Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That this House:

reaffirms its commitment to preserving the Palace of Westminster for future generations and ensuring the safety of all those who work in and visit the Palace, now and in the future;

notwithstanding the Resolution of 31 January 2018, welcomes the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions proposing a new mandate for the Restoration and Renewal works and a new governance structure to support them;

accordingly endorses the recommendations set out in the Commissions’ report; and

in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

May I say at the outset what an honour it is to stand here, in this historic and iconic Chamber, which is recognised around the world. We are truly privileged to represent our constituents here. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that it is here for future generations, and a responsibility for its upkeep and preservation. We take those responsibilities very seriously. So today, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I am asking the House to endorse the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions—which was unanimously agreed on a cross-party basis—recommending a revised mandate for the Restoration and Renewal programme, and to approve the motion before the House.

The building needs to be repaired; that is not in question. The Commissions are united in recognising that, and we reaffirm our commitment to protecting this historic palace for future generations. The Commissions have worked constructively and across party lines to address Parliament’s shared challenge, and I therefore welcome the signature of the spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), on the motion.

In that context, the amendment proposed by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), is somewhat disappointing, and contrary to the spirit in which work has proceeded so far. I think that the hon. Lady and I have a constructive working relationship, and I hope that we can get back on an even keel and find a way through this. We certainly agree that the need for the work is urgent, that delay in starting it will increase the costs and risks, and that it should be started as soon as possible to—in the words of the Joint Commission—

“ensure the maximum value for money”.

There is definitely no blank cheque available from the taxpayer.

The hon. Lady’s amendment does not really add anything to the report of the Joint Commission; rather, it is at odds with the consensual and productive cross-party approach taken by the Joint Commissions of both Houses. Rebuilding the Palace of Westminster is a huge task and it will require all parliamentarians to take difficult decisions and both Houses to be in agreement. If we are divided or deliberately partisan, our tasks will become near impossible. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect and withdraw her amendment, but I look forward to hearing her words when she gets to her feet. I hope we can work constructively together in the near future to deliver the project.

Nevertheless, the question will no doubt arise: why are we here again? Surely the debates of 2019 finished the issue and we should not be back revisiting it. In fact, we are at a crossroads where decisions are required in a radically different context. In 2018, decisions on the structure of the programme were made at a time when estimates were in the region of £3.5 billion, with a programme to decant for approximately six years. This was the context in which the two Houses agreed the current approach. But in early 2022, the Sponsor Body published its essential schemes options. It estimated the cost to be between £7 billion and £13 billion and that the work would take between 19 and 28 years and require a full decant of the Palace of Westminster for between 12 and 20 years. Those are certainly very different from the figures with which we were presented in the past. The Sponsor Body also concluded that work would probably not begin until 2027 at the very earliest.

This is a very different proposition. A gap has emerged between what is realistic, practical and can be justified to taxpayers, and what is being proposed by the Sponsor Body. These estimates make it difficult to proceed down this path only two years after the pandemic and facing a challenging fiscal context. In 2019 it was thought that an independent body was best placed to act on behalf of Parliament and guide this project, but we must now recognise the flaws in that model. As the independent panel says, the governance structure envisaged in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 was based on certainty: a project flows through a standard business case cycle with clear progress, “unimpeded by the Client”. But Parliament presents a particularly complex environment, and this is a programme spanning multiple Parliaments, so the governance structure must, in the words of the panel, be able to

“anticipate and adapt to changing demands”.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very critical of what the Commissions have done in this regard because I have a terrible fear that if we just keep on changing the governance structure time after time, we will never move forward until there is some catastrophe in the building. That is precisely what happened in the 19th century, and it looks as if we are going to do it all over again, with politicians meddling in something that should be done for generations. Can he confirm, however, that his motion today will not be contradictory to a full decant of both Houses across eight years, which I know is his personal preference?

[Mark Spencer]

I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a great interest in this project. It is important to be clear with the House today that taking the Sponsor Body back in-house and back under the control of the House does not rule out any option. It does not rule out the option of a decant of 20 years. What I am saying to the House is that I do not think that that is a deliverable option. We need to look at some more practical measures, and I will come to that later in my speech. It is difficult to comprehend how we can deliver a project of this magnitude without some form of decant, but I am not an expert and, as the hon. Gentleman says, lots of Members are not experts in this field, so we need the delivery authority, which will have that expertise, to guide us and to come to those decisions very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

They are currently planned to TUPE across, and they will be taken across. Some of them have already left, but it is important to understand that the real expertise is within the Delivery Authority. We have secured the use of those individuals and they are busy on other projects within the House.

There is a need, highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s report—one that the Commissions absolutely recognise and have sought to address in their report—for the programme to enable long-term decision making. The Commissions’ report recommends that an end-state vision should be developed. Having a clear end goal in sight allows granular decisions to follow, and Parliament will have to accept compromises and take some difficult decisions in setting that long-term direction. But we cannot anticipate all the needs or events of the future. Opportunities for periodic review allow the programme to adapt to changing fiscal, societal and political contexts. Neither can we override parliamentary sovereignty. It is just realistic to recognise that there must be opportunities for future Parliaments to review decisions.

The House is further being asked to endorse a revised approach to the works, one that puts safety first. Parliament must be guided by rigorous value-for-money considerations. In these economic times, financial responsibility must be our watchword. As I said earlier, there is no blank cheque from the taxpayer.

[Chris Bryant]

May I try again?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House keeps talking about how every Parliament has to be able to reform and change the system, but that is just like procurement in the Ministry of Defence; we just keep changing the specification of the tank and it gets more and more expensive, because we never move forward. That is the real danger that a lot of us are worrying about, which is why we wanted to have an arm’s-length organisation. The membership of the Commissions does not even stay the same. I am guessing it might change when he is no longer Leader of the House, perhaps on 6 September. All these changes just make it impossible for us to drive forward a project in a cost-effective and non-risky way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We went through all this seven years ago. It is hugely frustrating to me that we are here seven years later still working out what to do about it. I thought that we would have done something by the time we got to 2022.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rhondda will remember me pushing hard to get the northern estate project started so that we could move on and decant quickly. At least the northern estate, or some parts of it, is being done, and we have taken over Richmond House, as we planned at the time, but here we are seven years later still discussing how we are going to do this. It is not about discussing how we are going to do it starting in about a year’s time. I cannot see how we quickly get to a point where the works are actually starting. With every week that goes by, there is the risk that we as Members of Parliament wake up in the morning and discover that we have relocated to Church House indefinitely. We have to accept that.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not one of the difficulties that all the alternative places that we would have to go to in an emergency are not safe? Church House is not safe from any kind of bomb attack, and there is no other venue that we could go to. I think the Government have just sold the one other place that we might have gone to. There is nowhere. So this is not only a risk to us and the building; it is also a risk to our democracy.

[Chris Grayling]

We have been around the houses on this. We had all the proposals, whether it was “Let’s build some great gin palace on Horse Guards”, “Let’s have some great building taking up the whole width of the River Thames”, or, “Let’s move out of London”, but the logistics of this place mean that Parliament and Government have to be close to each other. In order that Ministers can go to and fro between their Departments and the Front Bench, in order to have interactions between both Houses of Parliament, and in order to have basic levels of security—given the horrendous events that have taken place in recent times, we absolutely have to make that a priority—the reality is that Parliament will not move off the secure estate. It is why we recommended taking over Richmond House, because it was the one place that gives us extra capacity within a secure environment.

The reason I have put my name to this amendment tonight and the reason I am minded to push it to a Division, unless I can achieve an extra bit of assurance from the Leader of the House—I hope he will be able to say a couple of words at the end—is that we have been around the houses on this issue, and we have talked about all the different options. We have explored the issues and challenges, and the Leader of the House is absolutely right that we do not have the expertise in-house. We need the expert advisers. I respect the fact that he will bring in further expert advice to help him, but, at the end of the day, there are only a certain number of ways in which we can do this.

On the Joint Committee, we agreed that doing this bit by bit over a 30-year period does not work, because that would leave too much risk for too long. We explored whether we could do half the building and then the other half, but the problem is that the services are all common to both Houses. There is not a shutter that can be brought down between the Commons and the Lords—the sewerage and plumbing systems work for both, and the risers full of asbestos serve both. There is no simple option that allows us to move into the Lords Chamber while this is done, and so forth. We came to the clear conclusion that a decant was the only realistic option.

Many Members have expressed concerns that if we move out, we will never move back. I do not think we can just move out with an endless timeframe. There has to be a clear mandate for the people who will do the work, and that is the purpose of the amendment. It states that we think the only viable option—I have discussed the fact that we spent a year debating it—is a decant that lasts a maximum of eight years, because no Parliament will accept being asked to write a blank cheque. This is where I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The idea that we could do a 20-year decant is crazy. We cannot do that.

We need to give a clear brief to the Delivery Authority and all those working on the project that we are prepared to countenance a decant that takes us through much of one Parliament and much of the next, but we do not think that any generation of Members of Parliament should be deprived of the opportunity to spend at least a part of their time here participating in debate in this Chamber. Realistically, an eight-year timeframe is the most that is possibly sellable to Members of Parliament. It is, in my view, the only deliverable option. It will cost money, and there is nothing we can do about that, because this is a world heritage site. It is a duty that we just have to perform. If we do not give a clear brief to those who will be deciding the way forward and making recommendations, we will frankly be kicking the can down the road yet again.

I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurance that at the end of this debate, and as this approach goes forward, he will give a clear mandate that we will see what it will cost and what it will take for us to be decanted from here for eight years and then return. If he can assure me that that will be part of the brief and we will all be able to see the outcome, I will be happy not to press the amendment to a Division. However, we spent a year coming to this conclusion, so I am not happy to cast it aside, and I do not think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is either.

We have done an awful lot of work, and we are all deeply frustrated that we have got to this point seven years later. We cannot possibly defend that, and I describe this amendment as the “Bloody hell, get on with it” amendment. We worked out that the decant was the only way forward. When the plans are laid before this House next year, we want to see the eight-year decant and what it entails on the table for Members to consider. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is happy to give me that assurance, I am happy not to press the amendment, but I am adamant that we must have that on the table.

This is a historic responsibility for us all. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right that we cannot be the Parliament that swept this under the carpet; we have got to get on with it. It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we are where we are, but we should never have got into this position in the first place. I ask him and all on the Commissions to ensure that we really get on with it at pace. If we do not, one day we will find that we are no longer sitting in this Chamber, but stuck in Church House, thinking, “What on earth are we going to do now?” That would be letting down our democracy and letting down our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That was an interesting speech, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) carried the rest of the House. This is the iconic centre of the United Kingdom, and it is not surprising that the SNP wants to make it into a museum.

I commend the Leader of the House for the moderate, sensible, open-minded way in which he opened the debate. I suspect that very few people would disagree with anything he said, and most of what the shadow Leader of the House the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said was sensible, too. We all agree that we have to just get on with it. There have been too many delays, and—let us be realistic—they will probably still be working around us in 50, 60 or 100 years’ time. That is the way of these old buildings.

I hope we will move on from this endless debate about whether or not we have a decant. I rather resent the fact that those of us who have been arguing the case against a very lengthy decant are accused by others of just wanting to live in a comfortable place. I serve on the Sponsor Body with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). If we had proceeded with its plans, which would have entailed a decant of up to 20 years, that decant would not have started before 2031. I can assure the House that by 2031, I will certainly be retired and quite possibly dead, so it is nothing to do with me. What the Sponsor Body finally came up with might have been a fair evaluation of what it would cost to do a full singing-and-dancing renovation and change of everything, but it was totally unrealistic, and the Commission had to step in.

There will be ways of working creatively around us. I accept that it may well be necessary to have a decant, but we have no idea how long that decant will last. If we get rid of the Daily Mail September sittings and stop sweating the building through the entire summer recess, there may come a point where we will break in July and not come back until the following January, or it may take longer—we have no idea. However, I say with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that we should not, I am afraid, accept an amendment that just lays down a set time. We have to look at the evidence. The new Commission will do its work, and will do whatever is necessary.

There has been so much delay, and I think it is very unfair of the hon. Member for Bristol West who leads for the Opposition to blame the Government and the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for that fact. The reason why we have had so much delay is that the Sponsor Body has come up with wildly expensive proposals, the first of which was the demolition of Richmond House. That would have been financially wasteful, with millions of pounds spent on a white elephant permanent replica Chamber; it would have been architecturally destructive, making a mockery of heritage laws; and it could have cost up to £1 billion. That proposal caused an enormous amount of delay, and I think there is a general consensus that it was right for us to do away with it. It has been delay, delay, delay.

The plans for the Palace were not much better. The Sponsor Body was planning on removing 14 lift shafts, and wanted office space for MPs cut by as much as one fifth. The programme was in danger of becoming a vast feeding frenzy for contractors and consultants at the taxpayer’s expense. A lot of those ideas were simply unrealisable, so the plans for the R&R programme that have been put forward have failed. As the Leader of the House said, we need to look at working models that have been successful, such as that used for Elizabeth Tower, which has been beautifully restored—of course, that project went over time and over budget because too little preparatory work was done, but the result is magnificent. The cast-iron roofing that the Leader of the House talked about has been an immense success. It is the largest cast-iron roof in Europe. Each piece has been taken apart, restored or replaced, and put back with meticulous skill, so I do not think it is fair to criticise the estates programme.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the problems is that lots of people advocate for having lots more of those individual projects. Something like 32 or 33 projects are going on at the moment, and one of the difficulties with the estate is that it is very tight for space, with nearly every available inch already covered in a portakabin or some kind of contractor’s arrangements. We cannot do many more projects at the same time as the current ones, and the cast-iron roofs would have been done quite a bit quicker if the previous Speaker had not insisted that work stopped whenever he was in his house. That is what is going to happen if we keep on trying to do all the work around the building while we are still in it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point and we just have to learn to compromise. He mentions Mr Speaker. We should congratulate Mr Speaker on his own creative thinking. The Speaker’s house needed urgent repairs, which meant he had to be accommodated elsewhere. The R&R programme drew up plans costing £20 million, to tear up a Georgian townhouse on the estate and put a lift shaft through it. Mr Speaker and the previous Leader of the House grasped the nettle, visited the site itself, and decided it just needed a lick of paint and some basic work. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who is sitting in his place, reported that it cost just 5% of the planned £20 million to get all three empty houses back into use. That is exactly the kind of mentality we need. It requires good decision making, an eye for savings, and cutting out unnecessary embellishments.

Serving on the sponsor body has been informative. The sponsor body’s job is to oversee and scrutinise the delivery authority, but I personally believe that the information provided to the sponsor body has often been mired in the worst kind of management speak. Operations are often totally opaque and lacking in clarity. I believe that our ability to thoroughly scrutinise work has not been fully facilitated. Every time it came across a problem, it reached for the most invasive and most expensive solution. I believe that in the end it was going to provide very bad value for money. Every time we proposed alternatives, ridiculous claims about costing and timescale were thrown back. Inadequate figures were given to us. There was a lack of awareness of MPs’ work. For example, it was suggested that MPs’ staff move to shared open-plan offices. Parliamentary politics requires privacy and discretion, and dealing with constituents’ cases even more so. Often, we deal with very sensitive information. We do not work like other entities and we have to accept that Parliament is a unique place.

In conclusion, I believe that what the Leader of the House is proposing today is a sensible compromise. We are not ruling anything in or anything out. We are going to get on with it. We love this building. We are not going to put ourselves first and we are going to do the absolutely essential work to restore this Barry and Pugin masterpiece. We are not going to make it carbon neutral and fill in atriums and all the courtyards. All that sort of expensive stuff is for the birds. We are going to make this building safe and fireproof, and we will do it, hopefully, with good preparatory work, within time and within budget.