Restoration and Renewal

The hon. Member agreed with the need for value for money, emphasising the public's expectations during a period of significant economic expenditure due to the pandemic.

Reiterated the importance of thorough planning and avoiding overspending based on initial estimates. He referred to the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment as an example, cautioning against rushing into decisions without detailed costing.

Agreed with adapting to current circumstances while honouring the past and preserving democracy. He suggested being flexible with alternative proposals and accepting some inconvenience for future generations.

Asked if the Government policy is to save the Palace as permanently housing Parliament, clarifying his concern about alternative locations.

Made a brief remark praising Jacob Rees-Mogg for his historical knowledge.

Discussed the history of R&R, emphasising that it was first established in 2013 by both Houses. She criticised the timing of the debate and highlighted that only two Cabinet members voted for a full decant while others opposed or abstained. Vaz also mentioned oversight by parliamentary committees and the role of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority.

Asked if Richmond House, a listed building, would be demolished for a full decant, proposing an alternative in the courtyard of Richmond House as scoped by SAVE heritage organisation.

Suggested that the Sponsor Body should provide various costed options for Parliament to consider and vote on in 2022, from full decant to no decant at all.

The works to Parliament remain critical, but changes since the initial plan necessitate a review for taxpayer value. The current patch-and-mend approach is failing; £369 million was spent on repairs in three years with a backlog of £1 billion. The project's pivotal questions include balance between restoration and renewal, pace of work, and layout during decant periods.

Concerned about the increasing backlog due to delays in completing necessary works such as on the cloisters. The risk is that further delay will result in a larger repair backlog.

Questions whether opening up new options for decant locations will simply delay work, leading to higher costs. Emphasises the importance of narrowing down realistic options quickly.

The Scottish National party criticises the restoration and renewal project, arguing that it is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds during a global pandemic. It highlights the high cost and lack of transparency, suggesting the £4 billion price tag could rise to £6 billion. The SNP also emphasises safety issues with asbestos and falling masonry, advocating for prioritising public spending on urgent needs over such costly projects.

Defends the restoration project by pointing out that Westminster has a legal duty to maintain its status as a UNESCO world heritage site, challenging the SNP's argument based on law and heritage preservation.

The Minister outlines the necessity of the restoration project due to safety concerns, highlighting issues such as fire risks, asbestos, pipe failures, and falling masonry. She argues that moving out is not an option and stresses the importance of maintaining the Palace for future generations and the contingency plan.

Notes that virtual working during the pandemic has shown Parliament's ability to function in alternative ways, questioning the immediate need for a physical relocation or restoration project.

Mr Tami discussed his involvement with the Sponsor Body and the Joint Committee's recommendation for a full decant to Richmond House. He expressed concerns over the proposed demolition of Richmond House, suggesting that the review may lead to reduced intervention. Mr Tami also warned against undermining R&R and proposed staying in the Palace indefinitely, arguing this would make Parliament unsafe and unsuitable for work.

Mr Grayling briefly followed up on Mark Tami’s speech, mentioning a reunion of members who served on the Joint Committee. His full position was not detailed in this snippet.

Stresses the urgent need for renovation due to asbestos and fire risks, citing past near-closures and fires. Argues that temporary relocation options like Horse Guards are impractical for security reasons. Recommends Richmond House as a viable interim solution, proposing modifications to reduce costs and time. Criticises delays, emphasising the increasing risk of damage or loss with each passing year.

I am happy to speak in this debate despite limited parliamentary time for more pressing issues. I welcome the strategic review and emphasise the importance of long-term decision-making, affordability, and preservation of historical significance. We must address urgent risks such as fire hazards, asbestos, environmental efficiency, accessibility, and maintenance of a UNESCO world heritage site. Long-term planned refurbishment is necessary to avoid inefficiency and costly disruptions.

We must not delay the restoration project any further; we are trustees for future generations, preserving our democracy and a world heritage site. The Sponsor Body should have full freedom to assess all options with an indicative cost by September 2021, without fettering choices prematurely. A longer consultation period is needed before stakeholders can make informed decisions. I advocate for either a full decant or a phased approach where the House of Commons moves temporarily while restoration takes place on the Lord's side.

Disagrees with Chris Bryant, stating that there was no proposal to demolish Richmond House when he was on the Joint Committee.

Agrees with Chris Bryant's argument against partial decanting plans due to increased security risks and logistical challenges.

Suggests a partial decant as a viable option, particularly in light of changes brought about by the covid pandemic. However, acknowledges that this was his second preference and agrees with the practical concerns raised.

Emphasises the need for realism in the project, highlights issues with cost overruns and management inefficiencies, suggests incremental modularisation as a viable approach, discusses capacity building of Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, raises concerns about risks associated with large-scale projects, questions whether there should be a major statement about national democracy.

Welcomes the strategic review by the Sponsor Body and is open to ideas such as full decanting of Parliament, argues that public investment should not be concentrated in one corner of Britain due to recent economic challenges, highlights the need for cost-effective solutions given the financial strain on the country, suggests a full decant might be necessary, considers options beyond temporary relocation to York.

Mr Leigh argues that the current plans for Parliamentary Estate renovation are flawed, leading to unnecessary delays and costs. He suggests that there are greener, cheaper, faster alternatives available, such as preserving Richmond House and utilising existing courtyards for a temporary Chamber. Mr Leigh emphasises that continuing work in the Palace of Westminster is possible without compromising safety or democratic function.

Mr Tami clarifies that the initial miscalculations regarding Richmond House's size were not due to incorrect measurements but rather differences between planned structures and built realities. This indicates potential issues in project management.

The project is necessary due to the fire risk, health and safety issues, and UNESCO heritage obligations. There is a need for integration across multiple projects including rail systems, wood carvings, and mechanical work. The Sponsor Body should be established well to ensure accountability and value for money. Delaying the decision further will only increase costs and risks, potentially leading to a loss of this iconic site. Meg Hillier emphasises the importance of health and safety for staff and visitors, questioning who would be responsible in case of an incident.

Supports the idea that an exact replica of the Chamber is not necessary. Mentions the garden bridge as an example of a project that was hastily proposed to divert attention from more pressing issues.

Mr. Simmonds highlighted the importance of governance clarity in major capital projects, referencing previous issues with Building Schools for the Future and the Priority School Building programme. He emphasised the need to focus on practical productivity rather than grand statements about national confidence when investing in public institutions like Parliament. He also raised concerns over a lack of long-term property strategy for Parliament beyond the immediate preservation needs.

Mr. Bryant responded to Mr. Simmonds, pointing out that there is more awareness within the House regarding personnel issues due to Government pay scales constraints. He mentioned that setting up an arms-length body allowed for better expertise recruitment without constantly reinventing solutions.

Mr. Simmonds acknowledged Mr. Bryant's intervention, suggesting a need for clearer exposition on long-term property strategies for Parliament. He emphasised the importance of timely decision-making in major projects to prevent delays and inefficiencies, citing past examples like the Building Schools for the Future programme. He concluded by stressing that swift decisions are crucial to maintain productivity and efficiency within democratic institutions.

Shannon emphasises the symbolic importance of restoring the Palace of Westminster, highlighting its historical significance and the need for a balanced approach to funding. He argues that while money is important, it should not be wasted, and urges to support UK firms during the restoration work.

Hayes discusses the complexities of restoring the Palace of Westminster, emphasising the importance of considering both historical reverence and practical governance. He raises concerns about potential cost overruns and inefficiencies in project management, advocating for a more modest and realistic approach to restoration.

Supports restoration and renewal but criticises high costs, advocates for a rolling programme of work rather than full decanting to save money.

Stresses the importance of the Palace of Westminster's historical value and calls for cost-effective solutions, robust project management, and a clear goal of returning to the building after renovation.

Supports the idea that MPs should lead by example in adopting work-from-home practices, suggesting Dudley as an alternative site due to its zoo and castle potential.

Emphasises the historical significance of Westminster and the need for a rolling programme of work alongside usual House business. Stresses the importance of value for money, safety, energy efficiency, and preserving the building's atmosphere for future generations.

Highlights the historical lessons contained within Westminster and advocates for learning from past mistakes to ensure better decisions in restoration efforts.

Acknowledges the risks of fire incidents in recent years, welcomes the Government's commitment to protecting the UNESCO site, and emphasises the importance of providing opportunities for skilled workers and apprentices during the restoration project.

The building reinforces our reverence for democracy and the sense of awe. The Palace symbolises Britain in a powerful way, much like iconic buildings do for other nations. Leaving should be approached cautiously if necessary and ideally only temporarily and cheaply.

This building is crucial to our national identity; it needs protection from harm similar to Notre-Dame's fire. While costs will arise, they are an investment in British industry and economy. Moving out should not be the solution.

The building is a symbol of democracy and history; it must remain open to ensure democratic scrutiny continues, especially post-covid. The staff who work here are dedicated custodians of this heritage.

This project is not just about the building but preserving a global symbol of democracy. After 20 years, we need action now to avoid disaster as seen with Notre-Dame. We must act prudently and ensure quality work from UK craftspeople.

The Sponsor Body will consider costs carefully while working towards a valuable outcome for Parliament's future. The review board should be fed with views, even if not expert opinions. Decanting may still happen but it might be temporary.

We must listen to fresh thinking from new MPs and ensure value for money in this project, even if it means taking some inconvenience. Proud of the building as a symbol of democracy.