Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Question

15:17:00

Asked by

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what is the timeframe for making and implementing a decision on decanting the Palace of Westminster to enable its Restoration and Renewal.

My Lords, the expectation is that the R&R client board, which is the commissions of both Houses, will publish costed proposals on three options—full decant, continued presence, and enhanced maintenance and improvement—by the end of the year, to enable both Houses to decide the way forward. Subject to those decisions, any significant decant would not begin in this Parliament, as the programme would commence with procurement, planning applications and enabling works.

My Lords, can the Senior Deputy Speaker confirm that a Joint Committee concluded in 2016 that the Palace of Westminster “faces an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore” and that through the 2019 Act both Houses agreed that the only option was a full decant? The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, christened the basement a “cathedral of horror”. Fires break out all the time, and hazardous asbestos is everywhere. Will the noble Lord confirm that there is a real danger of a Notre Dame-type inferno or something worse unless something is done soon and both Houses of Parliament decant as soon as possible to allow a full restoration and renewal of the whole Palace; and will he confirm that the Joint Committee stated this would be the cheaper option, offering the best value for taxpayers’ money?

My Lords, the Joint Committee at the time stated that full decant was the cheapest option and in 2018 both Houses endorsed this approach. Since then, in 2022, both Houses endorsed a new mandate for the R&R works to explore a wider range of options, as I mentioned. Fire safety is of critical importance, and there has been significant work to the Palace. A major programme of fire safety works was concluded in 2021 which amounted to approximately £130 million of investment. Parliament actively manages the risks of asbestos. This does not negate the imperative of making progress to safeguard this unique building for future generations.

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the cost of delay in taking a decision on getting started is running at £700 million a year, and that we really need to get a definitive decision now? Given that, under any sensible option, the House of Lords will have to decant to the QEII Centre for a period, can the Minister explain where we have got to in making preparations for such a move?

My Lords, the backdrop is that the ongoing maintenance and repair costs are £1.45 million a week; that sets the context. The House has been very clear that the QEII Centre is the preferred decant location across the three options. Work has already been undertaken by the R&R delivery authority to survey, develop, design and assess the QEII Centre. Any future approach will, of course, depend partly on how the use of the QEII Centre varies across the three options. I should also say, with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, beside me, that the freehold of the building is currently owned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the very interesting proposal to build a barge in the Thames right next to the Palace of Westminster? The man behind it came on my yet-to-be-award-winning Times Radio show just the other week to talk about it, and he completely won me over. The QEII Centre is such a boring option; we know that my noble friend Lord Gove was very opposed to it. Could we not consider this rather brilliant barge, which would give a modern, 21st-century feel to the decant rather than a look-back-to-the-1980s feel?

My Lords, that was a very good plug for the noble Lord’s activities. However, let me be serious: a lot of work was undertaken as to the most sensible, practical and cost-effective places to go. I know that a number of options and buildings were looked at, and I know about the river proposal as well, but the QEII Centre always and consistently came out as the preferred location.

My Lords, an awful lot of work by a large number of experts has been carried out over the past few years to learn more about the state of the Palace and to work out options for the best way to restore this building. The knowledge base has moved on considerably since the Act was passed in 2019, and there is more than one way to carry out this project. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree with me in encouraging noble Lords—and, indeed, Members of the other place—not to prejudge the outcome of all that work but to wait until they have been able both to see the proposals and to review the up-to-date evidence before deciding on the best solution to restore the Palace?

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux, Lord Collins and Lord Mackinlay, for being our members on the programme board. I endorse the noble Lord’s words about the work that is being done. All of us should take the opportunity, if we have not already done so, to look at this and to go on a tour of the Palace to see the work that we would need to do. In all the options that the programme board has been working on for the client board to review, we should consider costings, timing, risk and impact; it is important that we all study that report.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Senior Deputy Speaker for those answers. I suspect that there is a consensus in this Chamber that we should be getting on with this, rather than having constant delay, but I understand why there will perhaps be some MPs who are concerned about what will be the huge costs involved even if we go for the cheapest of the options, which is a full decant. Is a case that will demonstrate how that expenditure will benefit the rest of the country being prepared—for example, a procurement policy on where we will purchase various items and where the workforce will come from—and to demonstrate that this is part of delivering growth for the nation, rather than simply some frivolous expenditure on parliamentarians?

My Lords, interestingly, when the public were surveyed in March, 74% of them supported the preserving of the building for future generations. We should have confidence that this building represents across the world a very important feature—democracy—and how that should function and flourish. Clearly, it is important that we work with large companies and SMEs, encourage apprentices and create a range of employment opportunities and careers in what will be one of the most dramatic restoration projects across the world. We should be confident. They are all very good reasons for working with business to ensure that we get the best result for the nation. We should get on with it as soon as possible.

My Lords, I welcome the emphasis on cost-effectiveness and timeliness, and welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of frivolousness. Are there any lessons on restoration and renewal that we can take from the saga of our front door and the fence outside? Why is it that every policeman and custodian that one asks says that the fence which has just been erected is dangerous, as it cuts off sightlines for those who might be wishing harm on this place? How have we spent more on this front door and this fence than on the Grenfell Tower disaster?

My Lords, they are both very serious matters which go back to the independent report on security and the need to enhance the security of the West Front following the death of PC Palmer. The backdrop is a security imperative. I will say next Wednesday that what has happened to our front door is entirely unacceptable. This has not been a project that anyone should be proud of, but we need to enhance our security, for reasons that many of us regret but which are necessary in the world in which we live. It is important that we learn lessons from what other Parliaments are doing. That is why we are in dialogue with the Austrians, the Dutch and the Canadians, where they have had experience of renovation of Parliaments, and, in our own country, with Buckingham Palace and Manchester Town Hall.

My Lords, what assessment has been made of the required skills and crafts training associated with the refurbishment and renewal of the Palace of Westminster? What steps are being taken to ensure that the project supports a long-term legacy for traditional heritage crafts, apprenticeships—which the noble Lord mentioned—and sustainable construction?

My Lords, that is very important. The delivery authority is aware of the need to target the recruitment of apprentices, particularly into roles where there are known skills shortages. The delivery authority is currently exploring and implementing a shared apprenticeship scheme across heritage client organisations. This project and this great enterprise will enable us to involve a lot of experience which we desperately need in terms of masonry, joinery, glazing, and all sorts of heritage skills which were in short supply. Restoring this Palace will be a great opportunity for that.