programmes and commercial prowess of making value for money, which is of the top order, are with the parliamentary team. Commercial expertise is much better entrenched now.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised access to and involvement in the QEII design plans. Again, this is an area we need to be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said we should have a new site or whatever. I am nervous of this—I am going off-script as it were—but I know that a lot of work went into considering a range of sites and locations. After many millions of pounds were spent on consideration of alternative and temporary accommodation, the QEII, for a variety of reasons, was considered to be the optimum site for us to remove ourselves to. However, I take the point, and all of what has been said today will be considered.
The noble Earl referred to the QEII Centre. It is obviously important that, with the delivery authority leading on the design work for QEII, we re-engage on any future design—particularly, from my point of view as Chairman of Committees and Senior Deputy Speaker, on having the best technology that we can for our committee rooms, for instance, and ensuring that accessibility is absolutely entrenched in the design. All of these are areas that I personally think we should look at very strongly.
I will conclude, given the time, by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I will look at Hansard because there may be some areas of detail that I can respond to. I have tried to cover some of the guts of what we are all about. All I can say is that this year will be very busy. I hope it will be a productive year because I am prepared to say that, if we do not make the right decision, we will all be responsible.