Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022

In 2018, both Houses agreed that major works to the Palace of Westminster would be essential in order to ensure that this historic and iconic building remains for generations to come. It was decided that the project should be undertaken by a delivery authority and overseen by a sponsor body. The Parliamentary Building Works (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 set out the governance arrangements for the project by creating these bodies and conferring particular functions on them. However, earlier this year, the two House commissions recommended a new approach to the programme whereby a new two-tier in-house governance structure would be established.

These regulations, which are made under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, will abolish the sponsor body, which will be replaced with an in-house governance structure. The statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body will transfer to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—in other words, the clerks of each House.

The Leader of the House of Commons and I have consulted the corporate officers and the commissions of both Houses, in accordance with Section 10(8)(a) of the Act, and both corporate officers have consented to the transfers to them effected by this instrument, in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act. Ultimately, both corporate officers will have joint responsibility for the parliamentary building works and will, at least once a year, prepare and lay a report before Parliament about the carrying out of the parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.

I am aware that Peers have previously raised concerns that without the sponsor body in place, the project may not have sufficient expertise. First, the Houses will not lose the expertise gained by the sponsor body, and the team of staff with that expertise will be brought in-house, as a joint department, and be accountable to the corporate officers. I also emphasise that the delivery authority will not be affected by the regulations; its role is unchanged, although it will now be closer to the Houses. This ensures that the programme retains its valuable experience and expertise. These regulations will allow for greater co-ordination and engagement between the Houses and the delivery authority, which could in turn allow for the delivery of restoration works much sooner. Similarly, the regulations will not alter the role of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission; it will remain in place and will scrutinise the delivery authority’s estimates.

This statutory instrument is vital to ensuring that this historic building is restored, while making sure that we deliver for the British taxpayer. Our commitment to ensuring good value for money is reflected in Section 2(5) of the restoration and renewal Act, and it is an approach that I will prioritise.

I would like to reassure colleagues that the House’s important role in this project is not diminished by the regulations. Under Section 7 of the 2019 Act, no restoration works, other than preparatory works, can be carried out until Parliament has approved the delivery authority proposals for those works. In addition, further approval is required for any proposals that would significantly affect the design, timing or duration of the parliamentary building works. Bringing this project in-house is an opportunity, as an in-house governance structure should improve accountability and engagement with Parliament by allowing a close interaction with and accountability to the commissions of the two Houses. I beg to move.

However, this leads to a second conclusion. There has never been clarity on the budget, timescale or scope of the R&R exercise. That clarity is now needed if our successors are to avoid endless delays and a waste of public funds, with the delivery authority instructed to undertake unnecessary work. If there are maximum or minimum levels, for example of accessibility in the Palace or of its energy efficiency and sustainability, these need to be stipulated. If Parliament is never going to accept a total cost for the whole project of more than X pounds or a decant period of more than Y years, that needs to be crystal clear up front and as soon as possible.

Thirdly, and finally, the outgoing board accepts with the wisdom of hindsight that we should have recognised that the sudden changes to the country’s fortunes meant a course correction was inevitable. It is obvious in retrospect that when the Covid pandemic struck, followed by turmoil in the economy, a retreat from the measures envisaged by the 2019 Act was going to be called for. Our successors and our colleagues in the delivery authority need to be ready for changes of direction and be prepared for fresh thinking as external circumstances alter.

At the end of this frustrating experience, I remain of the view that, although it will cost a fortune and will need everyone to move out of the building for a prolonged period sooner or later, none the less, the restoration and renewal of Parliament is an incredibly worthwhile initiative. Research shows that the wider public hope for and expect a full refurbishment of this much-loved building. Investment in this great endeavour will support skills, crafts and businesses throughout the UK. A proper R&R programme would not only render the building safe from fire, asbestos, the breakdown of services, falling masonry and the rest but actually save money, and possibly save lives, over the years ahead.

However, I recognise the constraints for elected Members of Parliament. I do not face constituents who may well say, “While we’re struggling through a cost of living crisis, Parliament is spending billions on its own comfort”. Also, the dark cloud of moving out for several years to a less amenable base elsewhere colours everybody’s judgment. Nevertheless, although the process may have lost two or three years, I hope that our successors will have the courage and determination to see it through.

What has been achieved will provide a solid basis for the next stages. Most of the excellent staff in the sponsor body and the development authority will carry on, and their work to date, despite operating throughout the Covid pandemic and through times of political and economic turmoil, has produced a vast quantity of data and physical survey work that will now make possible a clear plan. This plan may mean a succession of more modest mini-programmes stretching into the indefinite future, rather than the single major programme that we pursued, but, if the big issue of the basement renewal can be sorted, all is not lost.

In concluding our work today, we all wish our successors well. We hope that, despite the failure of the 2019 Act, progress will now be made in restoring this internationally recognised and iconic Palace for which the nation is right to feel huge pride and affection.

There is huge opposition to the creation of a new front door to this House. The cost was £2.5 million and it is now £3 million—for a front door. One worries about value for money. The argument put forward is security but, at the end of the day, it is up to Members to discuss these ideas instead of them being imposed on us. We are told that the changes to Carriage Gates and their effect on us are going to happen, that we have no say in the matter and that considerable sums are being spent.

I want to ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal a number of questions. First, how much have we already spent on deciding what to do? I understand it runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. Secondly, why is it going to be any different and where is the accountability? The only thing I can see in these regulations is that there is going to be an annual report:

“At least once in every calendar year, the Corporate Officers must prepare and lay before Parliament a report about the carrying out of the Parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.”

There is nothing about the expense, estimates or accountability. I find it difficult to accept the idea that an annual report will provide accountability to Members of this House or the other place.

In short, I look at these regulations and it seems to me that nothing is actually going to change and that the fundamental, systemic, strategic problem remains. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said he thought that we might end up doing a series of small projects, perhaps concentrating on the problems in the basement, if indeed that is practical. I may be a Peer, but I do not have a stately home. However, if I imagine for a moment that I have a huge stately home on the scale of this place and I have to be involved in restoration and renewal, if a bunch of consultants came to me and said, “The cheapest way to do this is for you to move out and for the whole thing to be done in one go”, if I were spending my own money I would almost certainly say, “Not on your life.” I would say, “Why don’t we do it a bit at a time over the next 30 years, because that way I might be able to afford it?” To try to do everything in one go is unaffordable. Of course it is always possible to argue that the costs will be less if you do it all in one go, although the experience of building this place in the 1850s was that it did not quite work out that like.

I say to my noble friend that I worry about these regulations. I understand what they do, but I am not sure that they will deliver for the taxpayer what the taxpayer might expect or what the Members of this place might expect in carrying out their duties.

This is important, because Parliament’s in-house record of managing very large- scale projects on time and on budget is dismal. Every very large project, from Westminster Hall to the Elizabeth Tower, has run vastly over budget and miles behind the original timescale. Unless there is very careful oversight, there is no reason to believe that the limited restoration and renewal now on offer will not suffer the same fate.

We have to ask whether the commissions as client of the programme board will really devote the necessary time and be sufficiently independent to scrutinise this project. Of course, the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons will do its best to keep an eye on progress, but it already has an incredible workload. The National Audit Office will likewise continue to conduct its in-depth analysis of whether what has been spent provides value for money for the taxpayer, but both bodies have the whole gamut of public spending to look at, and their accountability mechanisms rely entirely on very busy Members of the Commons. Meanwhile, they both act retrospectively, blowing the whistle after vast sums of money have been spent rather than identifying problems coming down the track and raising the alarm.

I wish the commissions, the programme board and the delivery authority well, but I have very serious reservations about whether today’s SI really leads us to a better, more robust and more accountable means to achieve restoration and renewal. Regrettably, I fear that we are setting up overlapping echo chambers that, despite the best of intentions, will result in less transparency, less accountability and ultimately less chance of delivering a successful project. I very much hope that events will prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

The Clerk of the Parliaments has heard me say many times that I want to ensure that he can measure his activity against the clear policies we set. The arguments against decanting are about the big costs and that, in decanting, we are being too extravagant. Actually, one can make the case that decanting could save money. The QEII Centre was built some time ago and its own mechanics and electrics are in desperate need of renewal. That has been postponed, because we may move in and help it to do the work, so the process that we immediately think could cost a lot of money could save the public and the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. The issue is how we define those objectives and look at what we are doing as a whole.

One other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said was absolutely right. When we look at R&R, we must integrate properly what we are doing now in restoring this building. When I was on the Finance Committee, I thought, “Do we delay that to fit it in with R&R? Do we move forward on it? Is it taken into account in R&R?” All these issues have not been properly addressed.

We all have a responsibility—in particular, for the new governance structure, which I support. I should declare an interest, because I am going to be a member of the programme board; hopefully, I will be able to keep expressing the opinions I am expressing today. I will not be saying, “Tell me to make this decision”. I will be saying, “I want you to make the decision, but based on the clear policy objectives set by both the programme board and the two commissions”. That is what I hope to see but I am not fixed, by the way. If someone can persuade me that not decanting fully could work, I will go with it, but I like the idea that setting clear objectives, budgeting properly for them and having proper buy-in is a better way of doing this.

I support the regulations. We have made the decision anyway; we have already had a debate. I think that we will make this project more transparent with more accountability. I support that.