Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster Evidence Volume

Home , Clarence House, Jonathan Djanogly, Kensington Palace, Millbank Tower, New Palace Yard, Old Palace Yard

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER WRITTEN AND ORAL EVIDENCE

Contents Kolly Ajao - Written evidence (RAR0060) ...... 5 All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology - Written evidence (RAR0046) ...... 7 Jacqueline Baker - Written evidence (RAR0050) ...... 9 Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055) ...... 10 Alex Bird - Written evidence (RAR0010) ...... 16 Simon Blackburn - Written evidence (RAR0045) ...... 18 Lord Bowness CBE DL - Written evidence (RAR0048) ...... 22 Steve Brine MP - Written evidence (RAR0013) ...... 23 British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union - Written evidence (RAR0028) ...... 24 The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37) ...... 25 Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) ...... 33 Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0063) ...... 52 Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Supplementary written evidence (RAR0066) ...... 55 Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031) ...... 57 Cara Clark and Mark Wyman - Written evidence (RAR0040) ...... 62 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034) ...... 64 Compass Group UK & Ireland – Written Evidence (RAR0067) ...... 69 Philip Connolly - Written evidence (RAR0047)...... 71

The Rt Hon Lord Cope of Berkeley - Written evidence (RAR0009) ...... 72 Simon Cramp - Written evidence (RAR0062) ...... 75 Baroness Deech DBE - Written evidence (RAR0011) ...... 77 Jonathan Djanogly MP - Written evidence (RAR0001) ...... 78 Caroline Emery - Written evidence (RAR0004) ...... 79 Harry Fenton - Written evidence (RAR0058) ...... 80 Professor Matthew Flinders & Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006) 81 Oonagh Gay OBE - Written evidence (RAR0020) ...... 83 James Heappey MP - Written evidence (RAR0068)...... 85 Sir Michael Hopkins - Written evidence (RAR0037) ...... 86 Institution of Civil Engineers, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) ...... 87 Institution of Civil Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0042) ...... 88 Conor Jackson - Written evidence (RAR0026) ...... 92 The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049)...... 93 Graham Lang - Written evidence (RAR0015) ...... 98 Lord Leigh of Hurley - Written evidence (RAR0043) ...... 99 Lord Lucas - Written evidence (RAR0005) ...... 100 Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061) ...... 101 The Earl of Lytton - Written evidence (RAR0008) ...... 115 Andrew Makower - Written evidence (RAR0014) ...... 117 Master Carvers’ Association - Written evidence (RAR0017) ...... 119 Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter & Professor Matthew Flinders, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006) ...... 120 Kirsty McCullagh - Written evidence (RAR0024) ...... 121 Microsoft - Written evidence (RAR0057) ...... 122 Roger Mullin MP - Written evidence (RAR0021) ...... 125 National Federation of Roofing Contractors - Written evidence (RAR0041) 127

National Heritage Training Group - Written evidence (RAR0038) ...... 131 Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54) ...... 135 Nesta - Written evidence (RAR0025) ...... 147 Nichols Group - Written evidence (RAR0022) ...... 151 Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029) ...... 154 Jesse Norman MP - Written evidence (RAR0032) ...... 159 Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and House of Lords - Written evidence (RAR0051) ...... 161 Christine Owen - Written evidence (RAR0018) ...... 165 Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24) ...... 166 Parliamentary Press Gallery - Written evidence (RAR0019) ...... 179 Parliamentary Press Gallery - Supplementary written evidence (RAR0064) 181 Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059) ...... 182 Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027) ...... 189 Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016) ...... 194 John Redwood MP - Written evidence (RAR0003) ...... 200 Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE - Written evidence (RAR0054) ...... 201 The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE & The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO - Oral evidence (QQ25-37) ...... 203 Royal Institute of British Architects, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) ...... 204 Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035) ...... 205 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers & Royal Institute of British Architects - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) ...... 210 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052) .... 211 SNP Westminster Parliamentary Group - Written evidence (RAR0044) ...... 217 Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, Nesta & Parliamentary Visitors Group - Oral evidence (QQ38-54) ...... 219

Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Written evidence (RAR0030) ...... 220 Baroness Thomas of Winchester MBE - Written evidence (RAR0056) ...... 223 Trade Union Side, House of Commons - Written evidence (RAR0023) ...... 225 Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch - Written evidence (RAR0036) ...... 227 The Rt Hon Lord Wallace of Saltaire - Written evidence (RAR0007) ...... 229 David Watkinson - Written evidence (RAR0012) ...... 231 Women and Equalities Committee, House of Commons - Written evidence (RAR0065) ...... 232 Mark Wyman and Cara Clark - Written evidence (RAR0040) ...... 233

Some material in submissions RAR0037 and RAR0061 has been redacted for reasons of security and commercial confidentiality.

Kolly Ajao - Written evidence (RAR0060)

How the work should be delivered, whether Parliament should remain on site for the duration of the work – take several decades. In my opinion – Parliament remain on site – would be dangerous for the lords, Baroness, staff of both Houses, MPs, Visitors from all over the world that visit the Parliament as the work would be carried out at the same time.

The Relocation of some or all of the functions of Parliament temporarily to another location in central London. This temporary options are favourable for me As sitting of Parliament could take place in central London with facilities to take Lords and Commons to have business carried, while the Restoration of Palace of Westminster being carry out. This would allow the contractors, Restoration of Historical materials, pictures to be restored.

Questions to be answer as these points are: Are these buildings in the central London for the two chambers? Where can we find these buildings which can could that the Lords, MPS, Staff of both Houses, Committees of both Houses, Catering and Retail services, Record offices I believe, clerks of Parliament have resources to fund this big project? We can start searching for Buildings of are Queen Elizabeth the II across the road, School and colleges in Victoria and Westminster. Aims to complete the work in a short period? Means get all the Parliament Members of Lords and Commons out of the building or Palace of Westminster .Questions are? Where are we going to put all chairs, tables , Equipment’s, books, files and other important works of Arts? Can the building able to conform with new building regulations? Lifts Ramps Fire exit etc. Modern direction with Wi-Fi? Can most rooms and building be expanded for improvement? Aims to finish the Restoration and Renovation on time and possible complete the R & R project in short period of 4 years?

Kolly Ajao - Written evidence (RAR0060)

Effects to staff , commons and Lords –Disruption to work, movement of goods and services, relocation of offices. Some offices will be move out, some may not come back. Some staff could be make redundant on voluntary ground, some on long leave or studies leave. Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster? Better Security of the Building New equipment in most department, restoration of stones pictures, tiles and ceramic.

03 February 2016

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology - Written evidence (RAR0046)

Westminster has been a centre of national politics for 1,000 years. The hall of Edward the Confessor’s palace is shown on the Bayeux Tapestry and subsequently a large complex of medieval buildings were constructed which were used by medieval and later Parliaments, including the 12th century Lesser Hall, the 13th century Painted Chamber and Queen s Chamber and the 14th century Stephen s chapel (reconstructed as St Stephen s Hall) . The Queen s Chamber was demolished in the early 19th century, but the other buildings survived until the fire of 1834 when they were damaged and later pulled down.

It is likely that substantial remains of a number of these buildings survive. As the ground level of Old Palace Yard is considerably higher than that of the medieval buildings of the palace it is likely that the lower levels of the Lesser Hall and part of the Painted Chamber are buried under the Yard. It is probable that Edward the Confessor built his palace in this area and distinctly possible that some Anglo-Saxon remains survive. There are also probably remnants of other structures in the medieval palace complex both inside the present Palace site and outside; the old palace site was larger than the present and the gateway to New Palace Yard was on the site of the lawn on Parliament Square.

The Restoration and Renewal Programme presents a remarkable opportunity to discover more about the history of the buildings of Parliament and Government. As part of the programme: we recommend that

o a desk-based survey be undertaken of the estate to consider what archaeological remains are likely to survive and where;1 o in the light of the survey small excavations take place; a likely place is the north east corner of Old Palace Yard

There would be considerable public interest in finding out more about the medieval palace. The present palace draws visitors with a love of history and heritage. An excavation of part of the Lords Car Park in Old Palace Yard would surely be of huge interest to the public and the media. Additional information about medieval Parliaments from excavations and archival research would be a wonderful opportunity to engage the public and increase understanding of Parliament and its unique history.

An archaeological survey would also have practical advantages for the works programme in that it would help to avoid delays arising from unexpected archaeological remains being found during the course of work.

1The ‘options’ Report on Restoration and Renewal by Deloitte was published in June 2015. The report’s main concern in respect of heritage was that damage should not be done to the fabric of the buildings and historic contents. The report deals with issues relevant to the APPG in sections 5.12 to 5.16. It notes that the primary decision maker is Westminster City Council though there would need input from English Heritage (now Historic England) Works would need to conform to Westminster’s Unitary Development Plan. In addition, Historic England could also advise DCMS to consult UNESCO if the proposals were thought to affect the value of the World Heritage Site. Much depends on whether any works would affect the ground; if such works were undertaken an archaeological review would be expected (though theoretically there are Crown exemptions). If no such works were proposed, such a review would not be obligatory.

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology - Written evidence (RAR0046)

Neither the desk-based survey nor small excavations in the corner of Old Palace Yard would delay the programme of works. It is likely that the desk-based survey could be completed in 3 months. The small excavations could be undertaken in 4-6 weeks.

Finally, the cost of a survey and even small excavations would be small in relation to the enormous cost of the Restoration and Renewal Programme. We have not done detailed costings but would expect an overall figure of perhaps £100,000 for the survey and excavations.

To ensure that the archaeological work was undertaken well in advance and properly integrated into the works programme, consideration should be given to the establishment of a Heritage and Archaeology Advisory Committee.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn and Tim Loughton MP, Chairs

25 January 2016

Jacqueline Baker - Written evidence (RAR0050)

I suggest that we could consider using Portcullis House as a debating chamber for the Commons – on a temporary or long-term basis.

This could be achieved by removing the existing fountains and fig trees in Portcullis House and replacing these with seating for a debating chamber. This would have the benefit of keeping the Chamber and existing security within the parliamentary estate.

The public could watch debates from the first floor corridors which are already secured by glass. This would leave only select committee and meeting rooms to be relocated to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Church House, Central Hall and other locations. Large sums of money would be saved and control would be retained within the estate - perhaps giving the opportunity to occasionally experiment with a horseshoe chamber seating arrangement.

Background The Australian parliamentary estate is divided into two halves. Old Parliament House is used for education purposes, historical tours, events and so on, (our equivalent being the Palace estate), and New Parliament House, which is used for the debating chambers, Library, refreshment facilities, events and so on.

This plan would be less costly than many proposals and so have public appeal, would be attractive to MPs who want to remain on the parliamentary estate, attractive to peers who want to retain their own chamber, retain estate control and parliamentary control over the sites, and be altogether less disruptive.

26 January 2015

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

Introduction The Palace of Westminster is the symbol of democracy in the UK and worldwide it is seen by many as the home of the modern Parliamentary system. This powerful symbol has to be retained and preserved but clearly as with all buildings there is a need to upgrade and modernise it to bring it in line with working practices in the 21st Century and far into the future. In the first decades of use since the 1850’s the whole business of Parliament was comfortably housed in Barry’s 19th century buildings. Now the business of Parliament creates the equivalent of a town of say a 15,000 population, with massive amounts of “workers” and their goods to it. The Parliamentary Estate is now nearly twice the area of the Palace that Barry and Pugin built but it can still cope with this much more intense population and activity and this is a credit to them and to the Parliamentary Estates Directorate who have resolved its growth. Structurally the building is fundamentally sound, though it has some problems. 19th Century buildings such as this can remain in use indefinitely provided they are well maintained and given regular overhauls. Generally we see major overhauls to these buildings every 80-100 years. The Palace of Westminster has not been comprehensively overhauled for 150 years. It had been kept going with continuous works, mainly focused on Parliamentary recesses. Some of these projects, such as the geographically focused Lords Refreshment Department, have been very affective and successful and they show what is possible. Others have been less successful. The M&E services which by their nature spread everywhere in particular are in a complete state of disorganisation, because of ad-hoc discrete and local alterations which have meant that, as in many other buildings, there is no overall clarity and strategy. Many cables and pipes in parts of the building are unidentifiable. Fundamentally these services need complete renewal in a way which will confirm a clear strategy can be maintained, going forward, as the services are altered and extended into the future. This is often the case in in the life cycle of buildings and their refurbishments but of course it is highly disruptive. Much thought needs to be given now so that the ongoing further changes to services can be done in the brief Parliamentary recesses.

1. What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility? 1.1 The imposing architecture of the Palace of Westminster could be seen by some as a barrier between the activity of Parliament and the general public. A new public entrance to the Palace could be made to be more visible and to feel more easily accessible, whilst maintaining the necessary security arrangements. The public should feel they have the opportunity to enter the building. 1.2 The Palace already uses some of its spaces for external hospitality events but there are opportunities to allow the public, once security cleared, into other shared areas around the perimeter. This could be exhibition spaces, restaurants, or even lecture theatres. A larger museum on the perimeter of the Palace, with tours into the shared spaces, would improve accessibility.

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

2. What opportunities or benefits do you think a major Restoration and Renewal programme could present for Parliament and the wider public? 2.1 A major refurbishment of the Palace is an opportunity that we will not see again for at least another 100 years or so. Much has changed in the last one and a half centuries that could never have been envisaged by Barry or Pugin. The refurbishment works must incorporate the flexibility in its infrastructure to evolve with society and the needs of Parliament. 2.2 Investing in a programme of works which improves the efficiency of the building services in the building and how it is adapted and maintained in the future, will provide savings to the overall running costs of Parliament. This is one of the most important considerations. Many of the problems in the existing building is to do with the regular ad hoc additions and alterations to the building service without any overall design and strategic approach. 2.3 Allowing more of the public into the building (as discussed in 1.2) could generate more revenue streams to help fund the ongoing maintenance of the Palace.

3. How should the heritage of the Palace of Westminster be conserved and safeguarded, while recognising that it is home to a busy working Parliament with regular public access? 3.1 The Palace is a national icon and its importance as the home of a Parliament and as an expression of our cultural values cannot be overstated. The refurbishment of the building must not diminish the heritage value of this treasure. This is not an opportunity of an architect to stamp their mark throughout the building. However there are opportunities to design good contemporary additions that can complement and enhance the historic buildings. An example is the recent works at St Martin-in- the-Fields. Over clever architecture and engineering, that we have seen on some modern buildings, is not appropriate. The Palace of Westminster needs good striking designs that are straightforward and easy to operate, manage and which are relevant for the long term. 3.2 The design must be intelligent and subtle in its approach. It must be respectful to the heritage of the fabric whilst fully preparing the building for the next 100 years. Internally there is much that must be done to improve the efficiency of the building. The arrangements of some parts of the building are in need of bold intervention. However the proposals should work with the grain of the building, enhancing parts which work and reorganising parts which do not. 3.3 The 2007 conservation management plan should be updated to reflect the proposed programme of works.

4. What will be the major risks or challenges in delivering a Programme of this scale and how should they be addressed? 4.1 All major refurbishment work is extremely disruptive to the activities of any occupants that continue to work in and around the activities of a contractor. The activity of Parliament must insulate itself from this.

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

4.2 There needs to be sufficient time in the Programme to understand the building and inform design decisions. Surprises are to be expected along the way as areas, currently hidden by finishes, are exposed. Sufficient time needs to be allowed for to respond to these. Full access to the building as early as possible will allow in depth survey work to be carried out. 4.3 There is the ambition to use BIM early on in the design development of the works and there will be great benefits in doing this. The use of BIM on existing buildings has its own challenges, with having to model the existing building fabric early on. This is relatively straight forward for fabric which is currently visible but modelling the structure, which is hidden, can be a challenge. Building the model using available record documentation is a typical starting point but sufficient time in the programme is needed. Further time is then necessary to verify and update the model once areas are eventually exposed and recorded. The level of detail for the modelling of the existing structure needs to be agreed early on.

5. Would you like to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster as part of the work? If so, what would those changes be? 5.1 There is a continuous need to maintain and adapt a building of this scale and function. The internal arrangements of the building make such work challenging, particularly in the relative short recess periods, when the majority of maintenance work is carried out. Much could be done to incorporate flexibility into the fabric of the building to mitigate the issues with its continued evolution through the next 150 years. There needs to be a strategic masterplan for servicing of the Palace which allows for further additions and simple maintenance, whilst maintaining the overall strategic design concept and not harming it. 5.2 The circulation strategy of people and goods through the buildings needs fundamental review. The access route from the public entrance to the river front room areas can feel convoluted and confusing. Access to some of the smaller committee rooms on the upper levels is problematic, as many feel isolated and not part of the whole. How goods are delivered and circulated through the Palace needs review. The patterns of movement need to be understood and enhanced as a human experience. 5.3 The basement car park at the Palace of Westminster which was designed in the 1970’s specifically for the cars of the day now needs to be reconfigured drastically to provide usable and flexible space for the many different demands inherent in the whole project. Car parking as a whole is about to be transformed by technology. 5.4 Cloister Court is a hidden gem which could be made more accessible to staff and also the public. 5.5 Much of the original natural ventilation infrastructure constructed by Barry still exists in the Palace today. The primary horizontal ducts at basement level are still present, as are the majority of the roof space ducts (albeit without some of the original jack arch separating layers. Whilst there are challenges associated with the implementation of natural ventilation approaches to the Palace, a strategy that works – where possible – with the original grain of the building is likely to mitigate

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

the impact on the historic fabric whilst naturally adopting a low-carbon approach to the environmental control of the building.

6. What do you think should not be changed as part of the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal? 6.1 The external appearance of the building and the majority Pugin interiors are important parts of the building fabric which should not be altered. The relationships of the chambers to the offices seem fundamental to the way our Parliamentary democracy works. They cannot change unless there is a radical change in Parliamentary process. 6.2 The robustness nature of the existing structure designed by Barry has served the Palace well over the years and this should not be compromised. New works should consider the past performance of the existing building and new proposals developed to be structurally compatible with the original design strategy.

7. How can the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster support the work of Parliament and parliamentarians? What changes do you think are required to the building to adapt to Parliament’s changing needs in the 21st century? 7.1 The services within the building require complete renewal. Historically the servicing has been so integrated into the fabric of the building that replacement or modification to modern systems requires major intervention. Future systems should allow replacement without wholesale disruption in order to avoid the system becoming too challenging to upgrade in a phased manner during short recess periods. 7.2 The efficiency of the internal layout is poor and is in need of rationalisation. 7.3 Accommodation strategy should cater for future capacity with flexible spaces. 7.4 Distribution of goods/paper/food and beverages can be facilitated by careful and thoughtful use of the basement spaces.

8. Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster? 8.1 Knowledge of the anatomy of the building and its history of alteration is the most important tool in understanding how it can be adapted and maintained in the future. Knowledge and understanding is acquired over long periods of time and must be consolidated and maintained. Often building owners do not understand the importance or value of this knowledge. This project is a unique opportunity to consolidate the knowledge that already exists and to also record areas of the Palace which are not currently recorded. 8.2 Defining future constraints and strategy for access and maintenance of all key spaces need to be defined as part of these works. Enhancements made need to be made to

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

existing floor structures to allow access towers to be easily erected to an agreed strategy. 8.3 The total removal of asbestos with in the Palace will allow quicker access to voids within the building fabric, which will improve the efficiency of ongoing future maintenance. Access hatches may need to be added and the structure adapted to allow easier access to parts of the building which are currently difficult to get to.

9. Could the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster make it easier for the public to be welcomed into the Palace and to see and participate in the work of Parliament? If so, in what ways could this be achieved? 9.1 Public should be able to engage and better understand the activity of Parliament without diminishing the security or activity of the houses. An intelligent and creative solution is required here. Digital technology provides much greater opportunities engagement than previously. However, this can never replace the experience of physically being within the building itself. 9.2 Improving the visibility and arrangement of the public entrance would make it easier for the public to be welcomed. An on-site visitor and education centre is highly desirable, somewhere the public can be welcomed, find out about Parliament, the Government and their MP’s, and learn about the way the place works. The Palace could be zoned into separate public and secured staff areas. There could be shared spaces where members, staff and the public can meet. The use of lecture spaces could be used to allow the public to debate and discuss in an informal environment within Parliament.

10. What are your observations on the current condition of the Palace of Westminster? 10.1 Barry’s design for the Palace of Westminster was well conceived. Its robust construction and intelligent solution to its foundations (it sits on an island for the marshy delta of the Tyburn River) have stood it in good stead. Its good condition for its age and construction is a testament to its original design. That said all buildings require ongoing maintenance and a programme of ongoing maintenance has been maintained over the years. There are areas of work, such as stone repairs and cleaning or asbestos removal, which should be carried as part of this programme of works.

11. What, in your view, would be the most appropriate means to deliver the changes which you would like to see made to the Palace of Westminster? 11.1 A full decant would allow the level on type of intervention that is required to properly prepare the building for the 21st century. Whilst we have successfully been involved in many major refurbishment projects across the Palace the challenges of working within an occupied building is challenging. 11.2 The Commons and Lords are on different sides of Central Lobby. This configuration of the Palace of Westminster is such that, with the right degree of thought, it is possible to carry out the R&R project in two halves and manage disruption by keeping it at a

Alan Baxter Ltd - Written evidence (RAR0055)

low level. There are common areas such as Westminster Hall, The Central Lobby and St Stephens Hall which could be worked on separately before any phased R&R works and during recesses. The major issue will be how to connect everything together but this is solvable with the right degree of design, thought and flair.

02 February 2016

Alex Bird - Written evidence (RAR0010)

5. Would you like to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster as part of the work? If so, what would those changes be?

5.1 I think the opportunity should be taken to improve accessibility of the Palace as far as is possible for all users. I fear some ‘nice to haves’ in this area may be the first to go in seeking to minimise the budget.

5.2 I think the opportunity should also be taken to construct a new House of Commons chamber, one fit for a 21st century parliament, with sufficient space for all MPs, and better viewing facilities for the public, where they can see all of the representatives in the chamber. This could also facilitate better use of ICT and electronic voting. Use of a new chamber needn’t be at the expense of tradition and the old chamber could be used for ceremonials and ‘Westminster Hall’ debates. The House of Lords could continue to be used as now (but with a reduced membership following reform).

5.3 Anything to improve navigation such as signage and improving circulation would also be welcome. Although no doubt there are good security reasons for limiting knowledge of the geography of the Palace, it can be mystifying and at times intimating, even for able-bodied staff, and must be more so for staff and visitors with disabilities.

6. What do you think should not be changed as part of the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal?

6.1 The line of route. I think beyond the line of route, the Committee corridor and the library, all other areas of the Palace, of lesser historical value, should be modernised as much as possible – concerns of tradition should not prevent the efficient functioning of parliament.

7.1 As 5.2 a new House of Commons Chamber is required and other new facilities are required to facilitate the efficient functioning of a modern, 21st century Parliament. Not being bold now could lead to the building continuing to shape our parliament in a negative way, continuing the sense and function of a gentleman’s club or a public school, and not the forward-looking, inclusive, modern institution it should be.

8. Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster?

Alex Bird - Written evidence (RAR0010)

9.1 A new facility like the Education centre should be built for visitors, on a scale that can accommodate the required numbers of the public, with an accessible background to parliament and the building with modern facilities. More should be done to make the British public aware that they can attend and participate in the work of Parliament, and to let them know how they can do it. Advantage could be taken of the opportunity to do this whilst also enhancing the security of MPs, so the public can be accommodated safely in the numbers required.

10. What are your observations on the current condition of the Palace of Westminster?

10.1 It seems to be holding together pretty well under the circumstances. Although I only generally see the public areas and the catering corridors.

B: Delivery

11. What, in your view, would be the most appropriate means to deliver the changes which you would like to see made to the Palace of Westminster?

11.1 Full decant of both Houses. I don’t believe a partial decant can really be achieved, since noise and other restrictions would prevent serious construction work taking place. The costs and timescales of the project would then increase as a result.

11.2 I also hope the Joint Committee will be allowed the scope to recommend the permanent relocation of Parliament to a modern facility, in London or elsewhere.

12. Are there any services which are currently located in the Palace of Westminster which, in your view, need not be co-located with the Chambers during any potential decant period?

14 January 2016

Simon Blackburn - Written evidence (RAR0045)

1. This submission is split into two sections in line with the division of questions in the call for evidence.

Part A – Scope

2. As a cornerstone of its determination of the scope, the Committee should be clear about what it is about the Palace of Westminster that truly matters both to the public and also to visitors to Westminster and London. These elements must be preserved in the restoration. Similarly, the Committee should be explicit in ruling out features and functions which witnesses suggest are of vital importance but which the Committee views as dispensable.

3. In my opinion, there are three elements which must be preserved, and where possible improved, during restoration: a. The external street-level view of Parliament. More than any other building, the Palace of Westminster is the embodiment of London. A photograph of the Palace, and of the Elizabeth Tower in particular, is an instant scene-setter recognised around the world. I would suggest to the Committee that the value of this to the economy of the United Kingdom is immeasurable, with the income from the tourists on Westminster Bridge or in Parliament Square only a small tangible fraction of this. This image of the building has also become the embodiment of democracy. Committee members will recall, not so long ago, the time when the Commons was not televised and instead live exterior shots of the building were broadcast alongside coverage of events such as PMQs or the Budget Statement. The outside of the Palace is not just a pretty façade but is synonymous in the English-speaking world with the concept of Parliamentary democracy. b. Westminster Hall. For most schoolchildren, British history starts in 1066. The Hall’s history is only 31 years shorter. This in itself makes it worthy of protection, but it is the range of official and ceremonial uses for the Hall over the centuries which makes it more remarkable. At the same time as being preserved and restored, provision must be made to allow the Hall to be continued to be used for a broad range of functions – including non- Parliamentary ones. c. The business of Parliament. (This is an obvious point but one which the Committee should emphasise, given reports that some Parliamentarians fear leaving the Palace during the work as to do so might prevent MPs who are only elected for one term from being able to sit in the current Commons Chamber.) The business of Parliament – the passing of laws, the holding of Ministers and Prime Ministers to account, the budget statements and debates on the pressing issues of the day – does not require particular rooms

Simon Blackburn - Written evidence (RAR0045)

or particular furniture. There is nothing unique about the current Lords or Commons Chambers – what is unique is what occurs therein. Any group of 650 citizens could sit in the Commons Chamber, but they would not form a Parliament. But 650 people with their writs and the democratic support of their constituents can form a House of Commons wherever they choose to meet. The Committee must keep this point in mind when deciding both how to undertake the refurbishment, and also the layout of the Palace after it.

4. There is one element of the Palace that I would urge the Committee to put to one side: the precise layout of the inside of the building. Within the current, visible, outer shell of the building, the size and shape and number of Courtyards and the wings of the building that divide them should not be preserved if they stand in the way of a better Palace. It is a relatively modern building compared to some in the UK and the link with the past is not as strong as sometimes appears: this is not the building that Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up; St Stephen’s Hall is only a replica of where Charles I was resisted. The current Commons Chamber is particularly young compared to the arc of Parliamentary democracy or to some of the buildings nearby. Parliament should aspire to a modern fit for purpose interior to its primary building and not be held hostage by a Victorian floorplan.

A fit-for-purpose Palace

5. The restored Palace of Westminster should provide: a. A building, linked to the Parliamentary campus, which has the flexibility and adaptability to provide for current Parliamentarians’ needs and those anticipated in the foreseeable future. Work is required to calculate what this means in terms of office space, catering, security, accessibility, building materials and wall thicknesses (which impact wifi provision and security) – even, say, whether and how a mobile phone cell tower could be installed on the Parliamentary Estate. Then the outcome of this calculation should be delivered – a modern building within the footprint of the current Palace. b. Allowances and redundancy in service provision so that it is possible to update and repair systems while the building is occupied and in use. Our descendants should not be having this same conversation in 150 years’ time. c. A carbon neutral building. Whatever the Committee’s views are on climate change, why not let the Palace once again be an example of cutting edge technology, in this case to reduce energy consumption? d. Proper facilities for visitors: i. A permanent welcome and access building, incorporating space for high-capacity security screening, a single “reception desk” for business visitors to Parliament, and space to marshal and dispatch tour groups. This should be built under College Green, as a replacement for the car park (which, if use of vehicles continues to

Simon Blackburn - Written evidence (RAR0045)

decline or self-driving cars come to fruition, may no longer be needed) with a subterranean route into the Palace. Building a visitor centre here and linking it to the Palace is an engineering challenge (as a major low level sewer is in the way) but this is not insurmountable. ii. Full segregation within the new Palace to allow the public to get deep into the building on contained and secure routes, thus allowing some tours to continue while the Houses are sitting without disrupting Parliamentary business or impeding business visitors to Parliament. e. Public open space outside the building, linking the Palace to its surrounds. Old Palace Yard should be closed to through traffic, with the Black Rod’s Garden search point moved to the perimeter of the road closure, outside 1 Millbank.

6. In short, the Committee should not just aim to restore and renew: your goal should be to improve and inspire.

Part B – Delivery

7. This work must be done in the most cost effective way possible. Should expert advice be that this requires vacating the building then that should be the favoured approach. As I have noted, Parliament is the gathering of elected representatives and the power that stems from this – undeniably a unique and special thing, which should never be taken for granted – comes from the purpose of the gathering, not the venue. To use an analogy from the sporting world: people go to an Olympic stadium to watch Usain Bolt run, and it is not an issue that he is not crossing the very same finish lines that Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens crossed; he has run the same race and is still their descendent in the line of Olympic Champions. Parliamentary business will not be diminished by leaving the Palace of Westminster, and a temporary departure should not be feared.

8. A fully vacated site will also permit a more extensive reconstruction.

9. During the project, the House of Commons should remain close to Parliament Square: the space available on the northern Parliamentary Estate for MPs’ offices should not be wasted while the Palace is rebuilt, and it is right that those elected to form and scrutinise Government should remain close to it.

10. On the other hand, subject to cost, the opportunity should be taken to move the House of Lords out of London in order to get, and give, a different point of view to the Government. Salford, which already has a significant media presence, has been suggested by Lord Adonis; a temporary stay in this or another northern city’s regeneration zone should be considered. The cost of having joint Committee members travel to meet in London would be a factor, but this could be mitigated

Simon Blackburn - Written evidence (RAR0045)

through modern technology and would not be insurmountable set against the entire project budget.

About the author

11. I worked in Parliament for nine years from 2006 to 2015, primarily for the House of Lords Administration. My roles included Lords Clerk to the Joint Committee on Security, Clerk to the House Committee, and Interim Head of Visitor Services. In the latter role I provided written and oral evidence on visitor access and facilities to the Commons Administration Committee inquiry in 2011.

22 January 2016

Lord Bowness CBE DL - Written evidence (RAR0048)

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit comments. Location and availability of sites are important factors. My preference to date has been for the work to be scheduled around the working of Parliament as it is difficult to envisage suitable alternative sites either for a permanent relocation or a temporary site which will involve significant expenditure. It has been reported that the Chancellor is considering moving some departments out of prime locations in Whitehall enabling major buildings to be sold. Does this provide opportunities which have not been considered? What scope would there be for accommodating Parliament in some of these buildings ( eg The House of Commons in The Treasury and the House of Lords in the Foreign Office)? If a permanent home was provided in such buildings the restoration could proceed without concerns about the working of either House .Because of the proximity to the Palace not every facility need be replicated as some offices, meeting, catering and hospitality functions could remain in the Palace and the current Chambers retained for occasions such as the State Opening. This may be a flight of improbable fancy but before major buildings in key locations are disposed of we should at least make certain that there is not a role for them albeit a different one within the public realm.

25 January 2016

Steve Brine MP - Written evidence (RAR0013)

Further to your call for evidence, passed to members by the Leader of the House.

Sadly I don’t have time to wade through all questions, nor do I suspect my view will count for that much in isolation, but I would like to state my strongly held view that Parliament should remain on site for the duration of the works.

07 January 2016

British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union - Written evidence (RAR0028)

The work of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (BGIPU) in Westminster involves, per year, up to 6 week-long visits of parliamentary delegations, 10 smaller visiting delegations, a further 20 Member events (briefings, receptions and lectures etc.) and 1 large multilateral conference (involving between 80-100 visiting parliamentarians and civil society). All of these events take place in the main building (and Portcullis House) and to carry out this important international relations role we need access to good meeting rooms, interpretation facilities, good catering venues and good access arrangements for VIPs (by vehicle and on foot). The current arrangements in the building work very well for us and as we need a dedicated meeting space for international parliamentary visits, having responsibility for managing access to the IPU room off Westminster is essential for delivering our programme to members. We would, however, make the following recommendations: - Meeting rooms: We would benefit from more meeting rooms in the House to host visiting delegations. Our IPU room is in very high demand and is often booked by others hoping to hold events with catering. Therefore, in addition to more meeting rooms generally, 1 or 2 more meeting venues that allowed catering would take the pressure off the IPU room. - Interpretation facilities: The Attlee Suite in Portcullis House is the only room with fixed interpretation booths and also the only room large enough to host a seminar/conference in the house with public access. It is therefore very sought after and generally booked months in advance (not always by those using the interpretation facilities). We often try to book it but are rarely successful. We therefore book interpretation booth set-up in other rooms which is both costly and logistically complicated so access to additional rooms with interpretation facilities would be valuable. More meeting rooms with fixed interpretation booths would be very helpful. - Gallery seats: The Speakers Office and the CPA very kindly reserve PMQ tickets for our delegations, however, we are not always successful in securing these. If it were possible to have a reserved/priority area for visiting dignitaries and hosted foreign parliamentarians as does exist in many other parliaments would be hugely helpful.

21 January 2016

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37) The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

Evidence heard in public Questions 25-37

Oral evidence

Taken before the Joint Committee

on Monday 29 February 2016

Members present: Chris Grayling (Chair), Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman), Chris Bryant, Lord Carter of Coles, Lord Deighton, Neil Gray, Lord Laming, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Baroness Smith of Basildon, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

Witnesses: Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, and Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE, Director, Institute for Government, gave evidence.

Q25 Chris Grayling (Chair): Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for attending this Committee. I don’t think either of you need any particular introduction, so we will go straight into things, if you are happy. I will start with you, Lord Butler, and then move on to Peter Riddell. Can I ask you about the importance of the co-location of Parliament and the main operations of Government?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes. I have no doubt in saying that Parliament needs ready access to Ministers and vice versa. Departments also need ready access to Ministers and vice versa. It is an old-fashioned syllogism. The three need to be closely coordinated if Government is to work properly.

Peter Riddell: I absolutely endorse that. If I can reinforce that, it is a constitutional thing. We do not have a separation of powers; you are part of Parliament. If you look elsewhere—for example, in New Zealand and Australia—Ministers in New Zealand are all gathered together in one building, separate from their Departments. In Australia, which is perhaps a more pertinent example, the Ministers’ offices in Canberra are all in the new Parliament building. Often, they do not go anywhere near their Departments. They are surrounded by advisers in the Parliament building, and I have heard from the equivalent of permanent secretaries in Canberra that some Ministers literally never go into their Department, even though it is often quite near; it is not a big distance. I regard that as rather unhealthy.

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

We have done a certain amount of work on this at the Institute for Government through what we call “Ministers Reflect”, a series of exit interviews with people who were Ministers in the last Parliament. We have done over 40 so far, at all levels. A consistent point which has come out of these interviews, and out of other work that we have done, is that Ministers feel there is a gap between their Departments and Parliament. They do not spend as much time in Parliament as perhaps they should, although it depends on the type of job. Also, crucially, civil servants do not always understand sufficiently the importance of Parliament to Ministers, so if you separated them further, that problem could get much worse.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I may add to that from personal experience, I have visited Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which are all Parliaments and Governments on the Westminster model, so they are relevant to the issue you are discussing. I absolutely bear out the feeling that if the Minister and the Minister’s office are too separated from the Departments, things will not work well, but of course, the Minister has to have ready access to Parliament. I spent most of my life in the Treasury or the Cabinet Office, and we were very close, which was a great advantage. In considering the question, I think proximity is a very important factor.

Q26 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you, Lord Butler and Mr Riddell, for coming and giving us some of your time. You have kind of covered what I wanted to establish, which is what your views are on proximity between Government Departments and Parliament. I suppose another way of putting the question to you is this. What is your response to people who argue in favour of Parliament being located somewhere other than Westminster? Some people speak in favour of that.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I can see the argument. Some people would like the country not to be so London-centric and might therefore argue that it would be very healthy if Parliament were located somewhere else, but the dislocation that that would cause would be huge. Apart from moving Parliament itself, if Departments were left in London that would be disadvantageous. You see that, I think, with the European Parliament and countries where there is separation of capitals—South Africa, for example. Although I understand why people do not want Britain to be quite as London-centric as it is, perhaps they have not worked out the extent of the dislocation if Parliament were moved well away from London.

Peter Riddell: The alternative to decentralisation is, you could argue, devolution within the United Kingdom and decentralisation within England, not moving Parliament back to some medieval concept of sitting in Winchester or wherever. That would not be the answer.

For Parliament, Select Committees quite often go outside London for hearings, often on Mondays. There are perfect facilities with video conferencing to take evidence outside London and when MPs are in their constituencies. Moving Parliament would be incredibly expensive and rather gimmicky to my mind. I can just imagine the headlines—I am thinking of my old life—about the cost of moving MPs, Peers and civil servants to Birmingham, Manchester or wherever.

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Perhaps I can add another point. Even since my time, Government and politics have become very much quicker moving, and with 24/7 media and so on Ministers are constantly having to deal with matters quickly—I sometimes think too quickly. None the less, that is the way the world is and they need ready access to their advisers, both political and civil service. I believe in the old Haldane principle that there is a team in the interaction between politicians and civil servants. It works much the best if it is a team, but it needs to be a rapid-response team.

Q27 Chris Bryant: When this building was built, replacing the old buildings, Ministers had offices here for the first time, as well as wherever else they might have ministerial offices. They now have those offices in addition to their constituency offices. Is that really necessary in that quantity? Do we have to have an office for every Minister in the Palace?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, I think we do. My experience is that the Ministers I worked for spent much the greater part of their time in their Departments, but often they would be needed in the House, perhaps for a debate that lasted all day, because they had to vote or because something kept them in the House and they had to go on doing their work. I remember many occasions when that happened and coming over and getting crammed into rather small offices if there were many of us advising. That was certainly necessary, so I think Ministers do need a double base, but I would expect them, when they are not needed in Parliament, to spend most of their time in their Departments.

Peter Riddell: One other factor, of course, is that you, as a distinguished historian of Parliament, appreciate that there has been a sharp increase in the number of Ministers. In 1900, there were 35 Ministers with many more in the Lords than the Commons. With the size of the House of Commons having been reduced, there is an issue about the number of Ministers and so on. Oddly enough, if Ministers did not have offices here, they would spend more time in their Departments. When we did the interviews that I mentioned called “Ministers Reflect”, one of the questions we asked to a very wide range of Ministers was, “What was the pattern of your day?” Many of them actually came down here after lunch—they would obviously have to if there was a running Whip because they would be voting—so they could meet colleagues and so on, and civil servants would come over here during the afternoon. If you didn’t have those offices, that would become more difficult and might disconnect them more from Parliament, rather than connect them.

Q28 Chris Bryant: You sort of bring me on to my next question. One of the things that I don’t really understand—maybe you can enlighten me—is why we have more Government Ministers in this country than India, Australia and Canada put together.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I’m not sure I can answer that. If I were being cynical, I would say that over the years—it has taken over 200 years—the Executive has progressively worked to get a tight hold on Parliament. One of the means by which

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

that has been done is to increase the size of the payroll vote. When you add Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, that puts the Government in a very strong position in dealing with Parliament. I have long felt that junior Ministers, as they are called, are very often underused. They could be used better, and that would justify the numbers better. Other than that, I can’t think of any terribly good reason why there should be the quantity of Ministers that there is.

Peter Riddell: Could I add to that? One of the interesting thing is that with devolution there was, as you well know, a reduction in the number of Ministers from Scotland, Wales and, ultimately, Northern Ireland. That was more than offset by an increase in the number of Ministers in other areas. For reasons of patronage and to keep everyone happy, we also had the bizarre phenomenon of unpaid Ministers and Whips. You still see it. It is absolutely nothing to do with parties. Successive Prime Ministers for the past 30 years have seen the attraction of creating more Ministers in that way.

Q29 Chris Bryant: Apart, to be fair, from David Cameron. I was just going to suggest that if we were to decant, which is a serious possibility, will 95 offices for Commons Ministers, plus Lords Ministers, on the estate be a priority during that period? We will be very hard pressed.

Peter Riddell: What would happen in the interim period is a slightly different question. I thought you were asking about what should happen—

Q30 Chris Bryant: When we are back in. I get that, but I am asking generally. In the interim, that is a lot of space if those rooms are used two afternoons a week.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes. I don’t think you would reduce the number of Ministers just for that reason.

Chris Bryant: No. For other reasons.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think there might be other reasons. If space were a constraint, you could probably arrange a sort of hot-bedding arrangement, whereby Ministers shared offices.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Probably hot-desking.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: In the days when there used to be all-night sittings, hot- bedding might have been a more appropriate term.

Q31 Lord Laming: If I may say so, you made a very strong point about preserving the link between Ministers and their Departments, as well as about their commitments here. We have two Houses, as you know. If we are to partially decant or wholly decant, what importance, if any, would you attach to the proximity of the temporary arrangements? In

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37) other words, if one went that way and one went a very long way that way, would you attach importance to that or would you think that we should not pay too much attention to it?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I start from the position of wishing that the two Houses worked much more closely together and knew each other better. I think that the overall set-up of our Parliament is a good one. The House of Commons is the elected House and the main forum for political debate. It has primacy—and so it should have. The House of Lords performs a very useful but subsidiary role of being a reviewing House, where the party battle is not so strong, but the House can devote its expertise and experience to the close examination of legislation. I think it does that job very well, but these jobs are complementary to each other and sometimes I think that the two Houses don’t work so closely together. So it is very welcome that this is an occasion where there is a Joint Committee, where the two Houses are looking at this issue together.

Peter Riddell: There was a period, of course—what was it; five or six years—when the House of Commons was bombed during the war, when the two Houses were physically apart. All right, it was only 10 minutes’ walk apart. You can see the room in Church House where the Lords were; and of course the Lords was then both a smaller body of Peers who turned up, and a much less effective body. The Commons moved to the Lords. We have had periods of several years when there has been a physical difference—but it is a very different House. It is not the House that Robin Butler is describing.

I think it would obviously be desirable if there was proximity, but I do not think, for an interim period—and I accept that the interim period might be quite a long one—it is an absolute necessity, even though it is desirable to be reasonably close. It has happened in the past. Obviously, if you could find somewhere it would be much better, but I don’t think it is an absolute necessity.

Q32 Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am quite interested in the comments you have made about both the relationship between the two Houses and the relationship of Ministers, Departments, Ministers’ civil servants, the Executive and Parliament as a whole. If we decant and there is a major refurbishment, are there any things you think could be done to the physical environment of the Palace of Westminster that would assist in maintaining and improving those kinds of relationships?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I do not think that there are. On the basis that the premise of your deliberations is that this will eventually be Parliament again, after the work that is being done, you could not really bring Parliament, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords, any closer than they are in the present building. I would, as I say, like to see more intermingling. It is extraordinary, really, what a separation that corridor through the Central Lobby produces. I do not think in that respect that I would look for any improvement. Obviously—and this was a subject, I think, of your previous evidence—there is quite a lot of technological improvement that could be made to the way in which Parliament works, but I do not really feel competent to comment on that.

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

Q33 Baroness Smith of Basildon: Proximity is the main thing for you.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Proximity is the main concern that I have, yes.

Peter Riddell: Not so much for the Executive—the civil service and Ministers—but certainly for the public, I think with the changes to the House there are improvements that can be made for public access compared with when the House was designed, in the mid-19th century; but I think for the point we are making I don’t think there is terribly much on that.

Q34 Lord Deighton: You mentioned in your opening comments some problems with how other Governments operate—like Canberra, for example. Are there any lessons you think we should draw on the positive side from other countries, which could inform how we go through this exercise?

Peter Riddell: Well, I think there are two questions—about the exercise or how a Parliament should look afterwards.

Lord Deighton: I mean both.

Peter Riddell: On the exercise—and in talking to you I am preaching to the converted, Lord Deighton—as you know the Institute for Government did a lot of work on the Olympics and the Olympic Delivery Authority. We produced a report three years ago, with, indeed, your assistance, and you spoke when we launched it.

I think the really important lesson for Parliament in the experience you had is, essentially—when the politicians had defined the parameters of the project and, all right, revised the budget—leaving it to the delivery authority to deliver, in contrast to the millennium dome. There was a very interesting contrast between the Olympics and the millennium dome. With the dome there was constant interference and second guessing, which pushed the cost up and led to a less happy project than the one you were involved in.

I think there is a real lesson that you need to set up a delivery authority. Once you have taken the political decisions on what you are doing—things we have been discussing for the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes: it is to actually have a delivery authority which gets on and does the project, does the budget. There is not an attempt, then, to second-guess and micromanage it. You reach your political decision—what you want; then let it do it.

On the other point, I think there are some successful examples. Even though it was way over cost, I actually like Holyrood. I think actually Holyrood works very well in terms of public access. It is very good. You have got security—you have got to go through security there. I think it works extremely well as an example of how a Parliament can work. I am not so sure about Cardiff, partly because there is a big physical division between the Senedd and the Welsh Government; it’s about a mile

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

and a half away. It works quite well, because it is a much smaller legislative body. The advantage is that you just have to walk up the hill, to St Andrew’s House, in Edinburgh. As a building, Holyrood, despite all the problems with it, works rather well.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I just declare an interest that I should have declared before. I am President of a charity called Youthbuild UK, which deals with apprenticeships.

Lord Deighton: I should declare an interest. I worked with James Bulley when we did the Olympics.

Q35 Neil Gray: Following on from that, I understand what the answer may be, but looking at what has been possible with Holyrood—having a modern Parliament set up for a modern Parliament function—do you think it was a mistake to leave out even a consideration of a new-build Parliament as part of this Committee’s deliberations? Even if it did not recommend having a new build at the end, was it a mistake not to include that as part of the deliberations?

Peter Riddell: I think it was not feasible in the context in which you are operating. I know you can argue, as was famously said—Lord Wallace will remember this, as well as you—the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, after having been adjourned in 1707. However, it was a sufficiently new institution, I think, for it to be regarded as new; I don’t think one would regard this as a new institution.

Q36 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Following up on the point about the new institution, it was the first one that was properly elected. But there are things like electronic voting, so the Scottish Parliament—Holyrood—did not need to build in Division Lobbies. I am not suggesting you comment—you may wish to comment—on electronic voting, but are there particular things about the way we operate as a Parliament whereby when we have the opportunity of some refurbishment, we could improve the workings of Parliament?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I have no suggestions in that respect.

Peter Riddell: It is up to you whether you want to move to electronic voting. There are all kinds of things you could do.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I wasn’t specifically—

Peter Riddell: No, but if you wanted to, it is perfectly feasible, even within the current building. I know this is for the next panel, but I think the issues are more to do with public access, in the broadest sense of the term—public access and engagement. Actually, there have been some pretty important innovations in the last few years. It is much better than it was, as I remember, but a lot more could be done to make the place more accessible and also more clearly to delineate what is for Members and what is for the public. I think you could take advantage of the work

The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO & The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

to make some changes there, as well as, obviously, dealing with access for the disabled and so on.

Q37 Mr Rees-Mogg: Lord Butler, may I ask you a follow-up question on your experience of visiting Ministers when they are in their parliamentary offices and being squeezed into small spaces? Do you think that the accommodation they have is sufficient for purpose, or they ought to have better, or do you think it is actually quite important to keep them marginally uncomfortable so that they don’t stay here all the time rather than going to their Departments, as in Australia?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, I think I take that latter view. I think it would be a pity if they spent more time here. Actually, one of the things that I think was an advantage of coming over here and all being a team of officials—all being very hugger-mugger with the Minister—was that it did produce a sense of intimacy and teamwork, which I thought was rather important for the way in which we operated, so I don’t think I would argue for Ministers being given more lavish accommodation.

Chair, could I make one other point in case we are running out of time? I make it particularly because there are two members of the Cabinet here. This obviously is a matter that you are quite rightly considering as a parliamentary Committee, but I do think that the Government has an interest in finding a satisfactory solution to this problem. The Government owns a lot of property around here. I’m sure the Departments individually are very defensive of it, but it seems to me that the Government has an obligation to seek a satisfactory solution to enable Parliament to work effectively during this period, in the interests of the UK as a whole.

Chris Grayling (Chair): Well, I can assure you, Lord Butler, that that is happening, so you don’t need to be concerned. That does not mean that we always get exactly everything we want, but none the less a collaborative discussion is taking place. Gentlemen, if there are no further points to add, I thank you both very much for your time.

While we await the change of witnesses, the Chairman, Baroness Stowell, wants to declare an additional interest.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): I should have declared at the beginning that I had the great fortune of working with one of the next witnesses, Penny Young, while we were both working at the BBC, and she remains a personal friend.

Mr Rees-Mogg: On the subject of declarations of interest, I should say that Lord Butler and I are on a committee that gives money to the Oxford Union Society.

Chris Grayling (Chair): Thank you very much. I don’t think that any of these declarations of interest are going to change the world, but it is important to get them on the record.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Evidence heard in public Questions 55-97

Oral evidence

Taken before the Joint Committee

on Monday 7 March 2016

Witnesses: Mr Hugh Feilden MA (Cantab) DipArch RIBA SCA MAPM, Chair of the Conservation Advisory Group, Royal Institute of British Architects, Mr David Hirst CEng FICE, Chair of the Management Panel, Institution of Civil Engineers, Ms Lynda Jubb IHBC BCAS FRICS, Chair of the Building Conservation Forum, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and Mr Nick Mead CEng FCIBSE, President, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, gave evidence.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Good afternoon everyone, and thank you very much for coming to this sitting of the Joint Committee on restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Before I invite you to introduce yourselves, I have a little bit of housekeeping to get out of the way. Do any of my fellow members of the Committee need to declare any interests before we get started?

Lord Carter of Coles: I am chair of Her Majesty’s Government’s Property Advisory Panel. Also, in 2009 I wrote a report on operational efficiency that led to the formation of the Government Property Unit.

Q55 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you. My name is Tina Stowell. I am the co-Chairman of the restoration and renewal Joint Committee. Chris Grayling is the co-Chair. Could I ask you to declare whether you have any interests that we need to take account of before we get going?

Mr Feilden: I am on the PED framework for conservation work on the Palace of Westminster, so I work here already.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Ms Jubb: My firm undertook a commission between September and December 2013 for this project.

Q56 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you very much for declaring those interests. I think it is worth my saying for the record that this Committee has no involvement whatever in any procurement decisions to do with the restoration and renewal project, either in the past or now. You have been invited here today to give evidence from the perspective of the organisations you represent or from your professional perspective, and not evidence that is in any way connected to any kind of commercial or financial interests. That is not relevant to this Committee. I am grateful to you none the less.

We want to cover quite a lot of ground in our questions this afternoon. There are four of you, but I do not want you to feel that every time we ask a question, all four of you must answer. If you do know something relevant to the topics we are covering, please indicate that you want to contribute to our discussion. Perhaps the best way to start is to ask each of you to introduce yourselves briefly.

Mr Hirst: My name is David Hirst. I am here to represent the Institution of Civil Engineers, which is a global civil engineering professional organisation of 86,000 members. I am a fellow of the ICE and Chairman of the ICE’s risk management expert group. I am managing director of Ainsty Risk, a professional risk management consultancy.

Ms Jubb: My name is Lynda Jubb, and I am here to represent the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I am the Chair of the Historic Building Conservation Forum. The RICS has 100,000 qualified members globally and 85,000 practising in the UK.

Mr Feilden: My name is Hugh Feilden and I am a partner in Feilden and Mawson architects. I represent the Royal Institute of British Architects and I am the current Chairman of its conservation group.

Mr Mead: Good afternoon. I am Nick Mead and I am the president of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. We have 20,000 members globally. Basically, the institution supports engineering to make buildings operate and work correctly.

Q57 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you all very much, and thank you again for giving up some of your time. We want to cover four areas in our discussion with you. First, there is the current state of the Palace and the justification for the works that might form part of restoration and renewal. Secondly, there are the various delivery options—the methods of fulfilling the project that were covered in the options report that we received last summer. Thirdly, we want to talk about the scope—the extent to which we might want to carry out works here at the Palace of Westminster. Finally, we will discuss some of the governance matters. We will focus our questions as far as we can under those four headings.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

I will start off with a general invitation to tell us what you believe the current state or condition of the Palace of Westminster to be that would lead us to want to embark on this major project of restoration and renewal.

Ms Jubb: I understand that in 2012, the maintenance backlog was estimated at 40% of the reinstatement value. At that time, that was £1.8 billion. I have crudely indexed that for you, and it now comes to £2.14 billion. If it was 40%, it is probably more than 40% of that now and that is a very substantial maintenance backlog. This could be accounted for by the great complexity of the buildings—their occupation, protection regimes and scale and the procurement regimes that are governing here. A large number of components will be reaching the end of their life cycle. For instance, the Victorian interventions tend to have a life cycle of 100 to 150 years and the mid-20th century interventions have a shorter life cycle, so unfortunately you are facing end of life on a large number of components.

The reporting has been hampered by access. In other words, the full scale of the disrepair is not really known. Access into voids is hampered by asbestos, and away from the normal deterioration that all buildings encounter there has been impact from climate change. For example, most of the churches that we work on have to have major changes to the rainwater disposal systems because the storm surges are so much more intense than what they were designed for. You have a number of factors that are working against you in trying to stay on top of the condition.

My understanding is that, since about the millennium, there has been intensive work to try to catch up on this maintenance backlog, but unfortunately you have reached a point now where you accept that it cannot actually be achieved in the way in which you have been working. That is understandable.

Q58 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you. Does anybody else from the expert panel want to give us their view on the condition of the building?

Mr Mead: My viewpoint will mainly be of the mechanical and electrical services of the building, which generally have a much shorter life than the structures. Over the years of its operation, the building has been repaired and put together piecemeal. We are currently in an age in which the demand for electronics and energy efficient products is probably the greatest it has ever been. A number of the elements of this building are now way behind. Through a company called Environ, which has been doing the maintenance here, I have an awareness of some of the issues with fire alarms and with the pipeworks corroding. It is a real patchwork quilt of services which in the operation of a building like this is critical for loss of power, loss of heat or overheating. Whereas a burnout of a cable may seem insignificant, the consequence is quite major. To have major works done in those areas is now at a critical stage, bearing in mind the aesthetics and heritage of the building, and what is hidden behind. There is a lot of work to be done and it needs to be reviewed carefully.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Q59 Lord Deighton: Can I explore that a little bit further? Could you just run through the risks were we only to attend to these as part of the ongoing maintenance, as has been the historical practice? What could go wrong and what is the likelihood of it going wrong? I know it is a hard question.

Mr Mead: Electrical cables is your first port of call. A life of 15 to 20 years is typical for a cable. You have a number of hidden cables so you do not know what state they are in. The worst consequence is a fire and the catastrophic effect of that, particularly with the amount of wood finishes in the building. It is also of a more destructive nature. It is the consequence of losing your power in the middle of a debate or losing your lighting. The pipework is of an age when it corrodes from the inside and you will suddenly get a leak, loss of heat, damage to fabric finishes and things like that. Rainwater pipes and drainage get blocked and they were not designed to be easily repaired, so there is disruption of cutting into finishes and rigging up. On fire alarms and security, modern technology is so far advanced in its qualities, speed of reaction and the quality of service that replacing them gives more resilience.

If there was a problem in, say, this room, trying to trace where it is between the main incoming source and the room could require a lot of disruptive work to try to understand where the fault goes, whereas reinstalling those services and managing them on different circuits and with circuit breakers means you can easily and quickly get in and bring them back into use or look at an alternative source.

Q60 Lord Deighton: As a follow-up, you talked about cables typically needing replacement after 15 or 20 years and you talked about the pipework. What is the age profile of what we have here compared with when you would have expected it to be replaced?

Mr Mead: You are certainly well beyond the extent of the recommended life in a lot of areas. Some areas, such as fire alarms, are in excess of 30 years. Some pipework is probably bordering 30 or 40 years. A lot of essential plant is probably at the end of its useful life, if not just from a maintenance point of view then from energy efficiency and so on.

Mr Hirst: I would add that towards the end of the life you get quite a big step up in how those fail. Understanding which one is going to fail is very difficult. What you do know is that the likelihood increases significantly past the end of the design life.

Q61 Chris Grayling (Chair): Can I ask you to roll the clock ahead to 2030? If we have done nothing except routine maintenance, what would you expect our experience to be?

Mr Mead: In terms of routine maintenance, you will find circuits and cables probably fraying and their protective covering beginning to degrade. You will probably see joints leaking on pipework. If you try to isolate anything such as valves they will probably be rusted or frozen, so you will probably find you have to do a lot more cutting in and freezing of pipework to do repairs rather than going to a local isolation

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

point. A valve on a pipe system will probably isolate a large area so that will be disruptive. If you have a problem in one room you might lose heat to 10 or 12 rooms because of the way the system is configured, so a lot of the problem will be the response time for fixing the fault. Routine maintenance-wise, components will probably be old and not on the market, so any modern components will need the system to be modified to accommodate them. Again you will see a cost and time element on that.

Q62 Lord Laming: The picture you portray does not come as a surprise to us, if I may say so. You have seen the delivery options that have been put before us. Recognising that this is a grade 1 listed building, what do you think will be the most important challenges that we face and what do you think is the most appropriate way to deliver and to overcome those challenges?

Mr Hirst: The big challenge is understanding what is there, and to understand that and to get a clearer view of what works you need full access to the whole building. Without understanding that—Nick Mead was describing the connection to services through the building—it is very difficult to understand what the replacement programme ought to be. So I would say the biggest challenge is understanding the existing services and the condition of the fabric, and having full scope of that.

Q63 Lord Laming: You would need to have access to the whole building, did you say?

Mr Hirst: Particularly for the services side, yes.

Mr Feilden: Do not underestimate—I am sure you don’t—the problem of asbestos in this building. As soon as you open up a void and find asbestos, you have to stop everything, tent up and make it safe. If you are doing it bit by bit, that really slows the process down and accelerates and increases the disruption, and you may find yourself doing that again and again, because asbestos is not the only nasty substance around. That is why I personally would recommend going for an option of partial or full decant—simply to have operational effectiveness.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Before we get into a discussion on the decant options, may I ask Lady Smith if she wishes to come in on this part of our discussion of conditions?

Q64 Baroness Smith of Basildon: You have partially answered the question that I was going to ask, but not entirely. It was really looking at the heritage implications we have here—it is quite a unique building in that sense. In terms of the services that are provided, all of us here have spent some time in the basement and seen the complication of wires and various bits and pieces down there. May we get a sense from you how complicated this is? Is it unusually complicated, or are there lessons that can be learned from other, similar refurbishments? Or is there nothing similar? How unique is this, and how complicated is it?

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Mr Feilden: A building is a building; the fact that it is listed or a heritage building makes the approach more respectful and more careful, but we are still dealing with the same problems and issues as in any other building. I would say that this is a unique situation, simply because of the scale of the building. We have probably all worked on large and complex historic buildings, but this is a very big complex to manage.

Mr Mead: I worked on the MOD Whitehall, which was a large government building requiring a large amount of decant and works. One of the main things they found is what we tend to find with buildings this age. You talked about the basement with a mass of wires, but what happens generally with maintenance is if something goes down, they run a new cable and the old cable gets left in, so you will probably find that a third of the cables down there are actually not doing anything. At the time, it was easier for them to think, “Well, why spend the money ripping it out; we will save that money?” A lot of work was done, so there is a lot of work to be done in tracing. That is very typical with old buildings.

The other thing you will find is that you don’t always know where those cables serve, so when you get a problem, if you go and try to do a repair, you lose more than the area you are in. That is quite typical with old buildings and it was one of the big problems they found with MOD Whitehall. It was easier to know that everything was coming out, rather than just trying to do bits and pieces.

Q65 Baroness Smith of Basildon: So it is quicker doing it as a whole.

Mr Mead: Yes. In my previous employment, I was looking at Canon Row. That was a decanted building, but the security hub was being left in there. The amount of work that has to be done to make sure that you are not taking out the wrong cable, particularly in that case, is probably half the cost of the job, because you just have to have so much manpower to trace every cable through and do all the testing of the circuits to ensure that that part is kept operational. When you are doing your power shutdowns, you have to make sure there is temporary power. Regardless of whether it is a heritage building, any old building with possible continued services going through it is a very complex job.

Q66 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): We have inevitably segued into the next part of the discussion, which is about decant options. It would be useful to hear at least one or two of you describe the main risks and opportunities. The options in the report that we received last summer fall into three categories—all in one go; ongoing; and doing it in two or a small number of phases. Would you consider that there are any main risks or opportunities that are exclusive to those different options, and which are worth putting on the record today in clear, simple terms while we are all here?

Mr Hirst: Certainly. As a pragmatic solution to get the job done, option 3 has clear advantages over the other 2 options.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): And option 3 is?

Mr Hirst: Option 3 is a full decant. Emptying the building and allowing the investigation works to be carried out, and providing clear access to a range of contractors over a period of time to do the works, offers the best, simplest and lowest-risk option. It is not without risk—there are still significant risks with that option—but it is the most straightforward option. Option 2, by contrast—

Q67 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Which is the two or three-parts type option?

Mr Hirst: It is the partial decant—one half decants. It would probably include quite a lot of working around existing activities. If you thought of it as a 50:50 split, you would still end up taking up a lot more space to allow the existing activities to carry on. It would be a very complex activity to manage. It would be quite difficult to co- ordinate and more expensive as a result.

Option 1 is basically the continuation of a maintenance programme but on a larger scale, and not decanting. We would never really see the end of it—that is my opinion—because it would be beyond the working lifetime of most people involved, and the scope of works would necessarily change during the lifetime of that sort of scale of works. Option 3 is best value for money; option 2, which is the partial decant, would be complex, but is a possible way forward; and option 1 is, frankly, a very difficult one to see the end of.

Ms Jubb: I agree. The biggest problem with option 1—I was just thinking about comparable work at the V&A, or Historic Royal Palaces, or National Trust buildings, of which I have direct experience—is that usually you have a closure period, or you have part-closure. Therefore, you have some capacity, in terms of what a decant functions around, but as Nick has pointed out, you would not necessarily be able to isolate them to work on them, even if you had what the report refers to as “swing space”, which sounds quite jazzy, to put some of your functions in.

In that sort of 12-phase programme, which is option 1, you would need a 12th of the building to be void at the moment for you to move into, and as I understand it you do not have that luxury, so I think you are automatically thinking about a substantial decant in order to achieve this work, and all the costs and uncertainty that that brings with it.

What I would say, however, is that if this is a life’s work, it is a life’s work. I think the original refurbishment under Charles Barry took 32 years, and the problem that he had was asking the Members to move between Chambers. I think he had very great difficulty in getting space relinquished in order to do the work and that was the primary cause of delay at that time.

There is precedent for this, of course, in 1941 as well, when the House was decanted over to Church House, and there were similar problems in persuading people to move, and so on. It is very disruptive, but in terms of life safety-risk for construction

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

workers, you have to understand that we are asking people to go into spaces where there is asbestos, and to work in difficult and dangerous conditions. Also, there is the duty of care that the people who are working here have towards you. That relationship is extremely difficult to manage and the costs of getting it wrong are unconscionable.

Q68 Lord Deighton: In terms of the UK industry’s capacity to deliver this project, whether it is at the big end of overall programme management and the significant engineering parts, or the rather specialised trades that might be required to go through the heritage aspects of this work, how well equipped are we to embark on a project of this nature?

Mr Mead: We have a very good recent case with the Olympics.

Q69 Lord Deighton: Not much heritage there.

Mr Mead: No, but in terms of the trades—the plasterers, the builders, the glazing people, the electricians and mechanical engineers—they do the majority of the works. The specialist trades—the masonry and people like that—will obviously need to be looked at. If you had work over a period of time and it was programmed—I know it is climbing slightly on delivery; but if you find you have got a good delivery team set up, so it is programmed well, planned well on paper, I think the industry can cope with it in the UK, not to say there aren’t capable companies outside the UK as well.

Mr Hirst: We have moved forward quite a long way in terms of the overall programme management capability and understanding how risks are best managed within a contract structure, and certainly we are better equipped now with the framework agreements to allow risk to be allocated where it can best be managed. In terms of the high-level programme management, I think we are very well equipped to deal with those points in this country. Regarding the trades and the craft skills, I would defer to other colleagues on this panel.

Ms Jubb: I would have thought we were under-capacity in the heritage sector. We do not have capacity to deliver all the work that is required of us, and there is a very substantial investment in skills and capacity building already in the heritage sector. I will give you a bit of a comparison: since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund has placed £6.9 billion-worth of heritage funding, most of it match funded. You can understand the impact that a project of this size could have on our sector, and I think we could turn that into a positive and say, “This is an opportunity for us to do skills development and capacity building,” but that is not costed in the options.

Mr Feilden: There is certainly an opportunity for adding apprenticeship schemes and training schemes to the delivery programme. This was done in a minor way in the restoration of the Treasury building, and was very successful. I think there is also a considerable opportunity for directed research in the early stages of the programme, in that there is still quite a lot we do not know about how buildings of this type

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

perform—even simple things like the rate of heat loss through the walls and how water vapour moves through the fabric. There is uncertainty as to what the basic physics of those mechanisms are, and that affects how you design and approach the work to the buildings. It is not just at the trade and craft skills level; there is also a research element, and you have a large enough project to make quite a difference to what is going on in the rest of the country.

Q70 Baroness Smith of Basildon: I have two separate questions. I will try one, and if no one else comes back I will go with the other. The first one is about something you said about managing the risk between the different options. I think it was you, Mr Hirst, who mentioned it. Between options 2 and 3—the partial decant and the complete decant—there is obviously an increased cost in the partial decant. I don’t know if you could—not quantify in terms of numbers, but proportionally. It wouldn’t be double the cost, but roughly how would that work?

The second point is timescales. If you have a whole decant, could it be done more quickly than it could if you try and do it in two halves, or in separate parts? Again, what kind of difference is there in timescales, and do you think the timescales in the original report—the original impact assessment—are realistic?

Mr Hirst: I will take the second point first. It is slightly more straightforward than the first one, Baroness. Overall timescales, from what I have seen in the reports, seem reasonable. Again, a lot of it is unknown, as we don’t know what is in the voids and what is hidden. So based on the available information it seems reasonable—the time frames that are available.

In terms of the timescale differences between option 2 and option 3—the full decant in option 3 and the partial decant in option 2—the overall work will be done in a much more effective and efficient way in option 3, having a clearer workspace to go at. While that may not all be needed, in terms of how that work starts and finishes there may be some overlap. They would be moving into the building and moving out of the building in phases in option 3.

In option 2 you would be moving in and moving out of both those options in phases as well, so there will be quite a lot of inefficient working if you are splitting into two phases. The timescales in the report seem similar. In terms of costs, again, it is very difficult to understand, without looking into the detailed nature of the work that is going to be carried out, how those would compare. Clearly, if you have access to and can look at the whole infrastructure of the building, and look at how it works, and make design decisions on that basis, it will be more straightforward—how much it will be very difficult to quantify.

Q71 Baroness Smith of Basildon: Is it easier to deal with unforeseen complications if you have a whole decant, rather than a partial decant, or does it not make much difference?

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Mr Hirst: The contractor has more options and more choices on how he works and where he works, and on how it is managed, in a full decant. There is a lot more flexibility in how they can operate within this building.

Mr Feilden: As part of the design team, I would say that if you have the full decant, you have an opportunity to look at the building as a whole and develop building- wide strategies, particularly for the M&E systems, which need to work as a whole. You can also look at how you compartmentalise those systems, because each M&E system has to be commissioned as a whole. If you have something that goes wrong or has to be dealt with, you need to look at how that relates to the operation of the building in future so that your systems align with one another. Does that make sense?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: It does, yes.

Mr Feilden: So if you are doing a partial decant, you lose a certain amount of that ability to have an overall strategy that is coherent. You are doing it in bits, which has a downside.

Mr Mead: The third issue with a partial decant is health and safety. Because of the way the systems are configured, if you still have half the building, or parts of the building, live, you have the potential for live cables and live pipes. If you had a full decant, you would know that you can shut everything down. That is something else that needs to be considered with the operation of it all.

Ms Jubb: I have two small counter-points. I agree entirely about the full decant, but we were chatting before we came in, and we didn’t think that any contractor was going to work on the whole building at the same time—there wouldn’t be anybody with that kind of capacity—so they would still be working in phases. The partial decant option is not massively shorter than the whole decant, because they would have to work in phases. The other problem you would have is that you would be building concurrent failure into the life cycle. The problem that you have now, where everything wears out in one go, is what you would be facing in future. For a building like this, you would really like to have a look at what happens after the project is complete, because we don’t just walk away and do no more maintenance. It is going to need to be ongoing, so part of the future-proofing that you will hopefully be able to build into the project.

Q72 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): That is an argument in favour of doing it in two phases.

Ms Jubb: It is a consideration. I don’t think it really swings it. It is just something to bear in mind.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Q73 Baroness Smith of Basildon: Could you build in a maintenance programme, a bit like the French do with their roads, where you don’t wait for something to wear out but have a rolling programme going through the building? You could plan that in.

Ms Jubb: Yes, and that is very similar to proposal 1, with the 32-year life cycle.

Q74 Baroness Smith of Basildon: No, I meant once you have done the complete refurb you could have a rolling programme of maintenance. You wouldn’t have to wait for something to wear out.

Ms Jubb: Yes, it would all be sectionalised, so you could deal with it in parts.

Q75 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Okay, from what you are saying, I think the advantages of doing it in one go are around cost and risk, but by doing it in one go we won’t necessarily do it substantially more quickly. The time it would take would be around about the same as if we were to do it in phases.

Ms Jubb: I do not think it would be the same. I would have to have a look at the figures and maybe programme it in more detail. The speed of delivery is not necessarily your only priority.

Q76 Neil Gray: Going back to contractors, how easy would it be, and what possibilities are there, to ensure that contractors are procured from across these isles so that this isn’t a London capital project but one that can benefit SMEs across the country?

Mr Feilden: From experience of working here at the moment, the problem is more about the security systems and access to the site. If you are doing the bit-by-bit process and you are having deliveries offsite through security there, it makes it much more difficult for contractors from a long way away to manage, particularly if they are smaller contractors. If you have a partial or a full decant, you have a bigger site area where the contractors can operate, and you can manage the security in that compound in a different way from those parts of the Palace that are still in use. That will have a big impact on how you can deliver and on the sort of contractors who can take on the work. We will come on to SMEs later.

Q77 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Is there something you want to say about SMEs?

Mr Feilden: The security situation makes it quite difficult for small operators to work here, because if you are a two or three-man band getting everybody through the security system and having to have only secure people at the delivery point slows things down in a way that these guys simply are not used to even thinking about, let alone doing. The bigger contractors can manage that more easily, so if you want

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

SMEs involved—I think that is a very good thing to want—you need a way of getting the bigger contractors to help the smaller guys to operate on site.

Ms Jubb: Packaging is the key, because the specialists you need to do work like this are not all in London. You will need to be able to engage with that part of the market place. The heritage sector is characterised by small, independent firms, so in order to access the skills you need, we need some strategy to package the work to make it attractive to them.

Q78 Mr Rees-Mogg: Can I apologise for being late? There was an urgent question in the Chamber that I was listening into. Ms Jubb, I want to follow up on your answer about the under-capacity of the skilled workforce for the heritage aspect and the possibilities for training. Is there a risk that if all of these people are trained, there will not be enough for them to do once the project is completed on the basis of the £6.9 billion of work done under lottery funding over an extended period against what we are doing in a short period? How can that be managed? Does that tie in with your suggestion that the heritage side may need to run rather longer than the wiring and plumbing side?

Ms Jubb: You have nailed it. There is a tension there because we have got an eternal commitment to our historic places, so ideally we would have a smooth supply of work, but the economy and the sector are not like that. We have all got used to project working, so that is how it is, but in undertaking a very large project like this, there is an obligation to think about business continuity for the people who work with you.

I will give you an example. The people who were approached to do the point cloud survey in this building for obvious reasons were asked whether this would form more than a third of that business’s turnover, and of course it did. So it presented an unacceptable risk to the business, because you would not put all your eggs in one basket. Those clients who have stayed with the small businesses through and through will not be turned away. They have to be cared for because they are also curating the historic environment, so I think it is one aspect of your programme that needs some attention.

Q79 Mr Rees-Mogg: It is difficult both ways. If we train people, we will train more than will be necessary, but if we do not, we may stop important heritage work taking place in other projects, because we will suck all of the supply into the Palace of Westminster.

Ms Jubb: Again, you are leading me into dangerous territory, because the RICS—in fact, all of the institutions here—have participated in the “Cut the VAT” campaign. As you know, until 2012, VAT on historic buildings was zero-rated and now it is 20%. A lot of new build is not zero-rated, and that is one of the reasons we have a capacity problem: just for tax reasons it is less efficient to deliver this kind of work.

Mr Rees-Mogg: As you mentioned that, I had better declare a tangential interest: I live in listed properties in both London and Somerset, so I am affected directly by what you are campaigning for.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): We have noted both the declaration of interests and also the effective use of this opportunity to make your point.

Q80 Chris Bryant: Shouldn’t we be training lots and lots of people so that there are people to look after Jacob’s house? [Interruption.] His houses, sorry.

Ms Jubb: It is an overall sustainability issue—

Q81 Chris Bryant: Sorry, I was being slightly facetious. The better point is, as I understand it, the encaustic tiles scheme that has been going on has been quite successful. There was the danger that that company would be rather overwhelmed by the work it was doing and that that would put it at risk if we were to withdraw, but that has been quite successful.

Ms Jubb: No small business is going to turn work away. Nobody wants to do that, but as I say, it imposes a risk and with it is an ethical duty to manage the risk.

If it means that a big project like this comes along and sort of wipes out the sector, that would be irresponsible, so part of our planning for this project has to be around another awful word, “legacy”, and what happens afterwards. Like you say, those who have trained here could be meeting the skills gap. That is a massive opportunity and I hope that that is how it works out. Also, we can be making an exemplar project here about how you build in training and skills sustainability to large programmes.

Q82 Lord Carter of Coles: Can you give a sense of the numbers of people involved in heritage restoration work and the distortion that would occur? How many thousands of people are engaged in it now?

Ms Jubb: I do not know. I can find out.

Q83 Lord Carter of Coles: It is hard to quantify. We have got a general feeling that this will displace, but we have got no sense of how many.

Ms Jubb: There is a workstream inside the Historic Environment Forum around skills and training, and I will get that information for you.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Does anyone want to pick up anything on this before we move to scope more generally?

Q84 Lord Laming: I have one question, building on what has been said. You have used the word “legacy” a few times. In the way in which we would think of it—not enduring skills or the use of skills, but more in terms of this building—do you think that apart from getting all the pipework, electrics, asbestos and all those things done, we should be thinking of other things that we should be doing alongside this work?

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Mr Feilden: Yes, definitely. Conservation is a forward-looking attitude—it is looking at how you manage change. If you are at this point in the building’s history where you need to do a massive amount of work, you should be looking forward at what you can do to improve the performance and longevity of the building. Personally, I think that the way that the building relates to Parliament Square and Westminster Abbey is not good. I think that the security measures, although absolutely necessary, do not help. The experience of visitors coming into the Palace is not as good as it could be if you had more space out in front. I would be asking you very strongly to be looking at the opportunities to make a better pedestrian connection between the Palace, the Abbey and Parliament Square and to look very carefully at how you encourage visitors to enter the building and what that experience is.

I have been to a presentation in your new Education Centre—I declare an interest; my firm designed it—but it was a very positive message that we were given of a target of getting every child of school age through that explanation of what the Palace of Westminster and what parliamentary democracy are about. A very important part of having a world icon and a heritage building is to get as good an explanation and understanding of why it is important and significant to the public at large, and this is your opportunity to do that, big time.

Mr Hirst: I support the point that realising the opportunities requires some clear vision of what is wanted out of the R&R programme, and that gives you the structure in which those opportunities can be realised, but it needs a very clear vision very early on about where we are going and what it will look like in the future. Within that, the opportunities can then be realised, but it does need a good understanding of how the building will work and operate in future. A full decant would enable significant opportunities to be realised within that framework.

Q85 Chris Grayling (Chair): One of the things—this segues nicely into where we are going next—that we are all contemplating is the degree to which we should add bells and whistles to the programme. One of the challenges is that we want to deliver something as thoughtful as possible with regards to the public financial position, but at the same time you just mentioned the possibility of moving out into the square. Others have suggested modifications to parts of the building, such as the courtyards, and better visitor facilities. That generates two questions. The first is about the practicality of doing that, given the fact that this is an historic, grade I listed building. In engineering terms, can we add bells and whistles sensibly without damaging the overall environment of the building? Secondly, even if we chose to do so, is that defensible in cost terms?

Ms Jubb: When we do very good conservation, we like it when people can’t see that we have been there, but in terms of your overall accountability and outreach work, you should be able to show something at the end of this process. It would be a bit disappointing if you came back and it was just exactly like it is now. There are opportunities: you can make sensitive interventions that will improve things for years and generations to come. It is not normal for a building to be static and never change again.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Q86 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: You have a range of knowledge about current issues around disability access. Can you elaborate on how you think we could use this opportunity to improve access and usage for people with a range of disabilities?

Ms Jubb: It is really an M&E question, because it is about lifts and physically moving people with mobility impairments around. But you should also think about other forms of impairment—there is not just physical access but intellectual access as well.

Q87 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Sight and hearing.

Ms Jubb: Yes, but the meat and potatoes of it is going to be around renewing the systems in a way that is modern and functional for everybody to create an inclusive environment.

Q88 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: You mentioned earlier looking at where we are today in relation to other historic buildings—having to take account of higher rainfall, for example. Is there anything in particular you would ask us to consider in terms of longer-term environmental sustainability?

Ms Jubb: You will obviously be trying to reduce your energy bills, which I think are probably a bit high at the moment, so you should think about using renewable energies and the overall use of energy. I should say at this point that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been involved in doing embodied carbon calculations. You would not necessarily want to meet the same standards as a new building, because this building is inherently efficient. A lot of the stuff that is in here has a long lifecycle and doesn’t owe you anything in terms of carbon. Having said that, this place has a reputation for leadership and needs to set an example, so you should aim for the highest possible standard of sustainability. At the same time, it will improve comfort inside the building as well, so there is no conflict in trying to go for that. It is cost-effective and it makes people more comfortable.

Mr Feilden: If you ever have a chance, there is a very good talk given by the National Trust’s energy adviser for Wales, where they looked at their energy targets for the next 10 years. I think they achieved 50% of those targets within a year by looking at behaviour, management and maintenance. It startled them as to what they could achieve over an entire estate by having a hard-headed look at how they used it—not leaving windows and doors open when they didn’t have to, turning lights out, putting in low-energy bulbs and so on. There were some fairly low-key activities that, spread across the whole estate, had a major effect. I suspect you could find the same effect here.

Mr Mead: On disability and access, there is a lot of M&E there. You have some very heavy doors and things like that, so there would be the opportunity to put in devices that can open the doors, and disabled toilets and so on. A lot can be done in those sorts of areas. In terms of sustainability, a lot of people talk about green generation;

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

you can generate as green as you like, but it is about what you use at the end. Making the building more efficient in its lighting and heating and things like that will have a massive impact on the environment—more so than generating and things like that.

Q89 Chris Bryant: One of the bits of evidence we have had regularly is that there is not enough light—that it is very difficult to see. This room is another example: it is not very well lit now, and for many people with a sight disability it would be difficult to read papers or anything.

I was going to ask you two things each. First, is there any part of the interventions from the 20th century—to use your term—that you would pull down? Quite a lot of building work was added to the original Barry design in the 20th century. Secondly, if you were allowed one significant improvement to the building, what would it be?

Ms Jubb: I would agree with you on the setting. How you experience this building—a lot of people experience this building from outside; actually many more than from inside. I know that this is essentially a mechanical and electrical project to improve the services and the performance of the building itself, but doing something that improves performance and enjoyment outside as well would be a very good addition.

Mr Feilden: It is a minor irritation, but I think you should deal with the two canopied constructions on the rear terrace.

Chris Bryant: Which are freezing in the winter and boiling in the summer.

Mr Feilden: I suspect you don’t have permission for them anyway, but that’s another story. They obviously fulfil an important function, but I am sure it could be done better than in those. It is something done in a hurry. You really do have an opportunity to do better now.

Chris Bryant: They are temporary.

Mr Feilden: Very temporary.

Chris Bryant: For 40 years.

Q90 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Is there anything else you want to say about the scope of the project before we move in the last couple of minutes to the governance arrangements? Is there anything we have not covered on the scope?

Mr Feilden: I see the need for a very clear vision, and that would be probably led by this Committee. It needs to be at a very senior level. That needs to be expressed very clearly in the brief you give out to the design teams, contractors and tradesmen. That communication of what you are about and where you are going is very important to achieve the right result at the end.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Q91 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): That is a helpful segue into the next section on governance. If there was to be a delivery authority, which is something we are considering, one thing I want to find out is how important you feel a sponsor body or some kind of champion would be in order to make the delivery authority effective in its responsibilities. I want to hear a little bit more about how you see the risks and opportunities once we move into the next phase, as well as things we need to think about in the context of governance and things that are important for us to take account of now.

Mr Hirst: To pick up on the vision point and follow that through into governance, I don’t think the Palace of Westminster is going to be an easy project for whoever is involved—not just the structure of the buildings and the services, but also the client might be quite challenging. A delivery authority is very important in helping to bridge the gap between the client organisation and the agents delivering that work. It would be no small feat to get that mandate for the delivery authority on paper. It will be a challenge in its own right because there will be many aspects of the operations of these Houses that will be affected, whichever options are taken. There will be elements of decant and elements of work taking place in and around live operations.

The mandate and clear instructions about what that delivery authority is there to do and what authority it has to act in its own name—in terms of extensions of time, reductions of time, changes of scope and changes of budget—are very important, in order to give some leeway to cope with the unexpected and with the risks that are inevitably going to be found with undertaking this project.

That body needs to be advised by appropriate experts, which again is part of how you procure and pull in the expertise for historic buildings and services. That is very important. Having the management structure within a delivery authority to do that is going to be very difficult to put on paper and even more difficult to put into practice.

This is going to be a complex, difficult job that will be challenging to whoever manages it, however it is undertaken, but if the works are going to be undertaken, that cannot be ducked. That mandate has to be thought through very carefully and has to be put down, challenged and put up for scrutiny. It is very important that the delivery authority approach is adopted. That is one step that will take us in the right direction. Understanding what that body’s remit is and its ability to make decisions in its own right will be very important.

Q92 Lord Deighton: I have a couple of questions. First, what are the two or three things that we should watch out for? What are the things that nearly always go wrong in big, complicated projects and to which this one might be particularly susceptible? Secondly, remembering the sequence of events, if we go for a decant we are going to need quite a substantial project to get that ready, and then we get into the R&R as well as managing all the stuff we are doing to keep the whole thing going so it doesn’t fall over while all of that’s going on—so, there are a number of dimensions. How would you structure the project to handle that? Would you put the delivery authority in charge of all of that in a global way, or

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) would you use the people who have been doing it for a while? How would you approach that specific problem?

Mr Hirst: There is a very challenging aspect to the decant programme and the R&R programme. There are different audiences for both. However, in order to undertake the R&R programme, which is what I can comment on, understanding the delivery of the decant is essential. Managing, controlling and assisting the movement of people and their activities out of this place to other locations is integral to undertaking the R&R programme. I think that a single authority needs to capture the decant programme as well as the R&R programme.

Q93 Lord Deighton: And the two or three pitfalls?

Ms Jubb: I agree. One of the hazards that the report doesn’t go into very much is the risk of protracted and unseemly dispute. I think that you should build in dispute resolution procedures at the very highest level. I was just looking at a quote from Sir David Higgins. When he was asked about the biggest factor of the Olympic Delivery Authority’s success, he said that it was creating a culture “built around respecting other people and diversity of thought.” There was a collaborative approach, which I think you should seek to emulate. In fact, if you look back at the pitfalls of the original build process, Sir Charles Barry spent nearly every day in front of one Committee or another having to explain himself and push his project through, yet he was a brilliant delegator. His relationship with Pugin is what achieved this amazing outcome for you. At the end of the day, it is going to be about building good, lasting relationships.

Q94 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Given that this is a grade 1 listed building and is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, have you got any advice for us about how you would handle the planning issues that might arise?

Mr Feilden: Prepare very thoroughly and involve the people involved. A project of this size will stretch the resources and capacity of your local authority, Westminster. They won’t have enough people to deal with this, so you should probably be looking at a planning performance agreement, which is a new legal vehicle whereby in effect you fund a team for them to look at what you are doing. I think it is extremely important that you don’t duck out of the planning and building system. You need to lead the country in that because a lot of people find it uncomfortable and restrictive, and it will send a very bad message if you just say, “No, it’s not for us. We don’t have to do that.”

Mr Hirst: It is a very big, complex project. Whether or not it is of strategic national importance takes it into a different realm, and whether that is something that should be considered by the Joint Committee. It is about understanding whether it is a nationally strategic infrastructure project in its own right. It is worth considering whether that gives you any alternatives and any other options.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Q95 Chris Grayling (Chair): On that point, local planning issues are clearly a challenge. Would it be a sensible approach if it were defined in that way and if we were to use the 2008 Act to do that?

Mr Hirst: Coming at it from a programme management perspective, yes. From a political perspective, I would pass the question back to you.

Q96 Chris Bryant: Still on this planning issue, if we stick with the system we will have those tents on the Terrace, for ever and ever, because that is basically what we have been battling over for 40 years already. That is my anxiety. Lynda, you said that this place is about providing leadership, so what kind of leadership would you like us to show in terms of planning?

Ms Jubb: If it comes to compliance, I think you need to demonstrate the higher standards of compliance. It puts the whole heritage sector at risk if the protective regimes are seen not to work. But making them work is, I think, within your reach, and there is work going on within the Historic Environment Forum at the moment to address those difficulties in local authority delivery and so on. So I would say that you should build that into your programme as part of your overall engagement and collaboration agenda, to ensure that you leave the protection regime enhanced, and not disabled at the end of this.

Q97 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you very much for giving up your time to come and see us this afternoon. We have also received your written submissions, for which we thank you as well. I am very grateful to you for your frankness, and for your insights into the relationship between Pugin and Barry—lessons in history. We have some historians around the table here as well, who will, I am sure, have appreciated that even more than I have.

Thank you very much indeed. If there is anything that we have not covered, or if you want to provide other information that you feel we need, by all means drop us a further line.

Ms Jubb: I promised some statistics. We will send them out.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Okay. Thank you very much.

That draws to an end the public aspect of our meeting.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0063)

Background 1. This response is submitted on behalf of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). CIBSE is the primary professional body and learned society for those who design, install, operate and maintain the energy using systems, both mechanical and electrical, which are used in buildings. Our Royal Charter sets out our objectives as follows: a) The promotion for the benefit of the public in general of the art, science and practice of such engineering services as are associated with the built environment and with industrial processes, such art, science and practice hereinafter called “building services engineering”; and b) The advancement of education and research in building services engineering, and the publication of the useful results of such research.

2. This covers all aspects of engineering services associated with buildings. This includes heating, ventilating, cooling, lighting, whether artificially or by means of daylight, electrical supply for appliances and machines, gas and electric supply to catering equipment and provision of hot and cold water within the building for sanitary and culinary purposes. It also includes fire safety and smoke control systems, security systems, CCTV and some access control measures, as well as lifts and escalators and moving walkways, Our members therefore have a pervasive involvement in the fitting out and refurbishment and use of energy in all types of buildings the UK. Our focus is on adopting a co-ordinated, systems engineering approach at all stages of the life cycle of buildings, including conception, briefing, design, procurement, construction, operation, maintenance and ultimate disposal. 3. CIBSE is one of the leading global professional bodies providing building performance related knowledge. Building performance addresses the comfort, safety, security and effectiveness of the indoor environment, and the provision of spaces that are fit for the activities undertaken within them. CIBSE’s work is focussed on the delivering effective buildings which perform as clients expect them, and the Institution and its members are the primary source of professional guidance for the building engineering services sector on the design and installation of effective, energy efficient building services systems to deliver healthy, comfortable and effective building performance. 4. CIBSE operates a number of Specialist Interest Groups, which are made up of both members and non-members who have a particular interest in a specific aspect of building services engineering. One such Group is the CIBSE Heritage Group, which comprises a number of experts in building services in the Heritage Sector. They work closely with staff within the national heritage bodies, the National Trust, English Heritage Trust, ecclesiastical heritage bodies and others, seeking to maintain knowledge of the specific needs of building services engineers in dealing with the refurbishment of historic and heritage buildings. More information about the group is available at http://www.cibse.org/Networks/Groups/Heritage.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0063)

5. The Palace is the birthplace of modern building services, or at least of building conditioning other than just heating, along with St George’s Hall in Liverpool. This historic characteristic is important, and from a heritage perspective should influence the restoration works. It would also be interesting to see how far the brief can go in terms of making the Palace once again an exemplar building within the context and constraints of its existing heritage status. Response 6. In response to the consultation questions addressed to the public and interested groups, CIBSE suggests that there are four strategic observations that are appropriate and particularly pertinent from a building services perspective, bearing in mind that the term “building services” covers a wide range of engineering systems as described above. a) Appropriate restoration and replacement of the building services in the Palace is critical to delivering an effective restoration and upgrade of our parliament buildings to be fit for the remainder of the 21st century. An effective legislature requires a building that is a comfortable, safe and secure working environment for legislators, their staffs, and the wider visiting electorate. Appropriately designed, installed, commissioned, operated and maintained building services are essential to delivering that objective. b) Setting a clear systematic brief for the whole building restoration and refurbishment project at the outset, in which the requirements for heating, cooling, ventilating, lighting, small power, public health provision, catering, lifts, security and access control, data networks and fire safety are clearly articulated, is essential to effective delivery of this project. Once set, then changes to the brief and the resulting specification need to be very carefully controlled to avoid compromising the outcome. The importance of this principle cannot be stressed too highly. c) A parliamentary refurbishment is for life, or at least for a generation. The whole life of the project needs to be considered. In particular, whilst it may be tempting to economise on some aspects of the project to reduce costs, or the risk of a tabloid headline, it is a false economy and selling future generations of the electorate. d) The restoration of the Palace of Westminster is a massive undertaking, which can only sensibly be undertaken on a whole building scale. The additional complexities and uncertainties of a phased refurbishment would create a very significant potential for cost overruns and delays of time. Given the uncertainty around the precise state of the Palace, and the state of the building services, any contract for phased restoration and refurbishment would contain significant elements of contingency. e) To minimise this risk the joint committee should obtain the agreement of parliament as a whole to vacate the whole site for the duration of the refurbishment. This is the only sensible, realistic engineering approach to the project. It may create challenges for parliamentarians, but if this is to be a proper refurbishment which addresses decades of decay and arguably false economy to deliver a parliament building fit for the 21st century at good value to the electorate who are funding it, then it needs to be a systematic, whole building, whole life approach.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0063)

7. In arguing for this course of action it is understood that the task of finding enough space to house the entire Palace in any decant phase is significant. Retrofitting the two major chambers and creating sufficient committee rooms in any existing building, or building temporary ones will be extremely challenging. 8. In addition, the decant element of the works will be a significant programme in its own right. But whilst a two phase approach might reduce the scope of the decant works, it will create a significant challenge for any engineer in terms of keeping half the Palace in operation as a safe, secure, healthy working environment. A two phase approach creates its own logistic and security challenges associated with the actual construction. 9. The restoration will inevitably be a complex and long running project. There are few easy answers to the questions it will pose. However, clarity of purpose, consistency of management and delivery and a clear focus on delivering value for money over the life of the project and not just on first cost are all essential to delivering a world class restoration of the “mother of parliaments”.

22 February 2016

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Supplementary written evidence (RAR0066)

1. This response is submitted on behalf of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), following the hearing of oral evidence by the Joint Committee on Monday 7 March 2016. 2. Questions 57 to 61, and in particular Lord Deighton’s specific question, Q60, about the age profile and condition of the mechanical and electrical systems in the Palace, it is very likely that they are beyond what would normally be considered the economic working life, which is defined for many components in Appendix 12.A1 of CIBSE Guide M: Maintenance and Operation. It is also very likely that some of the systems do not comply with the current regulations in various ways. However, there will be no real certainty about the state of the mechanical and electrical systems until such time as they can be fully inspected in a safe manner. That is one of the considerations in relation to the options for carrying out the works. 3. In response to the questions about the relative costs and timescales for options 2 and 3, it was noted that health and safety is a key issue. The Palace contains significant asbestos related risks, and these must be managed safely. Indeed, the safe treatment and removal of asbestos is a critical precursor to providing full and safe access to the existing mechanical and electrical services systems. Attempting to deal safely with the asbestos within the Palace is a compelling consideration when deciding between option 2 and option 3. It is scarcely imaginable that Parliament would contemplate a course of action which risked exposing anyone working within the estate to asbestos. 4. There is a further consideration which was not raised in oral evidence, which is security. Operating part of the Palace as a safe construction workplace immediately adjacent to the secure operation of the seat of parliament will be a significant challenge. Whilst it is understood that even with option 3 there will still be security considerations, managing the Palace as a single secure construction site will be less of a challenge than option 2 offers. 5. In addition, there is one further security aspect which needs to be considered. With the introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in central government procurement from April 2016 it is anticipated that there will be a call for the renovation and refurbishment of the Palace to adopt BIM. Given the sensitivities of this site in particular, the adoption of BIM on this project will require very detailed consideration of the security issues in sharing digital project information with a potentially large supply chain. CIBSE supports Mr Grey's call for wide involvement of SMEs in the project (Q76), and this will require careful information management to ensure that SME engagement does not create vulnerabilities in the longer term security of the Palace. 6. There was some discussion about skills and the size of the available workforce which ran through from Q68 to Q84. This addressed the availability of skilled workers for the project, and comparison was drawn between the total heritage lottery funded workload over the

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers - Supplementary written evidence (RAR0066) past 20 years and the potential Palace works. The Palace works are indeed a considerable volume of work and will demand a significant level of training and apprenticeships. However, although the programme is being carried out in a heritage estate, not all of the cost of the programme is related to heritage activity. It is therefore not appropriate to compare the overall potential size of the project directly with the aggregate heritage lottery spend since the mid 1990’s. That said, the programme of work at the Palace will require a significant proportion of the available pool of skilled labour in the heritage field, many working for SMEs. 7. It is also true that many of those who have been delivering the historic work funded through the lottery over the past two decades are more experienced workers, and many will retire from the workforce over the life of the parliamentary works (if not before). There is therefore a need to train a new generation to replace them, and it is by no means certain that “we will train more than will be necessary” as Mr Rees Mogg feared I his Q79. Far from viewing this as a challenge and a risk of over-supply, the refurbishment of the Palace provides a unique opportunity to develop this new generation, through apprenticeships and other career development activity, and to aim to bring a significant number of young women into the sector. 8. Such a programme would not only contribute to delivering the refurbishment of parliament but would also make a nationally significant contribution to the renewal of skills in the heritage sector, with potential benefits extending far beyond the parliamentary estate, and London, but also, as Mr Rees Mogg noted, to constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. The parliamentary project offers the scope to drive a national heritage skills training programme that would yield lasting benefits to the whole country for at least a generation. 9. Finally, Lord Deighton asked for two or three things that Parliament should “watch out for” (Q92). It is worth drawing attention to the delivery of major projects over the past two decades in the UK. The Olympic Park, High Speed 1 and Heathrow Terminal 5 all demonstrate the ability of the UK construction sector to design, deliver and manage complex projects to time and on budget. In the case of the ODA, this was against an immovable deadline, and in the case of HS1 it involved the integration of the new line with a Grade 1 listed station and hotel at St Pancras. In all three cases the achievement was led by a client body which had a clear vision, excellent leadership and world class project managers. 10. We trust that these additional observations will assist in amplifying the evidence already given in writing and orally.

14 March 2016

Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031)

I am a Professor of Politics and Gender at the University of Bristol, with an academic career researching UK politics and the House of Commons dating from the mid-1990s. Key publications include: Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party: From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels (2012, with Webb); Women and British Party Politics (2008); and New Labour’s Women MPs (2004). In 2010 I was appointed as the Gender Special Advisor to the Speaker’s Conference (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/spconf/239/239i.pdf), and in 2014 I was the Advisor to the Women in Parliament APPG Report Improving Parliament (http://appgimprovingparliamentreport.co.uk/download/APPG-Women-In-Parliament- Report-2014.pdf).

I am currently resident in Westminster (since July 2015) undertaking a project that will deliver a report outlining reforms that would make the UK House of Commons a more Gender Sensitive Parliament (GSP). The concept of GSP derives from the Inter Parliamentary Union,2 which defines such a Parliament as ‘truly representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective in its many functions’.3 My project is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the University of Bristol, under the ESRC’s ‘Impact Acceleration Account’ scheme.4

My independent work in Parliament is guided by (1) a cross-party Panel of MPs, male and female and (2) an Advisory Board constituted by Parliamentary Clerks and officials, and Chaired by Mr Speaker. I have spoken with a considerable number of MPs individually and collectively and hosted a number of meetings, conferences, and workshops over the last six months or so. I am currently interviewing MPs regarding Parliamentary work, family life and IPSA.

I am very much of the view, in line with the Hansard Society of which I am a long-standing member, that ‘Renewal and Restoration’ constitutes a ‘once-in- a-150-year opportunity’ to lay ‘out a new vision’ for the House of Commons.5 Having read Commons’ publications relating to R&R it is my considered opinion first, that both Houses should decant to an alternative location near to the Palace whilst repairs and restoration are undertaken. Secondly, the House should seize the opportunity to explore and trial alternative means by which parliamentary politics might be undertaken and that these experiences should inform the return to the Palace of Westminster. With this in mind, my proposals are presented here to illustrate the importance of the Committee favouring option 3C.

Winston Churchill’s quote - ‘we shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us’ - is widely acknowledged, and widely articulated to defend the House of Commons as it is currently constituted. The R&R process should be minded, in my view however, to reflect further on how the latter part of the quotation in practice also informs the former; that questions of what a restored Parliament – and the politics that occurs therein – could and should be like

2 http://www.ipu.org/english/whatipu.htm Established in 1889 the IPU is an international organization of Parliaments whose mission is to constitute ‘the focal point for world-wide parliamentary dialogue’. 3 http://www.ipu.org/dem-e/guide.htm 4 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/industry/esrc-iaa/ 5 http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/restoration-project/

Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031) post-decant. In my view the aforementioned IPU standard of good Parliamentary infrastructure and culture should explicitly and centrally feed into this process so as to ensure a parliamentary infrastructure and culture that is inclusionary.6

The individual reforms outlined below are underpinned by an overarching commitment to experimentation that the R&R process permits. Most notably, the physical form of the new spaces in which parliamentary debates and scrutiny will take place during decant should be sufficiently flexible to trial new ways of doing politics – ways that might both enhance the effectiveness within the House and legitimacy of the House amongst the electorate. In sum, options should be kept open both in respect of decant but also, and correspondingly, for return. In all this, one should ask the question, what might and what should a UK Parliament in 2030 or 2050 be ‘like’ so as to sustain the IPU’s truly representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective House of Commons?

The Debating Chamber Any debating chamber should - at the very minimum - provide seating for all members – to do otherwise is to deny members the ability to participate effectively and efficiently in the Chamber.7 At the very minimum the means to distinguish ‘seats’ should be established e.g. small ridges indicating ‘spaces’ could be part of re-upholstering. Chamber furniture should also be sufficiently flexible to provide for members who are in wheelchairs and or who have other needs. Members using wheelchairs should be able to sit with their party colleagues on the backbenches, and if appointed to the frontbenches to sit with the Cabinet and Government. There should be better audio/ communicative provision as to aide participation.

The advantage of a modular and flexible system of seating, over and above reasons of diversity and equality of participation by Members stated above, include (i) the provision of additional seating when and as wanted; (ii) variation in the layout of the seating specific to the needs of particular Chamber activities and events. For example, where the Chamber is likely to be attended by few members, it should be possible to rearrange the seating so that Members could sit in a physically closer arrangement – this might enhance debate; would provide for better TV coverage; and may counter public opinion that often the chamber is ‘empty’ when 30 or so Members are actually present. Alternatively where a more consensual style is preferred, seating might reflect a less adversarial layout.

The decant experiments implied above should, moreover, inform consideration of return. Extant debates over alternative configurations of seating are frequently based on subjective observation (have you watched how dull and sterile or staged the European Parliament is? some MPs assert). Decant provides for current MPs to undertake their chamber duties according to a range of alternative seating options and to experience first how a variety of layouts are mediated by extant party political culture/norms. These experiences should formally feed into discussions for return.

6 Please note that these reforms presume the continuation of current sitting hours. 7 Even when there is room between two Members, a veteran will insist on occupying the usual place. The technique is to aim the bottom at the non-existent space between two Members bear down heavily while wiggling the posterior vigorously from side to side. By a phenomenon that puzzles physicists a space appears where there was none before. The bottom of the MP with ancient rights hits the green leather (Flynn 2012, 174).

Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031)

The need to accommodate Members’ needs as well as adopting a more flexible and modular seating system will likely mean that the current Chamber is too small (see, Rogers and Walters, 1987, 12). This could be addressed either by (i) expanding the current Chamber into the division lobbies (with knock on effects relating to divisions, see below) or by considering the building of a new Chamber on the Palace estate, most likely the building of a glass extension/glassing over an existing courtyard (Rogers and Walters 2015, 372). This might well have the additional benefit of suggesting to the public of a commitment to the principles of a new, better institution, and one that is more transparent and accessible to a diversity of members and to the public. It also offers up the possibility of reconsidering what maximizes visitor experiences. It might be that the existing Chamber could still be retained for use on specific ceremonial occasions, and/or opened for more extensive public visits.

Division Lobbies There is criticism that the current system of division voting is inefficient for both MPs and parliamentary staff. Consideration of ‘on estate remote voting’ either at (i) voting stations in various locations or (ii) from anywhere on the Parliamentary estate, would negate the need for the provision of division lobbies, maximise MPs time, and would not, in respect of the first case, undermine the interaction between MPs and ministers so valued by MPs. In decant, and by trailing both options, MPs could experience the reality of remote on estate voting; at present, considerable conjecture is advanced. 8

Committee Rooms and other Parliamentary Meeting Rooms Here the principle of flexibility is again a very good one; to maximise efficiency in limited space, non-fixed furniture will ensure that the same space can be used for different purposes. Consideration should also be given to the layout, furniture and furnishings - at present Committee rooms in the Palace are imposing – often with very formal and fixed layouts, dark wood panelling, wallpaper and oil paintings. Whilst considerable effort has been given to greater diversity of pictures in PCH, current rules and practices in the Palace mitigate against this. The Palace contrasts greatly with the more contemporary business-like decor and feel of PCH’s rooms. Different meeting purposes may very well further benefit from the flexibility to rearrange furniture so as to make a space more intimate, less intimidating to those not used to attending and speaking in the House, e.g. atypical select committee witnesses. In short, rooms used for meetings with the public should be made welcoming. In addition, consideration should be given to access: many doors in Parliament are very heavy to open, and are difficult to negotiate with a physical disability/wheelchair. Signage is often poor too, directing the public to Central Lobby and the Committee floors for example.

The question of technology should also be explored during decant: video conferencing is a widespread practice in business, charity sector and the academy. Trials could be undertaken to explore participation in Committees by MPs and, or witnesses. Accordingly, return should ensure that the Palace has sufficient provision for MPs and visitors/witnesses technological needs, e.g. highest quality virtual participation; Wi-Fi; sufficient plugs for charging IPads, and laptops.

8 See, the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy.

Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031)

Passes There is plenty of evidence that the current pass system leaves too many MPs (and staff) - especially young, female and BME ones - questioned about their status. This is due to the continual problem of passes flipping over and showing the non-photograph side; this requires the police and door keepers to ask people to show their passes. Parliamentary passes should therefore be double-sided with photographs and names on both sides. The colouring might also be improved so as to make the passes more readily distinct.

Social Spaces for MPs The provision of ‘Lady’ Members rooms should be provided for in decant and maintained in a restored Parliament; ditto the male changing room. In respect of both the women’s and men’s rooms there should be a principle of equal provision, not least of furniture including baby changing and caring furniture. Women MPs should be asked their preference for the name of the rooms – perhaps these might be named after pioneering women MPs. There should also be consideration of a ‘cafe-like’ space in the Palace that provides a more relaxed environment, as the PCH atrium. This could be provided for by glazing over courtyard(s). Again these could be designed to be flexible spaces that can be used in different ways at different times, e.g. cafes, reception areas, bookable private MP meeting spaces. There should also be another survey of MPs and staff regarding the provision of hot food in the evenings in the Palace; with PCH closing earlier than the House sits, there is evidence that some MPs feel that they are not able to access the kinds of refreshment that suits.

In respect of both decant and return there should be consideration of a clear principle that underpins the zoning of the Palace in terms of access: the assumption should be that unless a case can be made for reasons of security or capacity that all staff should be permitted in all areas. Regarding capacity there should be reflection on enhancing this where it requires special treatment for MPs e.g. PCH atrium might have additional tables provided and or an electronic system of table booking created.

Spaces for Visitors The establishment of the nursery for MPs and staff children was a welcome addition to UK Parliament. Consideration should now be given to a ‘drop in crèche’ for visitors to Parliament. These might be for social visitors but more importantly for witnesses to select committee inquiries and other public facing events. Whilst this may incur additional costs, such an institution would constitute an additional resource to support those visiting the House and should enable those currently unable to participate in Parliament to do so; if IKEA can manage this, so too should the Palace of Westminster.

Toilets Provision should be planned for a future parity Parliament with equal numbers of women and men MPs and visitors; MPs and the public who have differing needs (some existing signs are rather dated too, e.g. ‘Toilets for disabled’ at the bottom of the stairs down to the Terrace canteen. There should also be some unisex/gender neutral toilets. Baby changing facilities should be separate facilities accessible to all parents/carers.

Sundries and Services

Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031)

Given the existing hours and parliamentary calendar, the House should ensure that there is provision of a hairdressing salon in both decant and return. The House should also ensure in both situations either (a) a Kiosk or (b) a vending machine for essential sundries, e.g. Paracetamol, Lemsip, tights, and sanitary towels/tampons, and including some over the counter pharmacy provision. A study should also be undertaken into the provision of a GPs service on the estate.

22 January 2016

Cara Clark and Mark Wyman - Written evidence (RAR0040)

Summary: any Restoration and Renewal programme agreed for Parliament should have firm environmental provisions built into it from the start. Environmental criteria should also be applied during the choice and adaptation of any external buildings used for decanting.

From: Mark Wyman and Cara Clark – we are both staff who work in the Official Report (in the Lords and Commons respectively); we are also Prospect union representatives. However, we are submitting this in a personal capacity and not on behalf of our union branch or other unions.

1) (re. Question 1) Public engagement with the work of Parliament might be considerably improved if Parliament moved to having considerably fewer late evening or night sittings. At present, during a typical sitting week in the winter, about two-thirds of the sitting hours of the House of Lords will occur after dark when relatively few of the public are in the building. Public engagement with and awareness of parliamentary scrutiny should be ameliorated by making more use of daylight hours. We will refer to the environmental impact of this later.

2) (re. Question 2) A major Restoration and Renewal programme presents a significant opportunity for Parliament to set a really good example among leading World Heritage sites. If any major work is to be done then sustainability and ecology should, wherever possible, be embraced as central principles in such a programme. For example, there should be a commitment to the maximum use of sustainable, reusable and, where possible, carbon neutral building materials in any refit. If there is to be any decanting of the Houses, this provides a real opportunity not just to replace the building’s mechanical and electrical plant but investigate the potential for greater diversity in ecology and energy generation in and around the Palace.

3) (re. Question 5) We would not wish to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster that damage its unique heritage status. However, our union colleagues are right to raise many concerns about accessibility for disabled people. Meanwhile, many existing grassy open areas around the Palace, particularly at the Elizabeth Tower end, are too monocultural. The chance to create more ecologically diverse areas (perhaps more suited to a warmer 21st-century climate) should not be missed. Any potential for green plantings at higher levels of the Palace should also be pursued. The creation of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood was, we concede, a very different project - but its lead in taking initiatives on roof gardens, diverse greenery and even colonies of bees should be followed here. The work at the new Crossrail site at Canary Wharf is also worth considering in this regard. Some work has been done in recent years on installing solar panels in flat roof areas of the Palace. This should be extended wherever possible, without altering the key

Cara Clark and Mark Wyman - Written evidence (RAR0040)

views of its skyline from around Westminster. But is there also the potential to harness and generate tidal flow energy from the Thames, for example, for Parliament’s own use? A pilot scheme further along the Embankment was being trialed five years ago. Parliament should assess current advances in renewable energy technology, such as tidal turbines, in case any could be installed below the waterline adjacent to the Palace. Such initiatives would not simply be responsible; they may to some extent mitigate public criticism of the high cost of Restoration and Renewal by reducing future running costs.

4) (re. Question 7) The question about adapting to Parliament’s changing needs in the 21st century should be considered alongside Britain’s commitments to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Again, it is key that Parliament sets the best example here in how it uses its own estate. For the past few years, Parliament has been making impressive progress towards some ambitious environmental improvement targets, which were set in the action plan of 2009 and revised in 2013. This existing environmental improvement programme is set to conclude in 2020/21. Any replacement for this programme should therefore be developed in tandem with the decisions on Restoration and Renewal, and pay full attention to the energy and environmental implications of using other buildings during decanting. The impact of the move itself should also be taken into consideration, and environmental considerations should be kept in mind throughout the process.

5) (re. Question 8) Regarding improvements to the way in which we work in the Palace, staff whose working hours are based around the sitting hours of the Houses accept a certain level of antisocial working. However, even a small change to the predominantly after-dark sitting hours referred to on Question 1, resulting in the use of more daylight hours, would have beneficial impacts on both energy consumption around the Palace and the work/life balance of such staff. There has been considerable evidence recently of the health impacts of excessive levels of nightshifts and working after dark. Could any of the secondary debating Chambers or Committee rooms, such as the Moses Room, also be renovated so as to have more natural light during daylight hours? The environmental impact of using taxis to transport staff across London, bearing in mind that these are needed for the personal safety of staff, should also be considered, particularly during future tendering processes.

22 January 2016

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034)

Submitted by Andrew Tuggey, Chief Executive & Secretary, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK (CPA UK) on behalf of the CPA UK Executive Committee

Summary

1.01. International parliamentary outreach (parliamentary diplomacy and parliamentary strengthening) is of strategic importance to the UK Parliament. Legislatures across the world and particularly in the Commonwealth look to Westminster as the bench-mark legislature from where to seek advice and guidance.

1.02. Parliament’s ability to continue to deliver international outreach programmes needs to be given equitable consideration at all levels of decision-making of R&R. Existing facilities for international outreach activities are stretched to capacity. The R&R project offers unique opportunities to build in 21st Century facilities and enhancements to improve Westminster’s delivery of international parliamentary outreach.

1.03. Any major disruption to the delivery of international outreach throughout the R&R project will impact adversely on the very major contribution that the Houses of Parliament make to the soft power of the UK. The enhancement of facilities available to CPA UK and other practitioners of international parliamentary outreach in Westminster should be considered in that vein.

Strategic Importance of International Parliamentary Relations to the work of the House of Commons and House of Lords

2.01. Both Houses of Parliament include international parliamentary relations in their strategic objectives in recognition that Westminster is an institution of huge international profile and repute, considered a benchmark for democratic governance. Westminster attracts a large number of international visitors seeking information exchange on all aspects of parliamentary practice and procedure.

2.02. The House of Commons Strategic Goals 2013-17 include:

1. Effective: Learning from the Experience of other Parliaments

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034)

4. Respect: Supporting other parliaments; especially those in transition to democracy

2.03. The House of Lords Strategic Objectives 2014-19 include:

- Engagement: Communicate and foster public engagement with the work of the House as an effective second Chamber at home and abroad - Partnership: Engage and exchange best practice with other Parliaments and Assemblies. 2.04. As a membership organisation for all parliamentarians, and funded by Parliament (70% House of Commons and 30% House of Lords) CPA UK makes a significant contribution to the delivery of these objectives and has an impressive international reputation for delivering international outreach projects on behalf of Parliament – and the wider CPA.

Suggested Long Term Improvements in support of International Parliamentary Relations

3.01. The CPA UK office area in Westminster Hall is the hub for delivery of its Westminster-based programmes. In considering ‘long-term improvements which make the Palace more accessible, provide better visitor facilities and have the potential to enable the building to be used more efficiently’ CPA UK suggests most strongly that the following improvements be considered:

a. A Dedicated Conference Space/Centre. Using the recently opened Education Centre as an example of a new, designed-for-purpose facility; a dedicated 300 person conference space on the estate would bring significant benefits to the whole of Parliament. There is currently a big demand for meeting rooms on the parliamentary estate, which compromises the efficiency of programme delivery for those working with visitor groups. Existing meeting rooms have priority, capacity, layout and other suitability issues. A conference space designed with certain visitor groups in mind would address issues which currently are resolved by using off-site facilities – which have considerable financial implications. In line with exploiting the revenue potential of public buildings, a conference centre would generate income when not needed for parliamentary use.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034)

b. CPA UK deals regularly with facilities challenges when planning and delivering its programme of conferences, seminars, workshops, lectures and other meetings. Its wish-list for improvements to existing facilities include:

 Flexible meeting room space and furniture (+ access to porters)  Integrated AV, video conferencing and translation facilities  Priority booking arrangements  Coach access to the parliamentary estate  A multi-faith prayer room  A more straightforward off-site delivery mechanism  Access and facilities for external catering providers  21st Century disabled access facilities

Retention of existing CPA UK Office Area

4.01. Located in Westminster Hall, the CPA UK office area with its adjacent meeting room is ideal for receiving international visitors – near the main pubic entrance and accessible by unaccompanied non-pass holders, the CPA Room is in regular use. Having a dedicated meeting room allows unconstrained planning for the majority of incoming visitor programmes (where numbers can be accommodated). It is also easily accessible for parliamentarians from both Houses. The pantry and toilet facilities allow for catered events and there is workable disabled access via the Jubilee and IPU Rooms.

4.02. The CPA Room is in regular use by CPA UK, APPGs, parliamentarians, Clerks and other parliamentary stakeholders, as well as by external organisations with a parliamentary sponsor for breakfast, daytime and evening functions.

4.03. All Members of both Houses are members of CPA UK. There would be great opposition to any plan to relocate the CPA UK Secretariat, or to re-designate the CPA (meeting) room. Members can present strong evidence to support the retention of the current CPA UK office area.

How the Work is delivered

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034)

5.01. During the delivery stage of the R&R programme, the continuation of Parliament’s important international parliamentary work must not falter. It will rely upon the continued:

 Access to (UK) parliamentarians and parliamentary officials for meetings, briefing and events  Access to meeting rooms  Access to the Galleries of both Chambers  Access to catering facilities  Access to print facilities (due to significant time and cost impacts to out-sourcing)  Access to translation facilities  Access to tours (if parliament stays open for visitors)  Proximity to and access for Foreign Diplomats

5.02. Whilst a large number of UK parliamentarians and parliamentary officials prioritise international engagement in their professional lives, they are significantly less likely to prioritise these activities if extra travel time were required to accommodate meetings. Compromising access for international visitors would have significant negative impacts on CPA UK’s work.

Conclusion

6.01. CPA UK considers:

a. The R&R project offers a great – and one-off - opportunity to improve Parliament’s international outreach and other work by including a dedicated meeting space with up to date facilities. It also would offer a revenue-earning capacity.

b. CPA UK’s position on the parliamentary estate requires uninhibited access for its many overseas visitors.

c. International outreach activities must not be unduly affected during the R&R work programme; ongoing access to parliamentarians, parliamentary officials, meeting space, and other facilities.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Executive Committee - Written evidence (RAR0034)

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK

7.01. CPA UK is the largest and most active branch in the CPA community and delivers a busy annual programme in Westminster and overseas. CPA UK undertakes international parliamentary outreach on behalf of Parliament and the wider CPA.

22 January 2016

Compass Group UK & Ireland – Written Evidence (RAR0067)

Background

1. Compass Group UK & Ireland is part of Compass Group PLC, a world-leading food and support services provider with annual revenues of £17.8 billion in the year to 30 September 2015, and £2 billion of revenues in the UK & Ireland. We operate across the core sectors of Business & Industry, Healthcare, Education, Defence, Offshore & Remote and Sport, Leisure & Hospitality with a broad client portfolio.

2. Across the UK & Ireland, our operations span more than 15,000 sites including workplaces, famous sports and leisure venues, schools, hospitals, oil rigs and remote locations. We employ around 60,000 people and serve millions of customers, provide services at hundreds of office buildings, clean thousands of square miles and protect tens of thousands of people each day.

3. Trading under the Leith’s brand, we are the contracted caterers at the Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Conference Centre and have had a successful commercial contract there since it opened in 1986. Our interest in this inquiry therefore primarily relates to the speculation that Parliament will be moved to the QEII Conference Centre while the restoration work takes place.

4. We understand the enormous significance of the task of re-locating Parliament, and understand the desire for them to be based within Westminster, or as near to it as possible. With seemingly limited options available, the Committee’s task to recommend somewhere suitable is not an easy one. It is for this reason that we are keen to ensure that the Committee has access to sufficient information to enable as balanced and considered a judgement as possible when a decision comes to be made. Our aim is to help ensure that all of the potential impacts of moving Parliament to the QEII Centre, not just in terms of the financial hit to the Centre itself but the potential reputational hit to London and the UK, are fully understood.

5. The UK meetings, incentives, conferences and events (MICE) industry is worth over £39billion per year to the UK economy in terms of direct spend, plus an estimated extra £7.7billion per year of indirect, induced or accompanying persons spend. The sector generates over £20billion per year in gross value added (GVA) and employs over 530,000 people across the UK. This does not include the huge contribution the UK events industry makes to the “cultural capital” of London and the UK, which itself plays no small part in London’s position as a leading global city.

6. The QEII Centre attracts over 500 events per year, contributing over £122million per year to the UK economy and employing hundreds of people. Compass Group’s investment in the Centre has enabled outstanding growth over the past two years,

Compass Group UK & Ireland – Written Evidence (RAR0067)

which is set to continue, with hundreds of events scheduled between now and 2026. If the QEII is selected to be the home of Parliament for the coming years, then not only will the UK Exchequer lose the significant revenues generated by the Centre over that period, but London will lose one of its few remaining purpose-built conference centres, and our ability to host world-class international events will be severely diminished, with the loss of revenue that would also entail.

7. Such a decision would appear to hinder the welcome activity by the Government to support the UK’s events industry. We applaud the Government’s recognition of the importance of this industry and its drive to attract international events to the UK – through, for example, the establishment of a dedicated UK Events Industry Board. However, continuing to reduce London’s large venue capacity will damage London’s reputation as a hub for domestic and international events. With Earl’s Court Conference Centre recently closed, and the Olympia Conference and Exhibition Centre currently on the market and likely to be re-developed, London is left with only two purpose-built conference centres – the QEII and the Excel Centre. Losing the QEII would leave London with one – Paris, by comparison, has thirteen, while Vienna has five.

8. The unfortunate reality of this would be a hit to London and the UK’s competitiveness. The uncertainty shrouding the future of the QEII has already led our clients to question the feasibility of existing and future bookings. Furthermore, few international event organisers will go elsewhere in the UK if suitable space in London is unavailable, risking the UK losing business to other, similarly “international” cities.

9. We understand that the decision to be made will not be an easy one, and we sympathise with the Committee, and indeed the Government, who are leading the difficult decision-making process. We also realise that different individuals and groups will be making the case for and against different venues, and that there is likely to be no “perfect” option on which everyone will agree. However, we and others strongly feel that the loss of the QEII Centre as an event venue, and the implications of this not just for London’s events capability, our business and our clients but also for the Exchequer, would be far greater than the benefits of using it as a temporary base for Parliament over this period.

10. We would be happy to meet with the Committee to discuss or submission further, or indeed provide any further information as required.

Sources ‘Events are Great Britain’, The Business Visits & Events Partnership (BVEP), March 2014. ‘The Economic Impact of the UK Meeting & Event Industry’ Meetings Professionals International (MPI), July 2013.

8 April 2016

Philip Connolly - Written evidence (RAR0047)

Evidence submitted by Philip Connolly, Policy and Development Manager, Disability Rights UK

What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility?

 Access audit the premises and access routes to the palace and any refurbishment plans  Consider a signage strategy  Train staff in improvements identified and remediation undertaken  Remove fixed furniture in rooms  Consider temporary ramps  Carry access features in room booking systems  Check access plans against health and safety incident logs

How should the heritage of the Palace of Westminster be conserved and safeguarded, while recognising that it is home to a busy working Parliament with regular public access?

 Instigate temporary reasonable adjustments that sit alongside historical features  Prioritise functionality over conservation where it is not possible to have both

Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster?

 Yes more uniform levels of lighting

Could the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster make it easier for the public to be welcomed into the Palace and to see and participate in the work of Parliament? If so, in what ways could this be achieved?

Yes please see above, in addition consider the following too: -

 Is the public gallery accessible?  Improve pedestrian access in Parliament square especially from the tube station  Consider access in the widest disability sense i.e. not simply wheelchair movement.

25 January 2016

The Rt Hon Lord Cope of Berkeley - Written evidence (RAR0009)

1. Choice of Delivery Options: My observation of the building, particularly the basement levels, confirm that the Options Appraisal is quite right to say that “fundamental renovation can no longer be avoided”. The Appraisal also draws attention to the “great difficulty of carrying out fundamental renovation work on the inside of the Palace of Westminster while Parliament remains in continuous occupation”. This is part of the reason we have got into this situation and a pointer to how we should proceed. I favour Option 3, a full decant. This is in capital terms the most economical option (although Option 1, by spreading the bill over 25 to 40 years makes it easier to finance). It avoids providing major temporary services for decades at huge expense.

2. Risk of Changing Specification: It is clearly of prime importance that the whole of the works to be done are firmly agreed by Parliament on a cross party, bi-cameral basis before the contract is let and adhered to right to the end. We all know that changing specification during a contract vastly increases the cost. The longer the contractual period the greater the risk of Parliament changing its collective mind. Option 3 at “5 to 8 years” gives less opportunity for this than Option 1 at “25 to 40” years as over that timescale it is impossible to imagine Parliament not changing myriad details and probably major elements at huge extra cost.

3. Risk of the Unforeseen: The speedier timetable also minimises the risks of something major, but unforeseen, going wrong during the construction period. Fire destroyed the last Palace. Terrorists have damaged the Palace before and security is not getting easier. Given recent experience elsewhere and the levels of the lower floors relative to the river, flooding of the site is a possibility even since the Terrace level was raised and the Thames Barrage built. The barrier protects against surges from downstream, but not against higher river levels from runoff upstream which has been the cause of the recent problems elsewhere.

4. Decant Accommodation – the Outbuildings: The problem of how to provide decant accommodation is not examined in detail in the Options Appraisal. It is clearly difficult even for Option 1 and more acute for Options 2 and 3. My first observation on this point is that half of parliamentary accommodation is outside the Palace of Westminster in the “outbuildings” taken into use in recent years. Even if the Palace of Westminster is fully decanted the outbuildings on the Parliamentary Estate should remain in use otherwise the decant would be twice as big and expensive. But if Portcullis House, Norman Shaw, Millbank House and the rest are to remain in use then the decant accommodation has to be within walking distance of them and preferably within the same security

The Rt Hon Lord Cope of Berkeley - Written evidence (RAR0009)

perimeter. Portcullis House and the Northern Estate would not be nearly as useful if we did not have the dedicated secure tunnel (I recall from when I was on the Accommodation Committee of the Commons in the 1980s that we were originally told a dedicated tunnel was impossible, but we insisted). Leaving the secure area to cross even Abingdon Street to get from one’s office or a Committee Room to the Chamber or elsewhere in the Palace is a grave disadvantage at present for those using Millbank House, Old Palace Yard or Fielden House. A secure tunnel to them would make them as useful to the Lords as Portcullis and Co are to the Commons and should be on the desirable features list. If the main decant premises were even as far away as the opposite side of Parliament Square it would be most unsatisfactory to continue using Portcullis House and the other outbuildings with Members swarming across some of the busiest roads in London.

5. Decant Accommodation – the Scale: People sometimes tend to talk as if decant involved primarily the two chambers, but far more is involved. The Palace contains other great spaces such as Westminster Hall, Central Lobby, Royal Gallery, the Lord Speaker’s River Room, Mr Speaker’s State Rooms and private accommodation etc. plus 38 committee meeting rooms of various sizes used by Members and the public and other rooms used for internal meetings such as the Shadow Cabinet Room. There are 18 Dining Rooms with accompanying Kitchens and 11 large Library Rooms for Members with other working rooms and much shelving. There are the Parliamentary Archives with their specialist requirements. Then there are a large number of offices for both single and multiple accommodation on five floors and maintenance and storage facilities of great variety. I do not think that much of all this, except perhaps the Archive and some Library Storage can be far from the rest. I do not know of anywhere within walking distance of the outbuildings where decant can take place.

6. Decant Accommodation – Westminster Hall: One thought occurs to me. Is it really necessary to decant from Westminster Hall and the rooms off it for more than a short period? Temporary heating etc for the rooms off could mean that they could continue in use. Comprising as they do the Grand Committee Room, Jubilee Room, Jubilee Cafeteria and 7 other committee/meeting rooms (including the CPA and IPU Rooms) this would be a saving. The “W” rooms and CPA and IPU rooms and perhaps even the Grand Committee Room and Jubilee Room might become offices again for the duration to avoid having the public in that part of the building with consequent security check problems. If Westminster Hall remained available it could solve some of the large “State Event” problems such as Lying in State and perhaps the State Opening. Otherwise perhaps Westminster Hall might make valuable storage space for heritage items, books etc.

7. Decant Accommodation – the Solution:

The Rt Hon Lord Cope of Berkeley - Written evidence (RAR0009)

Because of the scale referred to in paragraph 5 the decant accommodation for the Chambers and everything else can only be in temporary buildings in New Palace Yard or Victoria Tower Gardens, where there is ample room which could be brought within the secure perimeter. We probably need both of those sites. These days temporary buildings can be very large and complex, tailored to suit and heated, air conditioned and made secure as required. Their internal decoration can be arranged as desired (see the excellent new Education Centre). They can be several stories high and made attractive outside with pictorial sheeting like scaffolding often is now (see Old Palace Yard). The buildings erected for the Chelsea Flower Show, London Fashion Week, Antique Fairs, large building sites etc. show what is possible these days. Their temporary nature would reassure those who fear that “once we are out of the building we will never get back”. Permission for substantial temporary accommodation in either or both of these places would be easier to obtain for a shorter full decant than a longer partial one which also argues for Option 3.

8. Scope: On the scope of the works the most important point is that flexibility must be built in. The Report acknowledges that over time the requirements and expectations of Members from their accommodation and facilities will change. The history of my time in both Houses confirms this strongly. Large modern office layouts elsewhere are also quite different from a few years ago. For the future if at some stage the House of Lords were to be replaced by an elected Senate then the accommodation and facilities expectations of its Members and their staff would change and increase radically. All this means that the new arrangements need to have flexibility and convenience of access to services for both maintenance and changing requirements at the core of their design.

9. Interests: We are asked to declare our interests. I have been a Member of Parliament for over 40 years in both Houses and, as it happens, I have been involved in different ways and at different times in the management of Parliament and its buildings. At age 78 now I cannot anticipate being a Member during the R&R works from 2020 (assuming a prompt start) for between 5 and 40 years and I am even less likely to see the process completed, however quickly it is achieved. So I am a disinterested observer, albeit with a close interest in the future of this wonderful building in which I have spent so much of my working life.

12 January 2016

Simon Cramp - Written evidence (RAR0062)

1. I am grateful for being allowed to respond to this committee just a bit of background about me

2. I am someone with a learning disability who has within that dislysica and dyspraxia and struggle to process sentenaces and general grammar because of a birthing accident when I was young and so I have struggled though the education system but also had been bullied at school and college and struggled with being able to do what are fond termed the normal things brush your teeth and making a cup of tea. I love parliament and all that is the history the place the transtionals and also my late mum worked as a waitress in the house catering department for many years and my dad served as a police officer when he was based in London with the met and I have been to nuermouns meeting with my ex member of paarliment the late rt hon tonty benn and paul holmes I even spoke to his researcher once when the member paul holnes was health spokeman for the lib dems in the early noughts . so I feel at home I have given edvience to select committee both written and oral edivence and I believe change or had hand in changing government policy .

3. But I love politics and current affairs

4. I hope that give you a flavour but I also love the surrounding and history and the parliament how it grow over many years

5. What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility?

6. I think the electroitics and all the necessary stuff needed to be done .it need to be done for all our sakes

7. Q2. What opportunities or benefits do you think a major restoration and renewal programme could present for Parliament and the wider public?

8. A Safe building and people and mps get to learn that we pay for the parliament the public and mp need to remember if it was not funded by us the taxpayer they wouldn’t have a job of representing us 9. B: Delivery

Simon Cramp - Written evidence (RAR0062)

10. Q3. How should the heritage of the Palace of Westminster be conserved and safeguarded, while recognising that it is home to a busy working Parliament with regular public access?

11.We need the same access once it been done there are plenty of places to be used while it be sorted there is millbank tower for office space there is queen eleizbeth the 2nd conference centre that can be tranfored in to the chambers or a version of them

12.The work need to be done and it our money that government is spending in our name and the work need to be done as it a beautiful place but what your carnt have is water leaking rat and other aminals who can be unpleansent and it need sorted and restoring to it glory in a modern setting

13. Thank you for allowing me to briefing response to this once in a lifetime chance to restore once of the great places in the world that makes are laws

08 February 2016

Baroness Deech DBE - Written evidence (RAR0011)

REFURBISHMENT OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

A5. More office space, more lockers, more storage, more toilets, a changing room, thought given to disabled access, a bigger print room and post room, more informal dining spaces, a small store for buying a few basics, e.g. elastoplast, aspirins etc. Many more seats in the Chamber if our numbers stay as they are, or even if they are reduced. Consideration of whether a horseshoe shape chamber might be better. A nursery?

6. The original Barry and Pugin designs and decoration.

7. Provision for more use of digital technology. Electronic voting. Provision by every seat for comfortable use of ipads etc., something to lean on while writing at one's seat. More information on the annunciators, e.g. the question that is being asked in question time, and in particular the wording of the clause/amendment under discussion at any moment. Better microphones. Words of debates to be displayed for the benefit of the hard of hearing.

8. A secretarial pool. More computers in the library, some with double screens. More tracking of changes to Bills as they proceed.

10. It is in poor condition.

B11 I am prepared, reluctantly, to relocate elsewhere in central London, preferably in Westminster.

12. Room space for assistants. The travel office. Gym, hairdresser, florist, rifle shooting range, chapel. Financial department.

14 January 2016

Jonathan Djanogly MP - Written evidence (RAR0001)

1. My primary comment is to suggest that the proposed cost of many £billions for this work will be criticised by a very significant proportion of the population and will result in a building that is still not fit for purpose.

2. Whilst I agree that the site is the appropriate place for Parliament to sit and whilst I see merit in retaining the historic external structure of the building, I do not think that the inside of the building should be renovated. Rather, I would suggest that the inside of the building is totally replaced with chambers and other facilities that are fit for a modern functioning democracy. Even if all of the repairs are carried out (with huge cost and time delay) the result will still be a chamber with too few seats, inefficient rooms and a building that has no proper access points for members wishing to quickly enter the building during divisions.

3. If there is concern for the Pugin decoration, the best of this could be placed in a museum at a fraction of the cost of retaining it in Parliament.

4. If there is a decision to retain the internal features, I would suggest that Parliament is wholly relocated during the work so that it is more cost effective and to minimise delay to the process.

03 December 2015

Caroline Emery - Written evidence (RAR0004)

I have a child at the nursery and its proximity to my office is very important to me. I feel that this needs to be taken into consideration when deciding to move any offices away, particularly if it means needing to find a new nursery for a period of time (potentially very difficult, costly and disruptive for children). 03 December 2015

Harry Fenton - Written evidence (RAR0058)

I am writing to you to discuss the proposed restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster because of its huge importance in both national and world history as well as its outstanding architectural beauty. Considering all the factors that have to be taken into account when making the final decision, I believe that restoration and renewal must start at the earliest opportunity and that this should be a full scale restoration completed in a certain time frame. This is because not only will the damage get worse and in the long term be even more expensive to resolve, the building is far too important to lose. However, I do understand that the scale of the restoration could cost billions of pounds which would irritate taxpayers in a time of public sector austerity. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we can't spend billions on this since I am sure that we will all be sad to see the Palace deteriorate beyond repair. I visited the Palace nearly three years ago and it is one of the most interesting, beautiful and most awe inspiring buildings I have ever seen. Because it also represents a golden age in British architecture as well as British history, I fear that there will never be such a beautiful parliament building again since the emphasis in architecture is now on simplicity, cutting costs and how to make buildings purely functional. To get the public behind the restoration, it would be a good idea to involve as many independent British companies as possible in the restoration, make the Palace more environmentally friendly by making it more energy efficient, using renewable energy and using natural materials and Parliament should employ young unemployed people from deprived areas as well as prisoners to work alongside experts to increase social mobility and break the cycle of offending. That way, the restored Palace would be a symbol of British business and meritocracy as well as a beacon of environmental awareness. Finally, I hope that the restored Palace would remain the home of the British Parliament as it represents the continuity of the British constitution and the Crown in Parliament in an age of rapid change and uncertainty. Also, tourists visiting London and the rest of the UK would be more interested to see the Palace as a working Parliament building than as a museum. I hope you will take my concerns into account when making any decisions and that they will be discussed in your committee on restoration and renewal

04 January 2016

Professor Matthew Flinders & Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006) Professor Matthew Flinders & Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006)

1. The restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster has now reached a critical stage in the sense that vital decisions about the ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ questions can no longer be avoided. As both the October 2012 Pre-Feasibility Study and the Independent Options Appraisal of June 2015 concluded, doing nothing is not an option.

2. In terms of taking this agenda forward the main argument of this submission is that the Joint Committee should frame the restoration and renewal agenda not simply as a matter of structural modernization (heating, electrics, etc.) or logistical planning (phases, decants, etc.) but as a more vibrant and positive opportunity for democratic renewal. Such an approach could begin with Winston Churchill’s adage that ‘we shape our buildings… and afterwards our buildings shape us’ and then put this at the heart of a national conversation about the values that should underpin democratic politics in the twenty-first century.

3. At the moment the approach of the Joint Committee that is suggested by the public consultation paper that was launched on 30 November 2015 seems to be slightly conventional in the sense of defining the boundaries of the consultation within a focus on the scope of the work to be carried out and how that work should be delivered (before looking at detailed design issues later in the process). This focus is fully understandable given the scale of public expenditure envisaged, the expected timescales for the project and the need to keep issues of security and parliamentary business continuity at the forefront of the debate. However, such a focus should not crowd-out the simple fact – reflected in international experience – that such substantial and costly restoration and renewal work does provide a critical ‘window of opportunity’ for designing for democracy.

4. Designing for democracy in the sense of looking more strategically at what an ‘effectively functioning parliament’ might actually look like, particularly in a context of rising levels of political disengagement, the role of ‘anti-political’ sentiment at the 2015 General Election and the public’s changing expectations regarding access, visibility and performance.

5. In this context it is also worth noting that the ‘new’ Palace of Westminster was never originally designed to fulfill the role of a national parliament as we understand that role today. Furthermore, the history of the Palace of Westminster offers little hope to those who wish to see a modernized and efficient institution. ‘The story of an institution unable to put its own house in order’ was the sub-title used by the former Clerk of the House, Sir Barnett Cocks, in his 1977 analysis of the historical evolution of the Palace of Westminster.

Professor Matthew Flinders & Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006)

6. The opportunities and benefits that a major restoration and renewal programme might have for both Parliament, parliamentarians and the public will only be realized if this broader debate about the nature of democracy and the possibility of change is grasped. This will inevitably have to accept the need for trade-offs and compromises – the essence of politics – and that not every single element of the ‘heritage of the Palace of Westminster [should] be conserved and safeguarded’.

7. There is clearly a ‘political’ dimension to this debate in the sense that the amount of money the restoration and renewal programme is likely to need is unlikely to find favour amongst a public that is generally hostile to the suggestion that politicians, political processes or political institutions might warrant additional public spending. This is why a carefully planned and independently delivered ‘Research and Engagement Programme’ that runs in parallel to the Restoration and Renewal Programme is vital as a low-cost but high-value counterweight to the negative and sensationalist media coverage that is likely to surround the programme.

8. The great value of this ‘Research and Engagement Programme’ is that it would promote the public understanding of the restoration and renewal process, offer evidence-based analyses of similar projects around the world, act as a valuable lightning-rod for public or media criticism while also – and critically – it would establish a two-way conversation between the governors and the governed about the full range of issues they would like to see considered as part of designing for democracy.

9. The idea of opening-up and democratizing the public engagement process, and seeing it as a core element of the actual restoration and renewal programme – possibly linked-up with Parliamentary Outreach, the BBC, Association of Citizenship Teachers and a host of other organisations – would allow the Joint Committee to control the agenda while also maximizing the public value from the restoration process itself.

16 December 2015

Oonagh Gay OBE - Written evidence (RAR0020)

1. I am Oonagh Gay a retired Commons staff member. I was an official at the House of Commons from 1983 to 2015, holding various positions in the House of Commons Library, including 20 years experience in parliamentary research. I have observations to make on both sets of questions in the Joint Committee consultation..

2. The Palace is not currently configured to be welcoming to the public. There are often long queues for access at the busiest entrance points, and any replanning of the Palace should be able to separate out much more easily those visiting the Palace for heritage reasons from those who wish to see or participate in democracy in action. Providing appropriate weather cover for visitors while they wait should be an essential part of the redesign brief. Current conditions at Cromwell Green are unwelcome enough at busy times, but for disabled or elderly visitors they are completely unacceptable, despite the valiant efforts of the Visitor Assistants. R and R offers a real chance for a redesign which would take into account security risks but offer a better service. Earlier filtering of visitors by type of event to be attended would make the process smoother and more transparent for the public. A separate point of entrance for heritage visitors would help the throughput considerably.

3. R & R offers a rare chance to configure Parliament and its services. I suggest below that the current Commons and Lords chambers become heritage-only and that new chambers are provided within the curtilage of the Palace. Similarly, visitors to Parliament who wish to engage with the current political debate should be offered much greater visibility and access than the current visitor galleries, which do not offer an optimum viewpoint or easy access to information about the debates. Committee room access presents less of a problem in this respect, but the chambers need to up their game here.

4. We need to rethink the current design of both chambers, so that we are not prisoners of our past. A crowded chamber, without room for at least 200 members might have fitted the mood when the Commons was rebuilt after the second world war, but today committee work in both Houses has become much more important, and plenary less well-attended. I am not necessarily arguing for a hemisphere arrangement of seating , but I suspect that once Members have been used to more spacious and well-equipped facilities in a modern-style temporary chamber, they will be reluctant to return to crowded benches, without dedicated seating, and traditional voting lobbies, where significant amounts of time are used in waiting to be counted. Any temporary relocation of either chamber should have as part of its planning a systematic gathering of feedback from Members affected. These reflections should then inform plans for permanent chambers in the Palace.

5. Redesigning the interior of the Palace would allow for modern chambers, and the traditional Commons and Lords could then become a visitor attraction, with multi-media support, and a separate visitor entrance probably through Westminster Hall. There are spaces in corridors and lobbies which could be made available, as long as the the modern Palace can have some internal modifications, without genuflecting to the historic Palace configurations. The replacement Commons built by Giles Gilbert Scott involved some five

Oonagh Gay OBE - Written evidence (RAR0020)

floors, as well as a new chamber, illustrating the capacity for change. As well as the Principal floor, R & R provides an opportunity to open up other parts of the building to public view for the first time, such as the medieval Cloisters.

6. An audit of available rooms in the Palace would illustrate that there needs to be adaptation for modern needs, starting from first principles, rather than existing use. These would include more space for private meetings with constituents and researchers, enhanced facilities to meet the family needs of Members and their staff, and more social spaces for visitors, such as cafes. Space freed as a result of not replacing traditional offices for the Leader of the Opposition and principal parliamentary staff. dining rooms and even the Library suite would offer opportunities for innovation on the principal floor. Upper floors could also be reconfigured, and there has to be some investigation of the numbers of rooms available for dining, receptions and the like.

7. I think it would be a mistake to site archival, library and research services more than walking distance away from Parliament as a long term measure. These services are designed to meet the needs of Members and their staff, and should remain integrated into parliamentary services, even if there are necessary decants during R and R.

8. Heritage should not be an add-on to the plans. It is not simply a 'nice-to-have'; it's a core way of engaging the public with the work of Parliament today. - The new Education Centre shows how the long history of Parliament, its works of art, archives, archaeology and furnishings can be used to communicate messages about what Parliament does now in imaginative and interactive ways. - The 2015 anniversaries project, and the current development of 'Vote 100' activities for 2018, show there is a proven public appetite for Parliamentary heritage events which also engage participants with Parliament more generally. Developing the Palace to enhance these opportunities is compatible with strengthening access to contemporary parliamentary debates.

9. A delivery authority (such as was used for the Olympics 2012) would be likely to offer the most efficient manner in which to undertake the planning and delivery. There is insufficient in-house experience of such a major project. There should however be strong Member and staff involvement in the body, so the users of the Parliament can feed in views as to the practicality and focus of the design brief and regular public consultation.

20 January 2016

James Heappey MP - Written evidence (RAR0068)

ROLE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II CONFERENCE CENTRE IN PARLIAMENTARY RESTORATION AND RENEWAL PROJECT I have been asked to write to the Committee by the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and the wider UK events industry in my capacity as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Events. As I understand, the QEII is under consideration as a possible site for the relocation of Parliament during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

May I ask that the Committee considers the impact that the use of the QEII will have on the London, and arguably UK wide, events industry. The centre is very successful; adding £122 million in economic benefit per annum to the economy, employing hundreds of Londoners and delivering an annual dividend to the Exchequer. Conferences and events hosted at the QEII fill local hotels, restaurants and provide business for local shops and services.

In recent years London has moved from 18th to 6th in the global rankings for event host cities and the Government has recognised the opportunity to further grow our visitor economy by promoting the UK’s events industry. However, London has recently lost the Earls Court exhibition space and a city of this size and international prominence can now ill afford to lose another of its few remaining events venues.

Finally, whilst the usage of the QEII would have an almost complete impact on centre’s business and a severe impact on those of its supply chain, it should also be noted that the current uncertainty around its usage is already having an impact on the centre’s ability to attract major events. These events are invariably enticed to the centre a number of years ahead but I am told that this is proving difficult as event organisers are very much aware that the QEII might be pressed into parliamentary service.

Ideally, you might feel inclined to remove the QEII Conference Centre from your list of potential redeployment sites. If that cannot yet be the case, can I ask that you are at least sympathetic to the impact that this uncertainty is already having.

I have copied this letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport and Nick de Bois, the Chair of the Events Industry Board. 19 April 2016

Sir Michael Hopkins - Written evidence (RAR0037)

Potential use of Portcullis House during the period of Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

1. During the period 1989 to 2000 my architectural practice, Michael Hopkins and Partners, researched, designed and delivered Portcullis House and the new Westminster Underground Station below. My knowledge of the House of Commons stems from that period, working with our client the Accommodation and Works Committee.

2. My recollection from that time is that, not all but, the majority of Members, their staff and the administration are now housed north of Bridge Street in Norman Shaw North and South, No 1 Parliament Street, St Stephens House and Portcullis House, through which they can pass conveniently and safely under Bridge Street into Old Palace Yard and the House.

3. The restoration of the Palace could be most speedily and economically undertaken if the Chambers were able to be relocated elsewhere while the restoration work was carried out. The Commons Chamber, although grand in appearance, is surprisingly small.

4. The form and workings of the Commons Chamber, together with the Division Lobbies and the Galleries all could be replicated with good quality temporary construction in one half of the Atrium in Portcullis House, leaving all the present functions and circulation of the building in tact, with secure links to Norman Shaw and Parliament Street. By coincidence, the dimensions of the present Chamber and Division Lobbies are the same as the space available between the central and western columns of the Portcullis House Atrium (see Figures 1 and 2).

5. There is the opportunity to further increase temporary accommodation for Members north of Bridge Street, in and around the buildings on the Parliamentary Estate.

6. It would appear from the published Deloitte Options Appraisal, that it was limited to considering locations within the Palace itself.

7. I believe this is a serious option, worthy of further study. I would welcome the opportunity to present it to the Committee.

[DRAWINGS REDACTED]

22 January 2016

Institution of Civil Engineers, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) Institution of Civil Engineers, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Royal Institute of British Architects & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Transcript to be found under Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

Institution of Civil Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0042)

Introduction

1. The Institution of Civil Engineers welcomes this opportunity to respond to the consultation by the Joint Committee on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster (the R&R Programme).

2. The ICE is a UK-based international organisation with over 86,000 members ranging from professional civil engineers to students.

3. The Institution commends the two Houses for undertaking a detailed, independent study by construction professionals of the options for delivering the R&R Programme. This is a complex programme, and key decisions on delivery option and outcome level and the costs, durations and risks of the various options can only be estimated by a detailed and thorough study as has been undertaken by Parliament’s Independent Options Appraisal (IOA).

Delivery option

4. There are a number of significant risks for such a major programme, but most can be managed by good programme and project management / construction management practice.

5. The key risks common to all delivery options that can be mitigated and managed (through good risk management and ongoing communication with Stakeholders) are: . that the operation of Parliament is in some way compromised; . that there is insufficient capability to manage what will be an extremely complex programme, given the amount of work to be done in such a confined area on a building of international significance; . availability of funding; . planning delay; . there could be a catastrophic failure in key M&E systems (notably M&E networks) before the programme gets under way.

6. The cumulative risk that is so significant that it may not be capable of management or mitigation is associated with delivery option 1 – the rolling programme. . this would take such a long time (the IOA’s most likely estimate is 32 years), and be so disruptive to users of the building, that there is a high risk of it being abandoned after a few years;

Institution of Civil Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0042)

. despite being separated into 12 construction zones plus the basement, it would mean a series of office moves for members and staff over the 32 years; . despite being divided into zones there would be a high risk of noise transmission and constant disruption to circulation routes; . the Palace would be a building site for the lifetime of 6 or more Parliaments; . it would only deliver the minimum outcome level – the opportunity to make significant improvements and to leave a legacy for future generations would be lost; and . the unique requirement of an already overcrowded home of Parliament combined with an old building in the centre of one of the world’s major cities will make this option significantly higher risk

7. So while delivery option 1 was a valiant attempt to devise a rolling programme, the Institution believes it to be a very high risk option.

8. Of the remaining 2 delivery options (option 2 Partial Decant and option 3 Full Decant) the Institution notes that option 3 has the least cost, the shortest duration and will result in Parliament regaining full access to the Palace at the earliest opportunity. Option 3 appears to offer best value for public money. Experience indicates that the best programmes provide early delivery of successes and benefits.

9. While these key factors make a compelling case for option 3, Parliament needs to be satisfied that acceptable decant arrangements can be provided for both Houses during the likely decant period of 6 years. The Institution understands that further detailed studies are being undertaken on this aspect.

Procurement and Construction Management Risks

10. This is an extremely complex programme, on a constricted site, with a large range of trades and skills in the contractual supply chain – M&E, civil and structural works, conservation etc.

11. From past experience the measures necessary to address the biggest challenges on a major complex construction programme such as R&R are: . resource it properly with highly capable and experienced professionals; . set a realistic budget which makes reasonable provision for risk and contingencies; . ensure certainty of funding to complete the work and some flexibility of funding across financial year boundaries; . ensure a carefully developed contracting strategy which promotes a collaborative approach, fairness, and mutual respect, which allocates risk to the

Institution of Civil Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0042)

party best able to manage it; and which incentivises the contractor to deliver the required level of quality on time and within budget; . ensure full compliance with the transparency, fairness and non-discrimination requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations; . learn from the experience of other major programmes.

12. The procurement and construction risks can be managed by: . use of modern construction contracts which promote collaboration rather than adversarial contracting, and allocate risk to the party best placed to manage it – the NEC3 suite of contracts is recommended by the Cabinet Office and HMT and is now widely used on most major UK public sector construction contracts; . avoiding significant change midway through the contract – so time spent before letting the contract in getting the design and specification right will pay dividends; . market engagement prior to developing the contract strategy governing how the work should be packaged, the particular form of contract, evaluation criteria etc; . incentivising contractor innovation – to get the work done more quickly and at best value; and . using an expert panel to build on the experience of others when designing the contract strategy and individual procurements – the Institution has provided independent expert panels for this purpose to both Crossrail and HS2.

13. Procurement will also bring opportunities. Contractors can be required to: . employ certain number of apprentices; . use sustainable materials and practices; . engage with the local community or Parliament’s education / outreach programme; . monitor and report on the sourcing of materials and sub-contracts across the UK; and . monitor the amount of work delivered by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the supply chain.

Programme Delivery and Governance

14. If Delivery Options 2 (Partial Decant) or 3 (Full Decant) is chosen the Institution would recommend a Delivery Authority (DA), a mechanism that was and is being successfully used for the Olympics, Crossrail, HS2 and Thames Tideway.

Institution of Civil Engineers - Written evidence (RAR0042)

15. The value of the R&R programme is less than some of those, but its complexity, the range of skills and trades in the supply chain, and the confined site would benefit from the DA approach.

16. The DA will be able to recruit the best skills to manage the programme, move quickly to get it going and will be highly focussed on delivering the right quality on time and within budget.

17. One of the key enablers for the DA will be to give it some flexibility in terms of annual budgets – if it is required to spend exactly the money it is allocated in a given financial year that will be inefficient and will lead to poor value.

18. A further benefit of a DA, particularly if supported by an independent expert panel, is that the control of change will be all the more robust. Change will be the enemy of cost confidence. It is essential that designs and specifications for equipment, in particular IT, are fully developed and matured before going to market. And that there is strong governance thereafter to prevent scope creep. Scope creep is one of the highest potential risks

19. In addition to the DA, it is vital that there should be a strong Sponsor Body. Its role will be to: . champion the Programme – to stand up for it; . secure the funds; . define at a high level what the DA is expected to deliver, and when; . provide oversight and governance of the DA activities; . be the essential link between the DA and Parliament, HMT and other key stakeholders.

Conclusion

20. The Institution hopes that the Joint Committee will find this submission helpful. The Institution and its members stand ready to assist Parliament as it progresses this vital and complex programme to renew and refurbish a world heritage site which is an icon of this nation’s parliamentary democracy.

22 January 2016

Conor Jackson - Written evidence (RAR0026)

The Palace of Westminster is a building of important historical significance, and it is therefore important it is kept and maintained in a way that is fitting of a National Parliament building. The state of the Palace should be considered disgraceful, with successive Parliaments failing to adequately maintain their own home. Questions A1) Widespread wheelchair access on site, along with male, female, disabled and intersex toilets are essential in providing an accessible and open parliament. In terms of public engagement, more areas should be opened to the public, and public areas (such as the corridors leading upstairs to the viewing galleries) should feel more open and accessible. The Parliament should also promote what members seek others to do: effective use of insulation, energy efficient lightbulbs and solar panels to power Parliament. A2) This provides us with an opportunity to set-out the design and function of our Parliament for the next 100 years, it is not a light investment by any means, and so it is better to invest more money now than to have to reinvest the same money in 30 years. B3) The heritage of the Palace of Westminster is critical to its prestige as the mother of all Parliaments, it is therefore important that it is conserved and safeguarded where possible. In areas where this would prove impractical, then items of importance should be moved to another suitable location. However, the committee should not be afraid of making major modifications to the internals building – the Palace has changed significantly since it was first built in the Middle Ages. Tradition and heritage should not, therefore, mean things stay the same, rather they should be remembered and improved upon. B4) This is beyond my area of expertise. Please don’t break anything important. Further to how the work should be delivered: it is my view that Parliament should not remain on site for the duration of the works. It would be cheaper, safer and more efficient for all works to be delivered while Parliament resides in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.

21 January 2016

The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049)

1. Introduction

I have been very troubled by the Independent Options Appraisal (“IOA”).

For the reasons in this document (which I would be very keen to expand upon in person) I feel the Committee is in a position where the correct answer is “none of the above”. I think the professional advisors have journeyed carefully down a road that looks logical but simply is wrong.

Put simply if the sums suggested in the IOA for the Scenario Options (“Options”) must be spent then every Oxbridge college is bankrupt. The Options would appear to cost, for the refurbishment only, £13,000-16,000 per sq m (an analysis based on IOA Appendix A1 figures, excluding inflation, risk, VAT and decant/recant (the “like for like basis”)) and that (I knew well) a basic home in the UK costs about £1,000 per sq m to build (like for like basis), that (I knew well) Blenheim Palace has a rebuild cost of between £6,000-10,000 per sq m (like for like basis).

In looking at things in greater detail I have become more certain that the Options represent the wrong path and have formed some impressions as to why. I try to explain some of that below and suggest a path forward.

2. Relevant personal experience

For 25 years I was at Hiscox, inter alia, the largest insurer of art and heritage assets in Europe. For a number of years I ran this area worldwide. I had a significant part in designing the training programme for Hiscox underwriters. Condition, maintenance, rebuilding cost, indeed a full understanding of historic buildings are vital and core components of underwriting. I have attended, spoken at and even chaired conferences on historic buildings and am a member of the Historic Houses Association. I spent a number of years on a part of the Governing body at Christ Church, Oxford that considered expenditure on their buildings.

3. To move out or not - the old insurer/client debate

When major repairs are required there is always the question whether to move out (and make use of the “alternative accommodation” cover) or to stay in in which case the cost of rebuilding goes up (all covered) and put up with “clatter and bang”.

Moving causes tremendous disruption, whether the client is public, commercial or private. The vast majority of clients choose to stay in their building. I note that in 1941 Parliament was faced with that choice and made it and I can find no reference anywhere to a later expression of regret about this choice. At the same time the Palace was opened in the 1840s for business but construction was not actually completed until about 1870. Parliament has plenty of experience of putting up with “clatter & bang.

The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049)

Turning to the costs involved it is in my long experience almost invariably cheaper to stay put. It is far less disruptive and much can be done to deal with noise and dust issues. This is I am sure a driver in making the net present cost of option E1A is the smallest (see “8 – Methodology of considering economics” below). I feel however that this is an area where a freshly appointed independent quantity surveyor should be asked to validate matters (see 5 below).

There is a lack of symmetry between the cost of the partial decant (£215m) and the construction of the temporary chamber in Option E1A which would appear to cost around £60m alone (see again Appendix A1). It must be asked why in this new building, with so many Committee Rooms, offices, catering facilities, security facilities, broadcast and communications facilities, and so on, and its temporary Chamber, is it so relatively cheap to fit out and then deconstruct. I think that the decant costings are open to question and may well be very wrong (see Section 8 below).

4. Choice of comparable buildings

I note that the two of the four comparable buildings considered were the MOD and the HSBC tower. The IOA (e.g. Vol 1 p36) emphasises architectural style, size (100,000 sq m), having a heavy public usage and being a prestige building as being important. With the exception of the public usage, these criteria may be things true of the Palace of Westminster but seem to me to be not relevant in picking comparable buildings and looking to see how their stewards have sought to meet the challenges. We have in the UK a huge number of far more comparable buildings with far greater similarities than the MOD/HSBC comparisons offer. To list a few categories from which the UK has a deep well of knowledge on maintaining and enhancing old buildings:

Major Churches and Cathedrals Oxbridge Colleges and University Buildings Royal Palaces Major Historic Houses

There is no evidence in the report that significant effort has been made to engage with the stewards of any building in the categories above. (I am defining the above list as "Relevant Major Historic Buildings" or "RMHB".)

Many of the above categories are wrestling with very similar problems with the fabric of their buildings, adapting them in a changing world and old M&E. They also have very restricted budgets yet insurers can see that they are managing to maintain things effectively and inventively.

5. Use of third party advice

There is no mention of consulting any RMHB, in particular the National Trust, Historic Houses Association or major Oxbridge colleges, in other words those that have to run the

The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049) budgets, make choices and pay the bills, rather than professionals who can always recommend additional ways of spending on any old building.

In addition I note the Committee has the benefit of the advice of a top flight surveyor. I think the Committee would very much benefit from having advice from an independent quantity surveyor with substantial experience in historic buildings (the “QS”). The quantity surveying issues in such buildings are different. I think a QS would be very helpful in providing robust challenge to the IOA.

6. Services The Options Appraisal assumes that in decommissioning old services it is desirable and economically sensible to remove every last bit of the old services. It is not and such a strategy will add greatly to cost, time taken and possibility of collateral damage/unintended consequences. I feel a more pragmatic approach is required with a heavy emphasis on cost benefit.

7. Scope and Building codes

The Building Regulations set standards for design and construction to new buildings. There is no general requirement to upgrade existing buildings to meet these standards. Parliament very rightly has maintained this principle over many years because of the enormous cost (and great amount of time) associated with retro fitting in old buildings, especially listed ones where each change has to be so carefully considered and debated.

I am concerned, based on a discussion with a senior official in the Parliamentary Estates Directorate, that the IOA Options all assume that Parliament however will want to “bring itself up to code” and have little regard to the cost, necessity or desirability. This, if true, would not be a ‘smart’ approach.

There often is a good case for doing something of a code nature in older buildings (fire safety and insulation being two vital and typical examples), but equally (and if we had consulted any of the many people referred to in “Choice of comparable buildings” above) there are many things where a very simple cost benefit analysis would lead a ‘smart’ holder of the purse strings to say no.

Appendix E.7 (Master Data Assumptions List) has as its first assumption (A1) that the scope is taken from the ‘Workstrand Reports’. These reports are not contained in the IOA and I feel sure that given the very large totals that every Option generates the Committee will want to revisit these.

I believe that the Committee would greatly benefit from a detailed costed ‘menu’ prepared by the new quantity surveyor of the works to be done on the Palace. This would consist of a detailed base case cost, where no “bringing up to code” takes place and then a costed additional options menu of what might be done on top. This common approach would allow the Committee to fully understand where the costlier bits are in the project.

The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049)

8. Methodology of considering economics

The costings in of the Options the report will of course be highly influential when it comes to determining what to do.

I have been through Appendix A (Financial), Appendix D (Potential Scope) and Appendix E.7 (Master Data Assumptions List). I have also read the relevant sections of the Green Book concerning particularly the ‘discount rate’.

In essence I feel that Scenario E1A misleadingly high and that Scenarios 2 A/B & 3 B/C are considerably understated. I am going to address the Whole Life Net Present Cost (“NPC”) numbers as this approach is I feel the correct and most helpful one in determining “value for money” for the UK. It is certainly the approach that any business that I have ever been involved in would lend most weight to. The full calculations of the NPC numbers is not available. The most helpful diagram is the one E7 on page 19 of the Final Report.

Scenario E1A is I feel overstated because a 3% discount rate is being applied. I accept that this is the recommended amount in the Green Book. Commercially I would use a higher one (probably 4-5%) but I would certainly ask for all the NPCs to be provided using Discount rates from 3% to 5% in a sensitivity table. This would give the Committee very valuable insight into just how sensitive the NPC is to the discount rate.

Scenarios 2 & 3 are I feel quite badly understated mainly due to the assumptions about decant cost (assumptions A53 principally and E5 as well). A53 is unrealistic in the extreme. It also amounts to property speculation which is not appropriate. Unless the replacement building is very close for practical reasons PCH and Millbank House may also have to be decanted. What would presumably a 100,000 sq m building (full decant) or half of that (partial) could cost to buy £1bn (full decant and pro-rata for partial). There is no assumption about the cost of borrowing this money. There is no allowance for the increased cost of policing what would be two sites (even with full decant the original site will need extensive policing) (Assumption E5). There is no attempt to estimate any increased cost of working, essentially the business disruption of moving all or part of Parliament off the Parliamentary Estate. One could make further criticisms of Assumption A53.

In any event I would suggest that the Committee not only asks for estimates of these real costs but also to ask for costings in the event that a building was not available for purchase but that it could be rented. This is after all quite a likely scenario. Renting a 50,000 sq m building at £70 per sq ft for 7 years would cost £245m. Assumption A53 and its property speculation makes this cost nil.

9. Summary

It will take great courage to say “none of the above” in response to the IOA. I urge you to feel courageous.

I am suggesting that you then

The Earl of Kinnoull - Written evidence (RAR0049)

a. Appoint an independent quantity surveyor (the “QS”) b. Consult widely with the stewards of RMHBs per section 5 above c. With the QS look at a detailed costed menu of works to be carried out per section 7 above d. With the QS look carefully into decant costings and their sensitivities e. Develop other cheaper Scenarios that have neither full nor partial decant. E1A is after all the cheapest option in NPC terms already. f. Ask the current advisory team to look again at their decant costings, especially assumption A53, and advise as to how wrong these could become.

22 January 2016

Graham Lang - Written evidence (RAR0015)

The building should be closed or half closed to enable a successful outcome, reduce cost, safety to staff and public and will be less distraction to business. Use one chamber for both Houses. Plan the business around each week so they do not have to open simultaneously, even consider weekend use or more early and late evenings. Use venues around the country for some debates, it could also bring advantages politically in demonstrating and engaging the wider public, national politics is not only in held in London. Other improvements could be to remove old manual systems and message boards for example, or keep these just for show in Members lobby. Show that is modernised and has embraced technology fully by including latest technology cabling/fibre etc., in works program. Reduce some offices/areas. Some rooms are enormous for use and could be significantly reduced in size to divide and create more rooms. Perhaps a transparent cover placed on flooring would better protect the heritage tiles. Works could improve energy saving. Currently much of the lighting in the building is clearly overlooked, and far too much is wasted energy, lighting switch off devices when not in use. Also insulation, secondary glazing throughout, and other energy saving processes could be used and save thousands of pounds each year. Provision to secure areas, for security reasons that when The House is not sitting the areas are restricts access. It would save money and remove the need to have someone attend areas unnecessarily, which currently happens.

18 January 2016

Lord Leigh of Hurley - Written evidence (RAR0043)

I write as a Peer in response to the questions aimed primarily at MPs, Peers, staff and other people who work in the Palace, or visit regularly. A: Scope 5. I would argue against any dramatic changes to the Palace of Westminster, which has a particular and unique architectural style, both inside and outside the buildings. The work done by Barry and Pugin has served us well for 150 years and it is difficult to see how any change could be seen as positive. 6. Clearly the exterior fabric of the building needs to be maintained. Likewise, the chambers cannot be altered. The only area, therefore, for improvement relates to the second floors and above where the offices are in a poor state. However, they are no worse than those provided in other Palace buildings, such as Norman Shaw. The opportunity to use the outside terraces is valuable and the only major shortcoming in the building is a lack of committee rooms and meetings spaces, which are regularly over-subscribed. 7. I am worried that there is a call for change when change is not needed. The major changes should be to convert some of the offices at the top end of the building to meeting rooms in order to meet the demand for extra meeting rooms. However, the fabric of the building and its interior decoration should be preserved. 8. My office is in 1 Millbank, as are many other Peers. It would be of great assistance if there were an under road tunnel to connect the two buildings, as is the case for Portcullis House. 9. The only difficulty for the public to enter the Palace of Westminster relates to the security screening. This could easily be resolved with a greater number of scanners at the public entrances. 10. I have been surprised as to how well the House of Lords currently works. I suspect most of the problems are behind the scenes and relate to mechanical and electrical, which do not intrude on the working life of a Peer. While the wifi can be sporadic, this is true for a number of other organisations. 11. Provided the chamber can remain intact, I can’t see why working life can’t continue within the House of Lords for most Peers. 12. I am not in a position to comment.

22 January 2016

Lord Lucas - Written evidence (RAR0005)

Rather than pay for something in London, ask well-connected cities or large towns to bid to house the House of Lords for the duration of the Works. Taking Coventry as an example, the provision of an auditorium, offices and hotel within the redevelopment next to the railway station would provide a great impetus to the development of the city while the Lords was there and would be easily re-usable afterwards. There are twenty or so candidate cities, so enough to ensure a decent competition. We’d save a large amount of money. We’d do a lot of good to the chosen city. It would make politics less London-centric. Operations would not suffer much – good communications would ensure that. It would be a considerable inconvenience for many peers, including me – but we are eminently replaceable, and there are far too many of us anyway. It would suit enough of us for the Lords to function well, I expect.

08 December 2015

100

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

I am a qualified architect with over 20 years’ experience of making successful places as both a consultant and client.

Since February 2012, I have worked for the House of Commons in the role of Departmental Accommodation Manager. In this role I am responsible for understanding the business requirements of House Staff and 3rd Parties, as they relate to accommodation. I provide advice on creating effective working environments that support departmental business objectives and am responsible for promoting effective and efficient use of accommodation to support the wider corporate business objectives.

The views expressed in this paper are my own and are not intended to represent the view of the Accommodation and Logistics office.

Where costs are included these should not be published. Some photographs used in the slides are taken off the internet and maybe subject to copyright.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This paper proposes the creation of a high density and highly operationally efficient suite of buildings that can be used flexibly. It is a call to arms to get the basics right to deliver value in both the short and long term. Replacing services, repairing external fabric and achieving greater compliance with building regulations represent only cost without re-shaping the infrastructure of the Estate. There is much work to be done to understand and agree ambitions around the level of public access and how the democratic process might be better supported by changes to the buildings. These are only mentioned in passing.

The paper addresses the following issues: 1.3 THINKING ESTATE WIDE What is the role of the Palace?

101

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

How the buildings on the Estate work together Benefits from re-planning and consolidating accommodation Additional benefit to combine improved sustainability with efficiency

1.4 IMPROVING FLOW Essential requirement for good circulation to support Parliament Negative impact of disconnection on users of the Estate Circulation spaces as working spaces Negative impact of poor flow on the visitors to Parliament Poor access as in conflict with democracy Opportunity to improve circulation to support functional efficiency and democracy

1.5 RATIONALISING BACK OF HOUSE Behind any good ‘front of house’ lies an excellent ‘back of house’ Substantial internal logistics operation to support Parliament Challenges within the internal logistics Visible back of house compromising front of house experience Once in a lifetime opportunity to create an efficient infrastructure Below ground opportunity Back of house compromising Parliament’s role as guardian of an historic of Estate

1.6 INCREASING CAPACITY The case for more space Increasing pressure on space Constraints on opportunities to create more physical space Opportunities to create more capacity within the existing space

102

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

2.0 THINKING ESTATE WIDE

What is the role of the Palace? 2.1 The Palace at one time housed Parliament, both functionally and symbolically. Today, however, it stands for Parliament (and for democracy, London and even on occasions the UK itself) but serves practically as part of a suite of buildings that meet the business objectives of Parliament. Decisions about changes to its function need to be taken within the wider context of business requirements for Parliament and the Estate as a whole. A clearly articulated vision for the Estate in the long term would assist this9. There is none currently.

How the buildings on the Estate work together 2.2 Some interdependencies between the buildings are clearer than others. It is known that there is insufficient space in the Palace for all Members to have offices and that this requirement is met through providing office space in the Northern Estate. Chamber and Committee spaces are in the Palace and Portcullis House so Members and some office based House Staff need to travel to/from these spaces.

2.3 Operational teams10 tend to work estate-wide and have space in more than one location on the estate. The Parliamentary Security Department is the largest of the operational teams. It has space in a number of locations across the estate, in addition to service delivery points (search and scan and back office functions xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx). Most members of this team work shifts and wear uniforms, and therefore need locker/changing facilities and mess rooms. They also need access to a computer for training and performance management. There are some members of this team who are predominantly desk based (managerial and administrative roles) and they have a requirement for office space.

2.4 Security teams, as is the case for many of the operational teams, have ended up in low-quality unwanted spaces that do not (in their present state) constitute an appropriate

9 See Appendix (Slide 1) 10 office staff defined as those in desk based roles in contrast to operational staff.

103

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061) basic level of environmental quality (basements and temporary buildings). The location of their accommodation does not support them in the efficient delivery of their services, especially if a team is split between multiple sites.

Benefits from re-planning and consolidating accommodation 2.5 The refurbishment of the Estate offers an opportunity to re-plan and consolidate the accommodation of the security and other operational teams to support more effective working through co-location and more efficient use of space through sharing facilities. The opportunity is substantial as there are over 1,000 House of Commons staff who have a work related requirement for shower/changing facilities which include Maintenance, Cleaners, Office Services, VA& Retail, IT Support and Hansard.

2.6 Evidence of the benefits of co-location within the House of Commons can be seen in the DIS and DCCS co-location and collaboration project. Now in shared space in one building, the teams occupy 800 square metres less space than when they were in cellular space in different buildings and the benefits realization team is in the process of collecting examples of collaborative working and greater fluidity between teams. Ian Ailles recently quoted the example of the co-location of pilots and cabin staff in shared changing facilities, achieved during his tenure as CEO of Thomas Cook, as being instrumental in supporting more effective working.

Additional benefit to combine delivering improved sustainability with efficient use of space 2.7 The requirement for shower/changing space is shared by another significant group comprised of ‘wheelie bag’ users and cyclists which includes both Members and staff. This group is not well provided for and if it was decided to achieve compliance with BREEAM sustainability guidance on provision for cyclists, a substantial number of new shower and changing facilities would be required. This would offer further opportunities for efficiencies if an estate wide view is adopted.

104

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

3.0 IMPROVING FLOW

Essential requirement for good circulation to support Parliament 3.1 The circulation of people and traffic in the Palace and the Estate overall needs to be improved to fit with the business objectives of Parliament and working practices of Parliamentarians. Improving the ‘flow’ offers opportunities to create a more effective and efficient environment for all users of the Estate: Members, Members’ Staff, House Staff and visitors. It would also align with improving the physical accessibility of the Estate and improved compliance with DDA regulations.

Negative impact of disconnection on users of the Estate 3.2 There is poor flow for those working in Parliament at a structural level as the Southern Estate is disconnected from the Core Estate11. Journeys to the Core Estate for House of Commons staff based in x xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx can be up to 15 minutes each way. For those regularly commuting between buildings, time spent ‘on the road’ eats into the working day.

3.3 As set out earlier (in ESTATE WIDE) the buildings on the Estate work together to support Parliament’s business objectives. Members, Members Staff and House Staff all need good circulation routes to move efficiently between different buildings in the course of their working day.

3.4 Members (and Peers) have a specific requirement to travel efficiently across the estate to meet the 8 minute Division Bell time. The constraints on travel within the Estate are illustrated by the recent temporary allocation of an office in the Palace for use by a Member, whose office is based in Norman Shaw North, but who is recovering from an injury and using crutches and would be unable to travel between his office and the Chamber within the 8 minutes.

11 See Appendix (Slide 2)

105

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

3.5 Within the Core Estate, the most obvious pinch point is at the escalators between the Palace and Portcullis House12. With over 5,000 people circulating around the Estate at any one time the throughput is substantial and it is the weakest link in the flow around Parliament at the peak times of divisions and PMQs.

Circulation spaces are important working spaces 3.6 When looking at design options to improve flow, consideration needs to be given to the fact the circulation routes themselves are important places of work. Both Members and Staff use corridors to meet and chat: outside Committee Rooms and Whip’s offices, in the more public Colonnade or in the ‘Dad’s Army corridor’ by Boiler House Court13.

3.7 It is clear from casual observation of use of the buildings that lots of ‘business’ is done face to face and this was supported by the findings of an in-house survey of the working practices of House Staff undertaken in 2012/201314. In the survey, teams were asked to state the proportion of time they spent in different communication modes. On average office teams were found to spend 43% of their time in face to face interactions as against using email, phone or messenger.

Negative impact of poor flow on the visitors to Parliament 3.8 Visitors to Parliament experience poor circulation at all entry points to the Estate and in particular at Cromwell Green and Portcullis House. Waiting times are high as the flow of people is constrained by the capacity of the search and scan facilities and visitors queue outside as there is insufficient holding space inside for them.

3.9 A visitor wanting to tour Parliament experiences poor flow in his journey: he must first buy a ticket in Portcullis House, then queue on the ramp outside Cromwell Green, before reaching Westminster Hall and then travelling part of the Line of Route in reverse before rejoining it the correct way.

12 See Appendix (Slide 3) 13 See Appendix (Slide 4) 14 The Baseline Survey, House of Commons Staff, Accommodation & Workplace, (2012/2013)

106

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

3.10 In the public areas of the Palace on the Principal Floor there is generally enough space for occupants and visitors to navigate around each other. Off the main route, however, this is not the case. xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx x xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxx.

3.11 The conflict is further illustrated by the lift itself. xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xx xxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx. Its use for those with mobility impairment would be beneficial as the gallery is over 70 steps above ground level. It can be accessed by anyone, though only operated by passholders. xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxx, xxx xxxxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxx – xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx – xxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx xx xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx.

Poor access undermines democratic principles 3.12 There is a lack of clear and easily navigable routes around the Estate. Whilst there is a subtle charm to getting lost, especially in the Palace (indeed it is a sort of rite of passage on starting work in Parliament) it re-inforces the hierarchies of old versus new and does not express the spirit of an open and transparent Parliament. The Palace was originally designed with processional routes in mind. It is appropriate now to respect this while responding to the changing flow requirements.

3.13 The Palace is disconnected from Parliament Square and Westminster Abbey by busy roads. This makes the building physically harder to access, contrary to aspirations for greater public accessibility, and encouraging the perception that Parliament is disconnected from the people it serves.

Opportunity to improve circulation to support functional efficiency and democracy 3.14 The need to carry out substantial building works to both the Palace and Northern Estate makes a cost-efficient opportunity to address these issues of flow. Making more and better physical connections within and between the buildings, to connect the working

107

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061) spaces at multiple levels, represents value to Parliament: it supports the way people work and will allow more flexible use of the spaces.

3.15 Examples of successful physical interventions to historic buildings to improve flow can be seen elsewhere in London at the Royal Opera House and the British Museum and in Paris at the Louvre15.

3.16 Creating better connections with improved flow aligns with higher democratic aspirations to support diversity and inclusion and mitigates the growing reputational risk of having an estate that is so poorly accessible to the public it serves.

3.17 Within the wider city context, improving the connection between Parliament Square and the Estate creates an opportunity for it to become as lively a civic and democratic space as Trafalgar Square16, which is an excellent example of increased connection transforming an urban space.

4.0 RATIONALISING BACK OF HOUSE

Behind any good ‘front of house’ lies an excellent ‘back of house’ 4.1 Behind any good ‘front of house’ lies an excellent ‘back of house’. The present back of house for the Estate undermines efficient delivery of FM and logistics services and has a detrimental effect on front of house operations. The scale and cost of building work required to upgrade services on the estate and repair fabric is such that it makes sense from a cost point of view to do it in tandem with improving the infrastructure. In terms of delivering value, it is essential. It will be hard to argue the benefits of investing millions to replace M&E services and prettify the buildings if they remain costly to run and don’t support business objectives.

15 See Appendix (Slides 5-7) 16 See Appendix (Slides 8 & 9)

108

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

Substantial internal logistics operation to support Parliament 4.2 In the same way that people suffer poor flow travelling around the Estate, so do catering supplies, offices supplies, post and building materials. The internal logistics are a substantial operation. There are 4 million items of post (3 million external and 1 million internal) that move round the estate in a year (12/13). There are roughly 35,000 cubic metres of deliveries made to the Estate annually. It is assumed that around 65% of this is food, and an estimated 23,000 cubic metres leaves as waste.

Challenges within the internal logistics 4.3 As with Snakes and Ladders, teams must work hard to find their way. Challenges include lengthy detours to move between floors and/or achieve level access, reduced speed in transit to negotiate change of levels and surfaces (cobbles are particular snag) and narrowing of routes.

4.4 The size, frequency and timing of deliveries are also constrained. With minimal holding space for deliveries (at drop points) items need to be collected almost as soon as they arrive and deliveries need to be staggered to suit the ability of teams to collect. The size of deliveries is determined by the size of the delivery vans, which are made specially to fit through the arches in the Palace, thereby attracting a cost premium. The many scars in the physical fabric of the Palace are evidence of less sympathetic site traffic17.

4.5 The issues for the circulation and collection of waste are the same (with the flow reversed) time inefficiencies from constrained circulation routes and additional cost from bespoke processes and equipment.

Visible back of house compromising front of house experience 4.6 When visiting a public place (museum, hotel, restaurant) the messy workings are usually hidden away. This is not the case on the Estate. Our back of house is highly visible18 which has a detrimental impact on the experience of the environment for users and makes a

17 See Appendix (Slide 12) 18 See Appendix (Slides 10 & 11)

109

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061) poor setting for the buildings themselves, considering their design quality and Heritage status.

Below ground opportunity 4.7 Exporting back of house functions from ground level creates important opportunities to create more usable space, which can help with meeting pressures on accommodation (see INCREASING CAPACITY). Using the space below ground to meet this requirement would be consistent with how other large public buildings have addressed this issue. Within London the refurbishment of the Royal Albert Hall in 2003 is a good example of this19.

Back of house compromising Parliament’s role as guardian of an historic of Estate 4.8 The positive impact of de-cluttering historic environments is illustrated by Matteo Renzi’s interventions in Florence, during his term as mayor in 2009-2014 The market around San Lorenzo used to encircle the church, constraining the view of it and compromising the public use of the podium on which it sits. As part of a wider initiative to make the city centre more attractive to visitors, the market stalls were constrained to the side streets. This allows a richer appreciation of the architecture, which can now be seen as it was originally designed and has increased the usability of the public space in front of it by making it more physically accessible and free of traders20.

4.9 Car parking is another aspect of an ugly back of house activity that is highly visible. The refurbishment is an opportunity to re-evaluate the amount and location of on-site parking. A reduced requirement would create a better experience for pedestrians at ground floor level and free up space to meet increasing pressure on accommodation. It would be compatible with Parliament’s sustainability agenda and supports an enhanced appreciation of the historic architecture 5.0 INCREASING CAPACITY

19 See Appendix (Slide 13) 20 See Appendix (Slide 14)

110

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

The case for more space 5.1 There is ever-increasing pressure on space for Parliament. There are limited opportunities to create more physical space on the Core Estate and these are subject to support from the Heritage and Conservation lobby. Changing the rules of the space offers potential to increase capacity but is in conflict with the existing highly territorial occupation of the Estate.

5.2 Increasing the capacity of the Estate will be required to meet the pressure on space but it also represents measurable value. While the estate is not commercially let space, its theoretical value will be increased by an increase in both site density and net usable area, which can help support the case for the investment in the Estate.

5.3 Increasing the capacity within the core estate also creates opportunities to co-locate more groups within a secure perimeter which offers potential benefits of closer and more collaborative working and reduced real estate costs from satellite buildings. xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx x xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx x xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx21.

Increasing pressure on space 5.4 There is a trend for Members to want to house more staff (some temporary) on the Estate. There are some House Staff (mostly within operational teams) who do not have sufficient or appropriate space (Visitor Services, Retail and Security Teams). All operational teams need access to a workstation to complete performance management protocols and are currently not well provided for. Back of house logistics would benefit from more space (see RATIONALISING BACK OF HOUSE).

5.5 Improving the experience for the existing number of visitors will require additional space, both at entrance points to the Estate and internally to deliver enhanced café, WC and cloakroom facilities. There are, however, ambitions to increase the level of public access and additional space will be required to support this effectively, in a way that delivers an appropriate experience for visitors.

21 Not to be published.

111

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

5.6 Meeting sustainability objectives, including provision for cyclists (see ESTATE WIDE) and creating new routes through the Estate to improve flow for users (see IMPROVED FLOW) and comply with DDA legislation, will also require increased space.

5.7 New M&E service runs and plant will also demand space. The planned Canon Row refurbishment illustrates the high space demand of plant installations that meet Parliament’s business resilience requirements.

Constraints on Opportunities to create more physical space 5.8 The Estate buildings’ listed status effectively fixes the external envelope of the buildings. Therefore opportunities for creating additional space on the Core Estate are likely to lie within the existing volumes (courtyards and service roads) or underground. The roofing over of the Great Court at The British Museum and pyramid at the Louvre have already been mentioned as examples of creating high quality space with excellent flow. The subterranean service basement at the Royal Albert Hall shows how more space can be found on a constrained listed site22. Creating additional physical space is possible but only with high level support from Westminster and the wider heritage lobby which is uncertain. It may be that a special planning framework is required to support the refurbishment of the Estate.

Opportunities to create more capacity within the existing space 5.9 In the context of the significant constraints on increasing physical space, additional capacity can be found by changing the rules of the existing space. This approach is being used by both public and private sector organisations to reduce their real estate costs and promote more collaborative working by adopting flexible’ or ‘activity-based’ working. In this scenario, space is considered a shared resource and collectively rather than individually owned. People circulate between different work settings, including desks, depending on their specific work activity which increases the utilization of spaces and supports a reduced overall accommodation footprint.

22 See Appendix (Slides 6 & 13)

112

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061)

5.10 Whilst both Members and House Staff move between work settings within the Estate, (see ESTATE WIDE), both groups retain sole ‘ownership’ of a desk and there is no formally expressed appetite to increase the sharing of space. At the same time, differentiation of space between political parties and individual Members is embedded in the political process; the electoral map of the constituencies has an equally specific map within the Estate. It is not a natural move for Members to want to share space.

5.11 Opportunities to find additional capacity on site may lie in the more public spaces. From casual observation there is capacity for increased use of the Members Library (House of Commons) without compromising its function as a quiet and calm workspace for Members. At 20-30 Members at any one time, in rooms A-D, the space per person is around 25 square metres. If Members felt it would not be appropriate to share space with other occupant groups, they could retain a reduced area for their sole use making the residual space available for alternative uses.

5.12 The present ‘rules’ of the Estate have contributed to the present situation where some operational teams have insufficient and/or poor quality space as Members have priority over other users of the Estate and specifically over occupation of space in the Palace23. An example of this is the Visitor Services and Retail Teams.

5.13 The Visitor Services and Retail Teams were recently the subject of a study examining accommodation requirements, undertaken after it was found that staff were using an unventilated room with electrical plant as a locker room, causing health and safety concerns. It revealed that staff have substantially inadequate locker/changing and mess facilities and insufficient storage to support the Jubilee Shop, which does a roaring trade.

5.14 The W (meeting) Rooms are ideally located to meet these requirements, however, re-allocation of these rooms would be in conflict with the Accommodation Policy. At the same time, and this re-inforces the issues around accessibility within the Estate, these

23 Accommodation Policy (2010)

113

Susanna Lumsden - Written evidence (RAR0061) rooms are the only fully accessible meeting rooms in the Palace. They are used however to support the Visitor Services Team when the House is not sitting.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The Palace is only part of a larger suite of buildings that meet the business objectives of Parliament. Decisions about changes to its function need to be taken within the wider context of business requirements and the Estate as a whole.

6.2 Investing in improving the infrastructure of the Estate, circulation routes for both people and things, is essential to support effective delivery of front of house activities and efficient delivery of back of house functions.

6.3 Increasing capacity on the Core Estate offers opportunities to meet increasing demands for space in a way that delivers clear benefit to Parliament and represents measurable value in real estate terms. Changing the rules of space can support this.

[DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS REDACTED]

09 February 2016

114

The Earl of Lytton - Written evidence (RAR0008)

I wondered if I might make an observation on the options that have been suggested. I am informed in this by my profession as a chartered surveyor.

For the purposes of this response, I take the factual findings of the IOA as given and comment merely on the outcomes and options.

As to outcomes, it seems to me that only level B or level C will in fact take the utility of the Palace forward to meet future needs. It is likely that even B will not meet a basic utility test as a parliamentary building for more than a few decades at most before functional obsolescence sets in again. There is a real danger of doing too little too late here and I would advocate C for this reason.

It seems to me that business continuity cannot be guaranteed whilst the Palace is in continued use both for parliamentary business and as a major construction site. The risks to both activities are very great indeed under such a scenario.

Of the options, in my opinion the short, sharp shock treatment implicit in option 3 is the only realistic approach, namely to decamp in total and carry out the refurbishment in the shortest possible time. I so conclude for the following reasons:

1. It would ensure the palace is upgraded as a whole and to consistent standards. Over a decade’s long refurbishment, consistency would be unachievable and system/service installations would be a patchwork. A protracted programme would necessarily involve substantial changes in the project team over time with handover issues and rich opportunities for error and omission.

2. It would overcome ongoing risks to occupiers and the building from serious current defects which would otherwise persist for decades more

3. It would save money in the medium to long term and may in fact prove to be cheaper in the short term. It is noteworthy that the whole life costs support this. Also a whole life cost based on 60 years but with a construction schedule range of 25 year plus (E1A) seems to me to be a significant mismatch of project timeline compared with overall timeline.

4, it would minimise the disruption to parliament (as opposed to individual parliamentarians) and the visiting public

5. It would allow contractors to deal with current known issues effectively and any unforeseen issues rather than their work being compromised through a phased approach especially as many services and infrastructure items are common to all parts of the building.

6. It would enable non building fabric issues (moth, rodents etc.) to be dealt with comprehensively.

115

The Earl of Lytton - Written evidence (RAR0008)

I acknowledge that moving parliamentarians out wholesale will not be popular and may require some changes in the way in which the two houses debate, vote and hold their committees meantime. It will also for some mean the temporary loss of an attractive facility to meet and converse. At the heart of any approach to this matter must be the functioning of parliament and especially avoiding continual disruptions, and the the need to adapt the Palace to meet that functional need for the longer term.

With long project timelines, there is a real risk, it seems to me, of something going seriously wrong in the interim and proving to be highly disruptive; the comprehensive and concentrated approach in 3B or C is on my examination of the options, the only safe way to proceed. The extended periods involved with E1A, 2A and 2B seem to me to be highly risky of budget creep.

On design matters, I feel that the glazing over of some of the inner courtyards could be inspirational and gain much needed space. Seizing this type of opportunity is to be welcomed.

The present use of the Palace causes some significant negatives; for instance the terrace pavilions make year round use of the terraces possible but do nothing for the external appearance of the building as a whole. Committee room 2 in particular is regularly invaded by cooking smells. Some attractive parts of the building have been necessarily disfigured with essential ducts and trunking. Peers and MPs do not have sufficient space to work and at times booking a meeting room is problematic. Many facilities within the building could be better and more efficiently provided if fundamental changes in the manner and location of provision were made.

The manner in which the various parliamentary functions are spread throughout the Palace would of itself make a partial decamp very problematic. The boilers for the Commons are located at the south end of the Palace. The functional entity does not conveniently subdivide along the lines of the necessary physical tranches that would be implicit in for instance, option 1. Indeed I would only question the IOA to the extent that it may not take sufficient account of this scattered pattern of activity within the building and just how difficult it would be to achieve partial decamp in practice.

I very much welcome the IOA report and hope that parliamentarians will recognise that their personal convenience should not be put before the operational proficiency of parliament and the Palace on the one hand, the cost to the taxpayer and the perceptions of the public on the other. It is a project that will require firm leadership and collective resolve.

20 December 2015

116

Andrew Makower - Written evidence (RAR0014)

This is a personal submission. I am a member of the House of Lords Management Board and the Strategic Programmes Procurement Sub-Group but not of the R&R Programme Board. 1. Would you like to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster as part of the work? If so, what would those changes be?

 More committee rooms. At peak periods the House of Lords is currently unable to accommodate demand for meeting rooms for parliamentary purposes.  A space at the south end of the Palace which works like the atrium in Portcullis House. The atrium evidently suits modern working practices in ways that the Palace at present does not.  Improved disabled access. Particular issues are the steps at St Stephen’s Entrance and access for disabled Members to the Chambers themselves. In a renewed Palace, a disabled Member should be able to sit with their party / group.  Energy efficiency. Parliament should practise what it preaches in this area, as in others. This is about behaviour as well as buildings.  Shelter from rain for people queuing for admission.

2. What do you think should not be changed as part of the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal?

The Palace must continue to accommodate and enable parliamentary business, with easy public access to the Chambers and committee rooms. There is a risk of losing sight of these fundamentals. 3. How can the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster support the work of Parliament and parliamentarians? What changes do you think are required to the building to adapt to Parliament’s changing needs in the 21st century?

The changes listed above would support the work of Parliament and its Members, either directly or by improving Parliament’s reputation or both. 4. Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster?

No. 5. Could the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster make it easier for the public to be welcomed into the Palace and to see and participate in the work of Parliament? If so, in what ways could this be achieved?

Better disabled access and sheltered queuing: see above. 6. What are your observations on the current condition of the Palace of Westminster?

117

Andrew Makower - Written evidence (RAR0014)

As I understand it, the condition of the Palace poses a high risk to continuity of parliamentary business and to conservation of a piece of world heritage. The R&R Programme and other associated programmes (including Fire Safety, on whose programme board I sit, and Cast Iron Roofs) are therefore very welcome. 7. What, in your view, would be the most appropriate means to deliver the changes which you would like to see made to the Palace of Westminster?

On the evidence of the independent options appraisal, full decant would be best in terms of time (see section 1.5), cost (1.6) and risk (1.7). It would also in my view offer the greatest opportunity to refresh not only Parliament’s premises but also its practices.

8. Are there any services which are currently located in the Palace of Westminster which, in your view, need not be co-located with the Chambers during any potential decant period?

Yes. These include the Parliamentary Archives, whose future accommodation is the subject of a separate programme; banqueting and the Sports & Social Club, which may not need to be replicated at all during decant; and police mess rooms.

14 January 2016

118

Master Carvers’ Association - Written evidence (RAR0017)

1.1 Established in 1897 the Master Carvers’ Association (MCA) is the only Association for professional carvers in the British Isles. Election to membership is by peer review having already been in business as a wood or stone carver for a minimum of five years.

1.2 MCA members are concerned to maintain the quality of carving and insure the continuity of Heritage Craft skills.

1.3 The Palace of Westminster is one the world’s greatest monuments and a World Heritage Site thanks to its architect, Charles Barry, and his assistant Augustus Pugin, who together produced this magnificent building and interiors. They drew on the history and legends of the land, employing the finest craftsmen available to produce the splendid icon that it still is today.

1.4 Now with the building in need of renovation, these fine ideals must be sustained. Both preservation and renewal is achievable as can be seen in the work overseen by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott who, along with his skilled workforce, rose to the occasion after the damage inflicted by WWII. He created designs to repair and complement the Palace, combining innovative use of contemporary materials and technology while preserving its original spirit.

1.5 It is important that the forthcoming programme of work ensures the continuity of Barry and Pugin's design and carries the baton from Scott. The Restoration and Renewal Programme provides an opportunity to use the skills of the 21st century and to ensure continuity of our Heritage in artifact and craft, while still accommodating the needs of the parliamentary staff and visitors. It is also fulfills the aims of the Association which has developed the National Occupational Standards and promoted the first qualification in carving for several generations. This project goes some way to give the opportunity to train the next generation of craftsmen.

1.6 As unsympathetic contractors can easily ruin a building, the right choice of workmen is a vital one. Large workshops able to undertake quantities of work no longer exist but there are still skilled craftsmen capable of undertaking the work. The Master Carvers' Association (www.mastercarvers.co.uk) is the eminent body of craftsmen, stone and wood carvers. MCA members are always ready to collaborate for major projects and the organisation is ready to provide its expertise on this most important project.

2.0 Declaration of interest: The MCA is formed of skilled and accomplished stone and wood carvers; members are elected by peer review and apart from combining to complete large projects often compete for tenders. We aim to assure the quality of carving, both stylistically and in terms of technical craftsmanship.

19 January 2016

119

Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter & Professor Matthew Flinders, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006) Dr Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter & Professor Matthew Flinders, The Sir Bernard Crick Centre, University of Sheffield - Written evidence (RAR0006)

Submission to be found under Professor Matthew Flinders

120

Kirsty McCullagh - Written evidence (RAR0024)

I think Parliament should remain on site for the duration of the work however long it takes. 1) I think it would be a disaster to move the home of democracy out of Parliament for democracy for legitimacy. 2) Parliament did not move out during the 2nd World War when it was bombed by the Germans it remained working and functioning as a symbol of hope and democracy and freedom 3) I do not think it should move out for renovations however long it might take. 4) I would also be terrified that Parliament would never move back. 5) Parliament would lose its history, its legacy, everything that makes Parliament so special and unique would be lost if it moved out for a long process of repair. 6) The practical logistics of moving out would be horrendous. 7) I think we should stay here in the building and we will cope - that is how previous renovations have taken place and it's been doable.

21 January 2016

121

Microsoft - Written evidence (RAR0057)

Overview The Restoration and Renewal Programme presents an opportunity to upgrade the Palace of Westminster, creating a best in class public building with the facilities needed to meet the social and economic challenges of our time.

Ensuring that those using the restored Palace are able to utilise new technologies, particularly cloud based technologies such as mobile working, data analytics and on-the-go videoconferencing, will be key to helping Parliamentarians be more productive, responsive and open to the public.

Moreover, in addition to ensuring the future Palace of Westminster is a cutting edge facility, the opportunity also exists to do more with Parliament’s existing assets to minimise the disruption caused by the restoration programme, such as Members being relocated to new offices.

At this initial stage of the committee’s inquiry, Microsoft has compiled the following short submission, providing an overview of what is possible in best in class workspaces, as well as offering thoughts on how Microsoft may be able to assist Parliament and the Parliamentary Digital Service during the restoration itself.

Parliament reimagined As Parliament moves in to the 21st Century, it continues to look for new ways to engage with the public and enable Members to be more effective in doing their work. Ensuring that the restored Parliament has the systems required to make the most the following technologies will provide significant benefits in achieving this:

. Mobile working and real time collaboration Developing technologies offer the opportunity for Parliamentarians to work more flexibly and in a more mobile way. The remote storage and consolidated computing power of the cloud will allow Members to access and edit documents from anywhere, whether on the train, in a taxi between meetings, working from a constituency office or even when preparing to give a speech in the chamber. The ability for colleagues to be able to edit the same documents in real time will provide huge benefits in working across different offices and help in lightening workloads

. Data analytics to better understand and respond to constituency needs Parliamentarians are tasked with processing huge amounts of data when making decisions about public services, legislation and constituency case work. Utilising cloud enabled real time data analytics, Members will be able to instantaneously identify emerging trends or key words in constituency email correspondence, allowing them to swiftly respond to emerging issues. Similarly, Members will be able

122

Microsoft - Written evidence (RAR0057)

to use analytics to deliver better targeted public services for their constituents, improving outcomes and reducing expenditure.

. New ways of interacting with constituents: protected social media engagement and on-the-go conferencing As people become ever more connected, Members will be able to engage with constituents in new and more interactive ways. Secure social media groups, purpose built for a specific group or constituency will allow Members to interact directly with their constituents, in an open way. Similarly, on-the-go video conferencing tools will allow Parliamentarians to make themselves more easily available to constituents. As well as holding in-situ surgeries, the possibility exists for remote consultations and greater flexibility around when an MP can be contacted, perhaps during the early part of the week when an MP is in Westminster, in addition to the time spent on such activities over the weekend.

. Simple and secure authentication New authentication technology already provides the ability for people to use biometric data to log on to their devices and services. Members will be able to utilise this technology to replace the large numbers of passwords they currently need to remember, instead providing a one stop sign on process requiring no password at all and allowing for straightforward mobile working

. Technology delivering greater accessibility and inclusion As Parliament continues to become more representative and diverse, technology will help empower individuals from a wide range of backgrounds to become ever more involved. Mobile working will allow for greater flexibility, encouraging people with different demands on their schedules to work in Parliament. Similarly,3D soundscape technology, such as the Microsoft and Guide Dogs collaboration around Cities Unlocked - which uses a headset and beacons to enhance the mobility and confidence of those with vision loss - will allow for much easier navigation of Parliament

Microsoft and Parliament – making the most of existing assets As well as utilising technology to ensure that a restored Palace of Westminster is a best in class facility over the longer term, Parliament can also use its existing assets to mitigate disruption and improve processes during the restoration phase.

Microsoft is very proud to be a long standing partner of Parliament, providing a number of cloud based services that will allow any Members that need to be relocated to continue to work productively. The recent introduction of Office 365 on the Parliamentary Estate allows Members to use products such as Exchange Online, SharePoint Online and OneDrive cloud storage system the ability to access and edit documents anywhere, using their PC, tablet or phone. Microsoft continues to work with the Parliament Digital System to improve this

123

Microsoft - Written evidence (RAR0057) mobility and introduced Azure Active Directory Premium during the recent General Election period, allowing users to access services that were once only available when on the Parliamentary estate or via a virtual private network (VPN). Members now also benefit from the ‘Single Sign On’ process, allowing users to input their Parliamentary passwords only once and access services without any further log in, ensuring robust security is maintained while facilitating greater mobility and flexibility.

As highlighted above, greater utilisation of such services alongside newly developing technologies will provide significant benefit to Members both during the restoration process and in the new building. Microsoft will continue to work with the PDS to ensure that the benefits of these cloud based systems are utilised during the relocation phase in order to help Members remain highly productive.

Using augmented reality in the design process The restoration presents an opportunity to utilise new technologies in the design process, potentially helping facilitate input from a wide range of stakeholders, including Members. Microsoft’s HoloLens, an augmented reality headset utilising holographic technology, is already being used in this way to scope large scale design projects by companies such as Trimble. The committee may be interested in this video case study, providing further information around how it is starting to be used.

29 January 2016

124

Roger Mullin MP - Written evidence (RAR0021)

I am a new member elected in May 2016, but a long standing student of politics and have written on politics, taught politics at university and undertaken research, almost 40 years ago, into women in politics.

I am aware that the SNP group has made a joint submission, but since I feel very strongly about some matters I have decided to make my own, short, submission.

The current estate The current estate, and its associated rituals and rules, are no longer an effective basis for the fast changing world we live in. They reflect in many ways a by-gone era and require fundamental change to properly serve a modern democracy.

The purpose of the estate The estate should be designed making the assumption that future parliaments will have to accommodate both genders in equal measure, the full range of disabilities represented in the community, and expectations that it is important that all those working in parliament should be enabled to have a private family and home life like other citizens.

It should also assume that all MPs should have working facilities that are modern, utilising the best of modern technology.

Location of estate London is not a good location geographically for a United Kingdom Parliament. It would be better to be based in the North of England in new purpose built surroundings and the current estate made into one of the world’s great Museums. I however have little expectation of this occurring. Therefore, what are the minimum changes we should expect from a refurbishment?

The Chamber Currently the architecture of the debating chamber in the commons is far too small, unable to seat even half the MPs elected. This is bad practice and during busy debates effectively disenfranchises many elected members. It should be rebuild to accommodate all, with clear markings of one sort or another of individual seats.

Electronic and other voting systems The current lobby arrangements for voting are not conducive to efficient voting. The justification that some MPs like to use the lobbies to meet Ministers or others, is a preposterous defence. If there is a need to enable MPs to better engage with front benches that is a separate issue that may need reform. It should not be used as an excuse. Currently the lobby system because of the time it takes to vote can restrict the number of amendments pressed to a vote, and can take a considerable time out of that available to the House which could be used for further debate and scrutiny.

There is also no voting provision if people are absent due to ill health or other significant reasons. To see ambulances bringing people to the commons to have their vote registered

125

Roger Mullin MP - Written evidence (RAR0021) is a disgraceful practice. The House should install the means for remote electronic voting, or as an alternative some form of proxy arrangements.

Another advantage of modernising voting arrangements would be to allow equal access to voting procedures for those with disabilities. There are now many accessible technologies that can be deployed to this end.

Decision Aids To assist MPs make judgments and decisions, there should be access, including in the chamber, to visual displays, access to online information and such like. At present there are many bad practices built into the processes of parliament in terms of aiding effective decision making, and therefore a proper review of the needs of decision makers is required.

Child care arrangements There should be specialist crèche, nursery and related facilities to allow members with young families to participate more readily in parliament without creating unnecessary stress regarding the care of children when they are visiting London.

Constituent and educational space More dedicated space should be provided for educational and presentation purposes.

Family friendly Instead of members only dining rooms, there should be member and immediate family dining rooms, to enable the maximum opportunity for members to maintain contact with their partners and children, out of the glare of public scrutiny.

21 January 2016

126

National Federation of Roofing Contractors - Written evidence (RAR0041)

1. Declaration of Interest: The National Federation of Roofing Contractors will fulfil the roofing element of the work bid for by the National Heritage Training Group.

2. The National Federation of Roofing Contractors (NFRC) is the UK’s leading trade association for the roofing industry. The Federation has over a thousand contractor and associate members and is an active member of the International Federation of Roofing Contractors. With a turnover of £1.6bn, NFRC members represent 70% of the UK roofing market by value. Companies vary from the very smallest local company to some of the largest in the country, carrying out new build, repair and maintenance on existing buildings, and heritage work. The NFRC is also a key member of Build UK (formerly the National Specialist Contractors’ Council and UK Contractors Group) and TrustMark.

3. The NFRC has been authorised by the UK Government to run the first Competent Person Scheme for roofing, CompetentRoofer, which allows roofing contractors to self-certify on Building Regulations for roofing refurbishment work. The scheme aims to help to marginalise the less professional roofing companies that exist in all markets.

Introduction

4. Conservation and sustainability of the UK’s heritage in the built environment is critical and needs to be strongly encouraged. With so many of our country’s finest estates controlled by all four heritage bodies within the UK, it is absolutely vital that they take a lead in ensuring that these heritage buildings are correctly maintained and repaired. The long term sustainability of these buildings can be assured by correct workmanship. The Palace of Westminster is one of the most renowned heritage buildings in the world and therefore work on it must set the right example to others who wish to renovate heritage buildings.

5. There should be two categories for construction contractors and professionals – those with the specialist conservation skills to look after the palaces, castles, cathedrals and mansions, and those with general knowledge and skills to enable them to care for the other heritage or traditional building stock. It must be remembered that domestic and industrial properties constructed in the early 20th century and before, should also be recognised as heritage buildings. Indeed, 20% of the UK building stock fall into this category. These buildings are generally in the care of ‘non-specialist’ contractors.

6. Heritage buildings are generally considered to have been built around or before 1919 and are of solid wall construction. These type of buildings behave differently to more modern forms of construction and the use of appropriate materials and the requirement for the building to ‘breathe’ are paramount. Use of inappropriate materials and other interventions can seriously detract from the performance of the building and the health and wellbeing of the occupant. Awareness and understanding of these factors should form part of all construction related courses.

127

National Federation of Roofing Contractors - Written evidence (RAR0041)

7. Development of college and university construction related courses since the wars has resulted in the loss of general knowledge and understanding of traditional building construction and appropriate repair, maintenance and conservation techniques and materials. This lack of knowledge has led to widespread and often damaging interventions both for the building and its occupants.

8. As well as a need for this building stock to be maintained appropriately, there is a need to ensure that sufficient levels of training are made available and supported, and that relevant apprenticeships are in place. Without ensuring that those coming into the building profession are trained in the correct skills and have good understanding to work on heritage buildings, the availability of these skills and knowledge will become scarce, and all our heritage buildings will continue to suffer. The recently revised and published BSI standard ‘Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings’ should be included as a key part of all training.

9. The NFRC believes that at present the Government in Westminster does not take a sufficiently strong enough lead on insisting that repairs and maintenance to its traditional buildings use correctly skilled and knowledgeable workmen. In order to preserve our national treasures and our distinctive historic built environment, this must be reversed and the renovation of the Palace of Westminster is the optimum time to do so.

CSCS Carded workforce

10. For the Government to make possession of the Heritage Skills CSCS Card a requirement for working on one of their properties, there must be a critical mass of cardholders. In working with the Lead Contractors Association and the National Heritage Training Group, English Heritage has demonstrated that this critical mass can be reached (approximately 75% of lead workers hold a CSCS card). The requirement for all specialist lead workers working on significant projects on the English Heritage estate to hold CSCS cards has begun. The commitment to a fully carded qualified workforce is a key commitment of Construction 2025 led by government.

11. With the guarantee from English Heritage to use CSCS carded workmen only for lead- work, the industry has also made the commitment to ensure there are sufficient numbers of correctly trained workmen. It is vital that this practice is expanded to other trades.

12. This is an excellent example of how industry and heritage bodies can work together to ensure that the heritage workforce is appropriately skilled. Heritage bodies should be encouraged to use the appropriate CSCS carded workmen to carry out all roofing and construction work, and government should set a positive example by doing the same. The Palace of Westminster renovation and restoration project is an ideal time to introduce such a stipulation.

Training

13. Without encouraging incentives for contractors to train in the skills needed for this sector, the skills will eventually die out and our traditional buildings will be ruined by work

128

National Federation of Roofing Contractors - Written evidence (RAR0041)

completed incorrectly. For as long as the Government and Heritage Agencies do not make the commitment to only use appropriately skilled and knowledgeable craftsmen and professionals in all disciplines, there will remain a reluctance from contractors and professionals alike to commit time and resources to training a workforce in these core skills.

14. NFRC therefore calls on all Governments to set a deadline date, after which it will only use CSCS cardholders for building work. This will give all specialist trades time to ensure training is in place and that demand can be met. All publicly funded projects must contain a stipulation in the contract that only appropriately trained professionals will be used. This will assist the heritage agencies to fulfil its responsibility for protecting and enhancing the historic environment. Without this lead from such organisations, these skills will become redundant.

15. The government recognise that workplace learning is at the core of skills development. The current drive to increase apprenticeships and development of new Trailblazer programmes provides an opportunity to tackle the lack of mainstream education and training in heritage construction. It is vital however, that existing and future heritage construction projects include relevant training as an integral part of the construction phase. The National Heritage Training Group’s new Traditional Building Skills Training Toolkit is a valuable new resource to support the increase in work-based training opportunities.

Impact

16. The impact of a deteriorating Built Heritage is manifold – our magnificent heritage attracts huge numbers of tourists and should they not be repaired in a sympathetic fashion, this will detract from their appeal. Additionally, the embodied carbon and overall energy efficiency of older buildings that have been maintained correctly, must be taken into consideration as we try to meet carbon reduction targets and improve the fabric of the building in a traditional manner in order to meet these demands.

Conclusion

17. Ensuing that there are sufficient numbers of correctly trained craftsmen to service the heritage properties in the UK is vital. Industry will take its lead from the Government and its agencies and, as it has been shown with the Lead Contractors Association in England, it will commit resources to ensuring there is training provision if there is a demand for those skills.

18. Additionally, the NFRC feels that the role that the Government and Heritage Agencies could have in giving advice to those seeking to undertake work on non-Historic buildings could be ground-breaking. They can strongly advise private property owners of a) the benefits of using correctly skilled craftsmen and b) the potential impact both financially and in terms of the overall upkeep of the property in not employing appropriately skilled workmen.

129

National Federation of Roofing Contractors - Written evidence (RAR0041)

19. The Government must take the lead promoting the skills required to repair and maintain the Palace of Westminster for future generations which will also have a positive impact on tourism and energy efficiency.

22 January 2016

130

National Heritage Training Group - Written evidence (RAR0038)

Introduction 1. The National Heritage Training Group (NHTG) exists to provide a focal point that enables specialist contractors and others engaged in the heritage sector to identify and address the gaps in practical skills and specialist knowledge which have become evident in the increasing disparity between the existing aging workforce and younger new entrants seeking a long term career.

2. Our strategic role is to work with specialist federations and others (including mainstream contractors with potential heritage links) to co-ordinate, assist and encourage their efforts in providing or facilitating appropriate training and to encourage the widespread recognition of achievable qualifications. Our long term objective is that all those working on traditional buildings have the appropriate skills, knowledge and qualifications, that these are demanded by the client base and that the sector is valued as a worthwhile long term career prospect for all age groups.

3. The built heritage of the UK is an important economic force with historic properties continuing to attract large numbers of visitors. In 2015 the number of visits to historic properties increased by 3% and in 2014 there were an estimated 66.7 million visits to historic properties. This is a 36% increase in heritage visits from 1989 when the visitor data was first collected. Source: Heritage Counts 2015

4. Heritage properties, when properly and appropriately maintained and repaired can achieve good energy efficiency and deliver healthy environments for the owner/occupier. Organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) and the Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance (STBA) have produced and promoted important new research Responsible Retrofit of Traditional Buildings and other related topics.

5. Initiatives from government and the heritage agencies to ensure the conservation and sustainability of the whole of the UK’s built heritage are vital and must be encouraged. Historic England’s collaboration with the Lead Contractors Association to only allow specialist lead workers with Heritage CSCS cards onto their projects (eg Audley End) is a very good example of this.

131

National Heritage Training Group - Written evidence (RAR0038)

6. It is generally accepted that most properties constructed around and before 1919 will be of solid wall, ‘traditional’ construction and research conducted by the NHTG showed that approximately 20% of the UK building stock fall into this category. To maintain both a healthy building fabric and environment for the occupants, these buildings need to ‘breathe’ and therefore, only appropriate materials should be used in their development, repair and maintenance.

7. Much of the damage to historic fabric is carried out by those installing services who have no appreciation of the value (aesthestic, historic and structural) of the building and the potential damaging consequences of their actions.

8. The NHTG would like to see the Government in Westminster take a strong lead and insist that repairs and maintenance to its traditional buildings are only carried out by correctly skilled and knowledgeable workmen. The Palaces of Westminster are iconic and by taking this approach, the Government will send a clear message that they understand the value of our historic environment and the skills needed to protect and sustain it into the future.

Qualifications and Certification – VQ and Heritage CSCS 9. The Government should demand that all contractors hold – or are working towards - a Heritage Skills CSCS Card, before being allowed to work on one of their properties. At the very least, the person must have successfully completed the Level 3 Award: ‘Understanding the Repair & Maintenance of Traditional Buildings’. This is a two-day classroom based course that provides an introduction to heritage building conservation. It has been derived from the full Level 3 Heritage NVQ and therefore successful trainees can put this L3 Award toward the full qualification.

10. English Heritage have committed to use only CSCS carded workmen for lead-work on their properties and the industry has also made the commitment to ensure there are sufficient numbers of correctly trained workmen in this area. We must see this expanded to all other areas of heritage trades.

11. The NHTG has lobbied the heritage agencies to use the appropriate CSCS carded workmen to carry out all heritage construction work. A commitment by the Government and the Palace of Westminster renovation and restoration project, should add weight to this argument and encourage the same commitment from the agencies and across the industry.

132

National Heritage Training Group - Written evidence (RAR0038)

12. NHTG would like Governments to set a deadline, after which it will only use CSCS cardholders – or those who can prove they are working towards the VQ and Heritage CSCS Card - for heritage building work.

13. NHTG would also like all publicly funded projects to contain a stipulation in the contract that only appropriately trained heritage contractors and professionals will be used.

Training 14. It is important to improve both general and specialist skills, knowledge and understanding. General knowledge of traditional and vernacular building construction has been lost as college and university construction related courses have dropped traditional skills training in favour of modern methods of construction, such that most construction trainees on completing their level 2 course only understand how to build a modern estate house with modern materials.

15. Improving this general knowledge will allow the ‘non-specialist’ contractor or professional to specify or carry out basic interventions, or indeed allow them to identify the need for a ‘specialist’ contractor or professional to deal with the issues that need specific master-craft knowledge, understanding and skills to carry out the work.

16. In addition it is important that sufficient levels of training are made available and supported, and that relevant apprenticeships are in place. Without ensuring that those coming into the building profession are trained in the correct skills and have good understanding to work on heritage buildings, the availability of these skills and knowledge will become scarce, and all our heritage buildings will continue to suffer. The recently revised and published BSI standard ‘Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings’ should be included as a key part of all training.

17. Without encouraging incentives for contractors to train in the skills needed for this sector, the skills will eventually die out and our traditional buildings will be ruined by work completed incorrectly. For as long as the Government and Heritage Agencies do not make the commitment to only use appropriately skilled and knowledgeable craftsmen and professionals in all disciplines, there will remain a reluctance from contractors and professionals alike to commit time and resources to training a workforce in these core skills.

18. The Government recognise that workplace learning is at the core of skills development. The current drive to increase apprenticeships and development of new Trailblazer

133

National Heritage Training Group - Written evidence (RAR0038)

programmes provides an opportunity to tackle the lack of mainstream education and training in heritage construction. It is vital however, that existing and future heritage construction projects include relevant training as an integral part of the construction phase. The National Heritage Training Group’s new Traditional Building Skills Training Toolkit is a valuable new resource to support the increase in work-based training opportunities.

If we do nothing? 19. If Government and the industry does nothing to tackle diminishing heritage craft resources, our built heritage is at serious risk and the knock-on effects for our economy, energy efficiency and communities should not be underestimated.

20. Widely predicted and now a reality, as construction grows again, labour-shortage and rising wages are a real concern across the industry. We have to invest and support new generations into construction and specialist crafts to secure our future ability to manage our built environment. What better way than through such a prestigious renovation project?

Conclusion 21. We must ensure there are sufficient numbers of correctly trained craftsmen and professionals to care for and manage our historic environment. Industry and employers will take the Government’s lead given a strong enough message.

22. The Government therefore must take the lead in promoting and demanding the skills required to repair and maintain the Palace of Westminster and encouraging more people into this rewarding career.

23. This commitment would also play an important role in raising the image of construction in general as a valuable, worthwhile and profitable career choice.

22 January 2016

134

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54) Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Evidence heard in public Questions 38-54

Oral evidence

Taken before the Joint Committee

on Monday 29 February 2016

Witnesses: Professor Jonathan Drori CBE, Chairman, Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, Geoff Mulgan, Chief Executive, Nesta, and Penny Young, Librarian and Director General, Information Services, House of Commons, and Chair of the Parliamentary Visitors Group, gave evidence.

Q38 Chris Grayling (Chair): Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Will the three of you start by introducing yourselves?

Ms Young: I am Penny Young. I am the House of Commons Librarian and I also lead the teams, most of them bicameral, that do work on engagement, visitor services, outreach and so on. I also chair the Parliamentary Visitors Group, which is a cross- Parliament group designed to encourage and enhance visitor access and experience while being mindful of the impact on the core procedures of the House.

Professor Drori: Hello. It is an honour to be here and I thank you for having me. My name is Jonathan Drori. I am the former chair of the Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, which had a life of, basically, the previous Parliament. It was a group of people, mainly from the media and digital industries, with some marketing people, who were unpaid volunteers who advised on public engagement matters.

Mr Mulgan: Good afternoon. I am Mr Mulgan. I am Chief Executive of Nesta, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.

Q39 Chris Grayling (Chair): Thank you very much. What do you think are the main barriers to interactions between the public and the workings of Parliament?

135

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Professor Drori: There are four barriers. First is the lack of understanding on behalf of the public that I think is borne out by the market research done by the Hansard Society and others. Broadly, the public find it difficult to understand what goes on in Parliament—what the procedures are and what they mean. The way that they would learn about such things is at school, where they are not terribly well tested in this country. It is not a high priority like maths or English. Civics, for example, is pretty low down the agenda for many schools. There are a whole lot of things, including, as I will come to, the relevance of Parliament, that make it difficult for people to engage and therefore understand.

Second is the feeling of a lack of relevance. There are certain barriers. People enjoy the tradition of Parliament, but we know from market research that there are barriers to people feeling that it is relevant to them. First among those is how they can make a difference. There is the language, the dress, the traditions, the iconography, the design, the architecture, the febrile atmosphere—I could go on; indeed, I will go on for a second. The febrile atmosphere of the Chamber is a great spectacle. It is great fun but it really irritates a lot of people who feel that it is not relevant to them. Frankly, if I acted that way in my business life, I would probably have a shortened career. That is an issue.

Those things lead to the third point, which is a sort of mental inaccessibility. All those things compound together to make Parliament quite inaccessible to a lot of the public.

The fourth point is the physical inaccessibility. There are aspects of that that are absolutely vital because of security and so on, and I don’t think anyone would complain about that, but there are ways of doing these things. Think about even the people who are invited to Parliament for semi-public events. These are the great and the good and you are asking them to stand in the rain for 20 minutes or more, and often longer. What hope for the rest? Compare that with some other places such as the Scottish Parliament, for example, or the Bundestag in Germany, which feel a lot more welcoming. All those things compound the situation.

Ms Young: I would add, in terms of the lack of understanding, that something that the public really do not understand as much as we would like is that Parliament is different from Government, the role of Parliament in holding the Government to account and the distinct role of the two Houses, and that is both a problem and an opportunity.

The public also do not understand as well as we would like the impact that they can have. In this respect, the role of the Petitions Committee is a really good example of how Parliament is changing. There have been 10 million signatures since it launched in July, with 800,000 on the latest petition. It was recently described as the new public front door to Parliament in terms of the things that we can hang off the Petitions Committee. That is not to say that the building does not have a really important role, and I am sure we will come on to that later.

136

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Mr Mulgan: I will not repeat what others have said. It is worth being clear that Parliament was not designed to be very open to the public. That was not foremost in the thoughts of people in the mid-19th century. There is a physical aspect to this, as Jonathan said. Many more recent Parliaments have been deliberately designed to be much more porous. They have events run by the public as well as by Parliament itself. Their feel is more welcoming; they have more light and openness.

The thing I want to emphasise is more on the digital side. The citizens of Britain, in their daily lives, are used to having interactions with organisations—whether for shopping, banking, sports, music or news—which are predominantly digital nowadays. There will also be a face-to-face, physical aspect to them. If you had been meeting five or 10 years ago, there were not many options for you in that respect— there might have been petition sites, and the first ones were a decade or so ago— there are now quite a lot of tools that you could use, and which other Parliaments and cities are beginning to use. These make it easier for citizens to take part in almost every stage of the parliamentary process—by pointing out issues, proposing ideas, commenting on legislation, taking part in debates on legislation and playing a part in scrutiny.

One of the things that my organisation has been involved in is helping to design those tools, which are in use in countries such as Spain, Finland and Iceland, and I think they should be part of your discussion. They are not the answer to everything. They are not replacements for the physical proximity of Parliament and for the intensity and intimacy of debate, but I think it is almost impossible now to conceive of either a decanted Parliament or a rebuilt Parliament without the digital being absolutely integral to how you think about every aspect of it. Architects nowadays, as indeed in many other walks of life, have to think about the digital and the physical in the same breath almost.

Q40 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): There is so much ground to cover that it is quite hard to know where to start, to be honest with you, given what you have described in terms of the digital opportunities. If the biggest barrier to Parliament is people’s understanding, how do you see—because we are concerned about the physical aspects of a restoration and renewal project, and that is not to say that digital is not something that would need to feature in whatever it is that would form part of a redesign down the line— thinking more about the physical access to Parliament and addressing the barriers to understanding, what would you give most priority to?

Ms Young: It is really important to understand that people who come into the building in whatever capacity—whether it is the quarter of a million people who have paid to come on a commercial tour, the 120,000 people who have come on a Member-sponsored tour, the 11,000 people who go up Big Ben, the 60,000 schoolkids who will come through the building this year or the 100,000 next year, or those in the Public Galleries; there are all sorts of people—are really wowed by the place. While it is absolutely true that engaging digitally is important, the actual experience of coming in the building and experiencing both the culture and engaging as citizens really has a positive impact on people. We know that from research, so

137

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

one of things is letting people know that they can come in. That is a really important thing. One of the problems with the galleries is that most people do not know that they can turn up, queue and come in—there will then obviously be the problems about having to queue. The first thing is to understand that that rich experience really binds people to an understanding of what Parliament is about rather more, so while digital is fantastically important, the building has a really important role to play as well.

Q41 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): What would be the thing that you feel, if you were looking at the building as it is now, you would give as a priority to change in terms of access to the building for the public?

Ms Young: There are probably three things. One is queues, and we can come on to that in a moment. One is the commercial perspective. If someone is coming in as a visitor, there are all sorts of things such as a one-way route, lockers, interpretation and signage. The lack of interpretation around the building is startling compared with what you would see in other buildings. It is also about citizen space, which helps Members of Parliament and Peers—spaces where you can engage with citizens. We have heard about Holyrood, and it is also true of other Parliaments. For example, if we were to cover over the courtyards and make much more informal space, that is a way that citizens, their representatives and Peers can engage much more. I gather that one of the few things that Holyrood might do rather differently is with the informal collaborative space. It has worked really well, but there is a recognition that it is under pressure. In a sense, you cannot build in too much informal collaborative space for citizens and their representatives to engage in more informal ways.

Professor Drori: In the same way that if I understood you rightly, Geoff, you said that ideally you would design the digital and physical together—if that is what you said, I absolutely concur—I would say that just thinking about the present footprint of the Parliamentary Estate may not be the ideal place to start. I cannot think that those who look at Parliament Square think of it as a world-beating wonderful space that we are all proud of, yet that space absolutely could be the most fantastic thing in Europe, if you wanted it to be, or if enough people wanted it to be. I do not hear that case being made, although I have seen designs commissioned by the Hansard Society and others that incorporate quite imaginative use of that space. At the moment, it is a bit of a traffic island and embarrassing.

Q42 Chris Grayling (Chair): I am not sure that we could add it to St Peter’s.

Mr Mulgan: Could I perhaps suggest three questions about the very specific physical fabric of Parliament and how you might design it? There is one set of issues about underlying shape. Do you want the classic antagonistic form? Do you want circles or semicircles and so on? To a degree, where one goes is a matter of taste. Almost all the new Parliaments of the past 30 years have not followed the Westminster model, but there is no reason not to keep what we have.

138

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

The second set is the basic question of whether you allow mixing of people in the or others to come and take part in the actual conversations of a Chamber. Others, like this one, do not. To my mind, that is one rather important signal about a more open, porous conservational Parliament.

The third set of questions is about the physical fabric—things like walls. Do you have screens? Do you make it possible, when you are discussing fisheries policy, to beam in people from fishing communities across the country? Do you have data ever on show? Almost all buildings being designed now for boards, committees and so on automatically replace the wonderful paintings of this kind with fabric that is much more interactive, much more engaged and much more informative, to help the discussions be of a higher quality.

Q43 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): So that suggests that in your mind, when you think about restoration and renewal, coming from where you are—this is a grade I listed building, so you will understand that there are huge constraints—that you envisage something radically different in terms of the internal aspects of this building on return. It would be quite different, I would guess, for most of us sitting round this table.

Professor Drori: It depends what you want to do. If you really want to engage people, the market research is very clear about the things that are distancing them and how they feel about Parliament just not really reflecting the rest of business life. It may be that you want to go down the “this is tradition, this is the most important bit of what we do” route, in which case you will not change it, but if you wanted to have that effect on the public, the answer is pretty clear from market research.

Mr Mulgan: To my mind, it is partly about engagement of the public, so that democracy is legible and understandable. The other part is tapping into expertise. There are 60 million people out there with deep knowledge of almost everything discussed in the House. One of the things that many other Parliaments and Governments are working on is ways of tapping into specialist expertise on a much larger scale than in the past, and again using digital tools to do so.

Q44 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: From my own experience, I always thought the Supreme Court did rather well. Visitors there get a synopsis of the cases. Here, you come in and you see a great list of Committee Rooms, but you don’t have a clue what is going on in any of them, not to mention the Chambers. There is a balance between innovative practice and the physical, but do you think there is scope for visitors coming here to be given some indication of what is going on—for example, for people coming into this Committee at this moment to know what it is we are discussing?

Professor Drori: It is a bit like waiting for the headmaster outside this room.

Q45 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Do you think that that would have much of an impact on the physical requirements of the building?

139

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Professor Drori: Yes. My observation, from having been around Parliament as an observer of it, is that your own staff here who work in the education and outreach departments have exactly the right instincts but probably not the resources to do it, so I would listen to them.

Ms Young: That is being done. There are quite a lot of interesting experiments going on—for example, Twitter debates ahead of, to date, second Chamber debates. We will be seeing the first one for a main Chamber debate later this week; the Twitter debate happened last week on gang violence, so that experience can now get referred to in the House. I appreciate that it is not as radical as what Geoff is talking about, but we are experimenting with those things.

Mr Mulgan: It will always be a tiny proportion of people who will be able to physically come into a Committee Room or into Parliament, so I would say that the answers have to be 95% digital and only 5% physical in that respect. What we have been doing in Helsinki with the city is a very simple idea where you create an open API, so that anyone who is interested in a particular topic is told as soon as that topic is coming up in a committee discussion or a parliamentary debate. They get that in a classic online form or video feeds and so on. Things like that would have far more effect on the daily experience of Parliament than almost anything you could do to the physical structure on its own.

Ms Young: We are sort of almost there. There is not much more that needs to be done. On Parliamentlive.tv, all the proceedings are broadcast. They are clippable and they are embeddable. Other people will invent tools and apps that allow them to be shared. We will do them as well, but in terms of the curation of those things and the editorialising, we are pushing out a lot more content than we did even a year or so ago.

Q46 Baroness Smith of Basildon: I was struck by one of the things you said at the beginning, Penny. You talked about the wow factor when people come into Parliament. It strikes me that part of that is that this is a working Parliament. It is not just a building; there is activity going on here. It may not be that we can be quite as radical—“Very courageous, Minister,” came to mind when you were talking.

While people are not in the building or on visits here, we could be giving them far more information. In terms of Parliament on TV, we only have one parliamentary channel for Parliament that shows one House of Parliament at a time. It does not look at committees and it does not look at both Houses. On American TV, I think C-SPAN now has four channels; it is far more. By the way, my husband was watching Parliament TV last week and it was sound only; he could not even get a picture on it.

Is there more we could do to provide greater access? Could we work with outside organisations or encourage them to do more so that there is greater access? If there was greater knowledge about what is happening, that would help in terms of the physical changes we can make.

140

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Ms Young: That is right. Obviously, it is primarily a matter for the broadcasters in terms of what channels there are and how much space they are giving it. Increasingly, the distinction between television and online is lessening, so the fact that we are already webcasting everything is—it will be a non-problem in due course.

Your point about communication is well made. There is a lot more we can do to bring together the messages we are sending about the House and to do things in more interesting ways. We can also provide even more information and material for, for example, MPs out in the constituencies, because that has a real multiplier effect in terms of the engagement Members have with constituents. That is probably going to be more than we can ever do. We just have to be a bit bolder and more assertive about our communications.

Q47 Baroness Smith of Basildon: As a follow-up question, if people want to come into committees or the Chamber to watch proceedings, is there adequate access? In Berlin, for example, you can walk round the wonderful Foster dome and see things happening. Now, I don’t think we have the remit or the structure to be able to do something like that, but do we have adequate capacity at present or should we increase it?

Ms Young: In terms of the Chambers themselves, again the key issue is that people do not really know that they can do that. They do not know that it is free. About 140,000 people come and visit one of the Galleries each year. Queuing can be a problem, particularly at busy times. It is much less bad than it was since the investment took place, but it is still an issue that needs sorting out as part of this project. For example, there were nearly 40 instances of the 15-minute queue time being breached during sitting days in 2015, which is 40 too many. Ultimately, however, the Galleries are under-utilised. It is only really at PMQs and the really big moments that the public galleries are full.

Again, people are not going to come very often, but how often do you need to come in your lifetime for it to be a really stimulating, thought-provoking, enhancing experience to have been at the seat of the UK Parliament actually seeing a debate happen? It complements everything else. If we can get more people in and tell them more about it, that in itself will enhance the public’s relationship with Parliament.

Professor Drori: As for the committees, they are already doing good work in trying to be in places other than this building, which certainly helps. It helps to be geographically closer to the action for some people, but also, as I said, this building is inaccessible in many ways, and not just because of the security. You have the same problem here that many museums and galleries went through in the 1980s. If you asked anyone outside the National Gallery what the building was, they might say, “A bank? I don’t know.” It didn’t feel like it was their space. The museums and galleries have made enormous strides in the last 30 years in terms of putting out a clear message that they are for and owned by the public. I think Parliament perhaps needs to learn some of those lessons from that sector.

141

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Mr Mulgan: The public nowadays like to see the work behind the scenes. When we go to a restaurant, we like there to be glass windows so that we can see the chefs at work, which is a big change of culture. I think that applies to the work of legislation and debate. The more that you can open up the incomplete work, the more the public will have a feeling of what is going on. That can apply to almost every aspect of the design we are talking about.

Q48 Chris Bryant: Where would you sit on the spectrum between just doing what is necessary to keep the building from burning down or falling down, which is zero, and refashioning the building as much as you possibly can so as to future-proof for the 23rd century, which is 10?

Professor Drori: The difficult bit there is “as much as you possibly can”. There is a judgment to be made about how much it is worth spending. If money was no object, which is not the case, I would be interested in being nearer the 8 or 9 end of the spectrum, but I can absolutely see that, for all sorts of reasons, that would be a difficult decision for you to recommend.

The value of Parliament is more than just as a place where people are working, debating, passing laws and so on. It actually has an economic value to any of us who do business abroad, for example. Britain is very much still seen as a relatively powerful country that has the rule of law, is still reasonably uncorrupt—

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): You’re hardly selling us.

Professor Drori: It is a place with high-quality institutions and one that people in many places kind of aspire to be like. [Interruption.]

Chris Grayling (Chair): Can I just pause you there? We have a Division in the House of Lords, so we will have to take a momentary break. If you will forgive us, we will suspend and twiddle our thumbs for five to 10 minutes.

The Committee suspended for a Division in the House of Lords

On resuming—

Q49 Chris Grayling (Chair): We will make a start again.

Professor Drori: I was making the point that there is an economic benefit as well as a social one to Parliament’s restoration being slightly more on the 7, 8, 9 end of the scale rather than the 1, 2, 3 end. One of the things that Parliament and the UK have in their favour at the moment is that this Parliament is regarded highly as one of the country’s institutions. It represents a country which has wealth and power and is uncorrupt and good to deal with. These things make doing business abroad easier. Quite apart from the fact that it is a tourist attraction and everything else, it is what the place stands for. I think that openness and transparency of a modern democracy is worth paying for, quite apart from the social value of our own population regarding its democracy more highly. I would not take democracy for granted.

142

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Q50 Chris Bryant: My anxiety would be that if a foreign visitor comes to this building, they will not normally have a tour in their own language. Most tours are in English. You have to go on a fixed route; you are not able to go on your own version—in fact, if an MP tries to take somebody around in a different order, some of the doorkeepers, although some of them have gone now, can be phenomenally rude—and it is not always necessarily enlightening. I would say that some of the historical facts presented as such are not.

Professor Drori: I was suggesting that some of the exterior spaces might be designed in such a way that even if people are not coming on tours inside the building, there are things they can do with the exterior space, even if you did not have Parliament Square at your disposal. If you did, what wonders you could make.

Q51 Chris Bryant: I think Penny wants to contest everything I have just said.

Ms Young: I will take the feedback, thank you very much. I would like to correct you on the language point. We do have foreign-language guided tours—

Q52 Baroness Smith of Basildon: With headphones.

Ms Young: Are they audio guides? Definitely both.

Back to the question about whether it should be 1 or 10, of course, it is really difficult. It is an eye-watering amount of public money, whatever is done. We know the public have issues with politicians and with Parliament—it is not as strong a relationship as we would like—but if the money only goes on things they cannot really see, then it is going to seem like the money is just being spent for the workplace of politicians. It is the marginal spend on extra things that has the potential to deliver a public legacy. Even though it is extra money, that is where the additional value can come from.

Look to what other Parliaments have done, including Parliaments like Canada, which is also saddled—not “saddled”—with the problem of neo-Gothic and turning it into an opportunity. It is hard to find somewhere that has not taken the opportunity when doing this type of project to have a dedicated visitor centre and a dedicated education centre—ours has planning permission for only 10 years—and to sort out the problems of things like lockers and accessibility. We haven’t talked much about disabled access, for example—

Q53 Chris Bryant: We have talked lots.

Ms Young: Okay. It is just a reminder that basically a wheelchair user cannot go through the Chamber. You have to look from either end because your wheelchair may not get through. You can’t go into St Stephen’s Hall because there are steps at either end. There are very basic issues that need sorting out.

143

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

I think the message is that, rather than doing it for the politicians, we are doing it to improve engagement with citizens and the work we do for you, and to use it to explain that Parliament is about voice and about scrutiny.

Q54 Chris Bryant: Quickly on the decant, if we have to decant, how important is it that the public access to the decant Chamber is as full as that to the present one and for some kind of understanding of the work that is happening in the building?

Ms Young: There are several points there. I think citizens will still expect some sort of access to the actual proceedings, challenging as that is. It would be a real shame to miss a cohort of schoolchildren and to say we are not going to do any education for five, six, seven or however many years it is. It is really important to have some kind of education provision if the education centre is not usable.

There is a whole set of opportunities for how we can use restoration and renewal as a way to rebuild/build the relationship with the public. We know what other visitor attractions have done. Kensington Palace, for example, turned it into a very interesting immersion experience, using theatre to bring stories to life. There may be something we could do there. Obviously the Olympics did a lot to show people what was going on, but it is about much more than that. It is about the next stage of consultation and really involving the public in ways that say: what it could actually look like and what could be the benefit to different groups of people? It is not just about what happens when the building work gets under way; it is about using it as an opportunity to communicate what Parliament is about.

Professor Drori: I just wanted to add that the process of engaging with the public about this programme of restoration and renewal is itself quite important. There is plenty of technology around that planners and architects use and that can be used to engage members of the public in the process of design and consultation. That means they will be much less likely to be critical when a decision is announced. It is not just to allay the sort of criticism you are bound to get, whatever you do, but to engage people and make them feel part of the process. That is very much philosophically what some of us here are trying to say.

Mr Mulgan: Briefly, for me the key question is whether this place remains a model as a Parliament and whether the quality of deliberation is seen to be a model as it was when it was built in the mid-19th century. The very best technology, tools and architectural ideas of the era were used and it was seen as being integral to Britain and the very best version of democracy. In a way, that might be the lens through which to look at every element of the budget: how much will it improve the quality of this as a democratic institution? Many of the things I described are very cheap compared with what you could spend on building all sorts of things, many of which I think would have almost no impact whatever on how the British public or the world public see this as a model of what democracy should be.

Lord Laming: Penny described visitors’ reactions as being wild and in awe of their visits here, which is wonderful in lots of ways, but it means that both the outside and

144

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

inside of the building need to be preserved to have that sort of impact and reaction. In any event, because it is listed and there are all sorts of restrictions on what can be done, we are never going to have the freedom of a new Scottish Parliament or of big changes such as happened in Berlin, or indeed at the British Museum, but there may be possibilities. I am interested in whether you think, given the limitations on physical changes both within and outside the immediate building, there are lots of things we can do. I am sure we will be able to make it better for disabled people, and I am sure we will make it better for an education centre and a visitor centre, but on the things you were talking about earlier in terms of helping people see what is happening inside the building, it will be much more difficult.

Professor Drori: You mentioned the Reichstag; they put a significant amount of glass on top, but kept the main fabric of the exterior of the building, for good or ill. The general public who watch or listen to this session might wonder, “If this is Parliament, you make the laws; why are you limited in what you can do with the fabric of the building?” Without wanting to tear the place down, maybe there are small additions or changes that you could make—moving a doorway here or there— that might make the place much more appealing. People might think that, given that you make the laws, couldn’t you do something about it?

There is also the possibility, as Geoff mentioned earlier, of doing much more with screens around the place and additions generally that do not necessarily alter the fabric of the building and need not be terribly expensive.

Mr Mulgan: You probably do not want to override English Heritage, but all of you have a smartphone in your hands. Some of you look at it regularly. The other option is to just use an augmented reality tool. For a committee like this, you would just look at the screen. It would have information about each of you, about the debate, about all sorts of background, and could remodel what the room actually looks like. There are lots of ways of thinking about this that were not there even five years ago, and are much cheaper than trying to persuade English Heritage to allow you to fill in the windows.

Ms Young: I should have said, to build on the point, that when people come and they are really wowed—it is genuinely awe-inspiring—they also leave as advocates, even more so than when they came. That is important to say.

Canada is in the process of doing the British Museum thing: covering over courtyards and making more informal collaborative spaces. That is quite important in itself. We are already using augmented reality in the education centre, which has 10 years’ planning permission. We will need a permanent facility at some point. I absolutely concur that we can do more there.

One thing that has not been talked about—this is just for information—is the Victoria Tower, where the archives are. That is quite a big space, so probably the biggest opportunity to think about whether there are lessons to learn from the Reichstag in doing something really bold may be around the Victoria Tower. Lots of

145

Nesta, Parliamentary Visitors Group & Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

problems, lots of challenges; I just float that thought. Those are the main points that I wanted to make.

Mr Mulgan: Why do you have only 10 years in the education centre?

Ms Young: It has planning permission for only 10 years. It is a building that will last a lot longer. It is not only English Heritage, but Westminster Council.

Chris Bryant: We can’t plan on that.

Chris Grayling (Chair): It is highly unlikely that in 10 years’ time we will not have an education centre.

If there are no other points, thank you all for coming.

146

Nesta - Written evidence (RAR0025)

1. The renovation of the Palace of Westminster must be carried out alongside a programme of activities and experiments designed to renew our parliamentary democracy and restore trust in our political institutions. The Committee should expand the scope of the programme to consider how digital technologies can be embedded in the restored Palace of Westminster to improve parliamentary working practices and better engage the public in the work, debates and decisions of Parliament. We recommend that 5% of the refurbishment costs be set aside to bring the Palace into the digital age.

2. The Restoration and Renewal programme presents Parliament with an historic opportunity to dramatically improve the way it engages with the public. This is desperately needed to stem the tide of popular disenchantment and disillusionment with our political system and its institutions. The last few decades have seen falls in voter turnout, declining membership of political parties and consistently low levels of trust in politicians.

3. Aside from the issues of trust, disillusionment and legitimacy, there are broader questions about whether our current institutions are fit for purpose. Our current forms of representative democracy were developed in the nineteenth century; under this model, the public’s role is limited to the ballot box once every four to five years and ‘experts’ are expected to get on with running the government. The global nature of the challenges we face, new notions of expertise, a less deferential society, mass information available on-demand, social media and new technologies for communicating and organising, make this model seem outmoded at best and archaic at worst.

4. The slow deterioration and degradation of the Palace of Westminster serves as a visual metaphor for the state of our parliamentary institutions; both are in need of restoration and renewal.

5. Digital tools and technologies provide Parliament with the greatest opportunity to engage the public in more meaningful ways and thereby reinvigorate our democratic institutions.

6. What do we mean by engagement? We mean going beyond informing and consulting, to involving people in deliberation and decision making. For example, inviting people to submit ideas and proposals, rank priorities, provide scrutiny over proposals, and contribute to the decision making process.

7. There are already myriad tools which enable citizens to deliberate (e.g. Loomio), submit proposals and rank priorities (e.g. Better Reykjavik), crowdsource legislative proposals, undertake participatory budgeting (e.g. Madame Mayor I have an Idea, in Paris) and receive notifications of upcoming debates. Some of these tools are being trialled in cities such as Madrid, Barcelona, Helsinki and Reykjavik as part of Nesta’s three-year D-CENT

147

Nesta - Written evidence (RAR0025)

research project.24 National governments have also used digital tools to engage citizens. Open Ministry in Finland, for example, crowdsources new legislation and puts popular proposals before parliament for a vote. Our research suggests that online tools can encourage much broader levels of participation, and work best when combined with more traditional offline approaches.

8. Digital tools can also be used to improve the day-to-day workings of democratic government, especially meetings. As part of the redesign of parliament, greater consideration about the purposes of meetings and which formats are most appropriate could save parliamentarians’ time and improve decision making. Examples include Estonia’s e-Cabinet system, a digital organiser which helps participants schedule and organise meetings (including adding their opinions beforehand and whether they wish to speak). This has cut the average length of weekly cabinet meetings from four to five hours to 30 to 90 minutes and eliminated the need to print documents.25

9. There is a growing body of evidence on the types of meeting formats which are most effective for achieving particular goals - such as making decisions quickly, collecting insights, sharing knowledge, coordinating actions and generating new ideas and options.26 Research suggests that the most effective meetings are multi-platform and use visualisations to support understanding and learning. Again there are a broad range of digital tools which can be used for this purpose: for example, Parmenides Eidos presents complex data in accessible ways to help with decision-making, while tools such as Popplet help visualise how ideas are connected. Committee meetings could be transformed by new ways to engage the public and visualise evidence. Even meetings in the chamber could be reformed by digital tools such as screens with real-time data (as has been pioneered by Procter and Gamble) or live records of parliamentary debate.

10. We urge the Committee to expand the scope of the work to be carried out to include developing and executing a digital strategy for the new Palace of Westminster. Such a strategy would examine how digital tools and technologies can be embedded in the restored Palace of Westminster, how they can be used to improve and supplement existing working practices and better engage citizens in the work, deliberations and decisions of Parliament. We recommend that 5% of the refurbishment costs be set aside for implementing this digital strategy.

11. Retaining a narrow focus on the physical aspects of the renovation would be a missed opportunity for improving the functioning and perception of our democratic institutions. Investment in digital tools and technologies as part of this programme is essential. If the scope of the programme is too narrowly defined, additional investments will be needed further down the line simply to catch up with common modern day working practices. It will also be more difficult to integrate new digital ways of engaging the public in the business of Parliament after the renovation. After an expensive renewal programme,

24D-CENT is a Europe-wide project creating open, secure and privacy-aware tools for direct democracy and economic empowerment. 25 https://e-estonia.com/component/e-cabinet/ 26 G Mulgan, Meaningful meetings: how can meetings be made better? Nesta, 2015. Available at http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/meaningful_meetings.pdf

148

Nesta - Written evidence (RAR0025)

there will be little public appetite for additional changes to bring the Palace into the digital age.

12. The Committee should also consider how the design of democratic spaces can influence our style and culture of politics. The Scottish Parliament, for instance, was designed to create a less adversarial and more consensual style of politics, to reflect the style of politics that the public wanted from Holyrood. Another example is Tallinn, Estonia, where the winning designs for the new City Hall have been designed with radical transparency and citizen engagement in mind; large panoramic windows give on to the public square, and a ‘huge democratic periscope’ allows the public to see the politicians at work and for the politicians to see the public whom they represent. While this might not be appropriate for the Palace of Westminster, there is scope as part of this programme for a broader discussion on what kind of political culture is desirable and how this can be encouraged through the design of the restored Palace of Westminster. As Winston Churchill said, “we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.

13. One of the outcomes of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy was to establish a Parliamentary Digital Service, which is already making considerable progress. But some of the most promising methods for improving working practices and better engaging the public blend online and offline tools. It is therefore important that the redesign of public space is considered together with use of digital tools and that the Committee works with the Digital Service to deliver these important changes.

14. In terms of delivery, we recommend a full decant, and for the temporary Parliament building to be used as a lab for democratic innovation to experiment with tools for improving the way parliamentarians meet and work (including some of the tools for improving meetings described above, or electronic voting in the chamber) and with new ways to engage the public (such as crowdsourcing legislation, enabling citizens to submit legislative proposals, take part in deliberative exercises and attend virtual committee hearings). We recommend that a budget of £2 million be set aside for these purposes.

15. In addition, we recommend that the process for commissioning the team responsible for overseeing the Parliament’s renovation should be as open as possible, and that citizens should have the opportunity to submit ideas and comment on designs for the restored Palace of Westminster. Instead of deciding among final designs, it would be preferable to award a contract to an architect and then begin a more collaborative process that could involve MPs and Peers, their staff, other parliamentary staff and the public. Even architects themselves often comment that they are overly detached from public debate when the public has a large stake in the design of public buildings.27

16. Nesta is an innovation charity based in the UK with a mission to help people and organisations bring great ideas to life. Nesta is one of the world’s leading centres of expertise in social innovation and innovation in public services, with a substantial body of research and policy work, through practical programmes in the Innovation Lab and

27 http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/23/tallinn-city-hall-by-bjarke-ingels-group/

149

Nesta - Written evidence (RAR0025)

through its investments in social ventures via Nesta Impact Investments. Nesta has been developing practical tools for digital democracy through the D-CENT programme. D- CENT is an open, federated, and decentralised networking platform. Such platforms enable tools for mass deliberation in policy development, crowdsourcing of ideas, or complementary currencies, to be developed once and then adapted in multiple locations. Nesta has also conducted research on how the architecture of public space influences innovation,28 on the future of government and public services, and on technology and organisational change.29

21 January 2016

28 http://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/innovative-spaces 29 http://www.nesta.org.uk/project/digital-public-services

150

Nichols Group - Written evidence (RAR0022)

Question 4: What will be the major risks or challenges in delivering a programme of this scale and how should they be addressed?

We have highlighted a number of challenges that may arise during the programme and provided high level solutions for each. As an elite company of strategic change specialists with over four decades we have advised on large, iconic programmes, complex projects and major change initiatives. We have based our recommendations on our in depth experience and the lessons we have learned in a range of industries.

Challenge Proposed Solution

Delays and cost growth, due to Create an organisation with the powers of a Utility Company, changes in the decisions made with accountability to the key stakeholders of Palace of over the requirements during the Westminster (POW) and with complementary objectives. The life of the restoration. One new organisation could be vested as a Parliamentary Delivery Parliament is unable to bind the Authority, with their governance aligned with five year next; it is unlikely that there will be Parliaments. The Authority would have certain agreed continuity in leadership for this decisions to guide it over each five year period. Each nationally significant and Parliament would have an opportunity to decide the scope complicated undertaking. and budget for the five years ahead.

Reluctance of either House to If this is an absolute constraint to be placed on a Delivery accept a lengthy decant outside Authority, then there are solutions to conducting even major the Palace. works with only intermittent disruption. Nichols is familiar with these solutions from our experience on major rail schemes which required similar projects, for example; the restoration of St Pancras and the current building of Crossrail alongside the existing infrastructure, including six underground stations and network rail main line routes. There are costs incurred when confining works to nights or recess periods, but these are calculable before decisions are taken for the quinquennial periods described above.

A specialist skills shortage as Using the brand of the POW as gold standard in heritage skills English Heritage embarks, over the development. Develop a POW Heritage Skills Academy with same period, on the expanded English Heritage to safe guard expertise for future generations programme of similar works for of projects. which it has an estate from The Academy could act as a key provider of expertise for Government. maintaining the nation’s heritage.

151

Nichols Group - Written evidence (RAR0022)

Challenge Proposed Solution

Inefficiencies driven by the The key to addressing these challenges is how to effectively complexity of the work, lack of deploy innovative thinking. Utilising an Innovation Integrator specialist materials and limited to develop a community of innovators including the Client, the access to site; particularly supply chain, English Heritage (trial of potential solutions) and considering cultural and industry partners. This will encourage a different perspective behavioural customs and on current procedures and enable the team to be more ceremonies. flexible with unforeseen challenges if they arise. Nichols is providing this support having developed the Unforeseen challenges in a live capability for Crossrail, which is considered a huge success and programme environment. benchmark for future major projects.

Lack of asset information and Introduction of Asset Information Management Modelling opportunity to use BIM. techniques, with an improvement in the systems used to quantify and prioritise works. With enhanced asset management information comes the opportunity for POW to operate as a flagship in the use of BIM on heritage estate.

The cost of not deploying In its role as the Innovation Integrator, Nichols enables clients innovative solutions during the to benefit from collaborative problem solving in order to delivery lifecycle of the identify and gain support for preferred solution, for example: programme.  A structured process for the introduction of fresh ideas.  Brokering ideas from our database of past innovative solutions.  Bringing in technical expertise that is tailored for each specific client challenge.  A non-partisan approach to finding the best value solution.  Resolving their biggest strategic challenges, creatively.  Giving tangible articulation of the risk and reward balance having adopted an innovative solution. We would be delighted to come and share our lessons learned from our work at Crossrail, which led to the development of the Innovation Integrator offering.

152

Nichols Group - Written evidence (RAR0022)

The creation of an effective The works and services required are complex and will need to Flagship for SME integration be drawn from a wide supply chain. The POW client body can models and socio economic act as a model of effective integration of SME businesses, as a sustainability in the built proactive enabler to facilitate SMEs in the provision of works environment. and services within a complex physical and political environment. The use of market engagement tools, such as CompeteFor and ContractFinder, can be deployed to ensure the transparency of the opportunities and provide feedback to shareholders.

21 January 2016

153

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029)

1. I make these submissions to the Joint Committee Consultation on the Restoration

and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster for the purpose of making the Committee

aware of the current failings of the Houses of Parliament with regard to the provision

of sufficient audio and other equipment for members suffering from sensorineural

hearing loss.

2. As the Committee is aware, The Equality Act 2010 (‘The Act’) established in law a

duty to facilitate equality for all members of society and is very broad in scope. It

also established means by which this must be achieved. The Houses of Parliament, as

an employer and as a public institution, is bound by the Act and the duties

established therein. As an employer in the public sector it is the obligation of the

Houses of Parliament to comply with the Act as per the following:

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.30

I submit that the Houses of Parliament, and in particular the House of Lords, are

currently not in compliance with the obligations placed on employers by the Act. It is

30 The Equality Act 2010, Section 149, subsection 3(a-c)

154

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029)

therefore imperative that this be addressed as part of the upcoming Consultation on

the built environment of the House, allowing for compliance procedures to be

implemented and new systems put in place.

3. As stated in paragraph 2 above, since the Act came into force the Houses of

Parliament, and in relation to my submissions the House of Lords specifically, have

been legally bound by the established duty of equality. The duty of equality, as

established in relation to public sector authorities in Section 149 of the Act, is

intended to eliminate discrimination in all its forms, to advance equality of

opportunity to all, and to foster good relations between those who share a “relevant

protected characteristic” and those who do not. The House of Lords therefore has a

duty to such people that identify as having a “relevant protected characteristic”, and

in relation to my submissions particularly those who are affected by disability,

specifically sensorineural disability and within that category, deafness. It is the duty

of the House of Lords to take reasonable steps to ensure that all provisions and

physical features do not put a person who suffers from a “relevant protected

characteristic” at a disadvantage as compared to a person who does not.31

Furthermore, all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the equality of a person

who, except with the use of an auxiliary aid, would be put at a disadvantage as

compared to a person who does not require such an auxiliary aid.32 A proportion of

members of the House of Lords do require the use of such auxiliary aids to enable

them to hear effectively and clearly, and I submit that the House is in breach of The

31 The Equality Act 2010, Section 20, subsections 3-4 32 The Equality Act 2010, Section 20, subsection 5

155

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029)

Equality Act 2010 by failing to ensure that such members are treated equally when

compared to those that do not require such aids.

4. The House of Lords is bound by the duty most clearly in relation to the Act in its

capacity as an employer. Furthermore, the House has further obligations as a Public

Service Provider and as the face of governance in the UK, as well as acting as a

provider of live information and learning, and as the prime method of public and

private involvement in the democratic process. For these reasons it is of the utmost

importance, and would be greatly beneficial to those both inside and outside the

House, that as part of the Consultation process due consideration is given to the

House as an institution bound by the duty of equality in relation to disability,

specifically sensorineural hearing loss.

5. The scope of my submissions cover sensorineural hearing loss and deafness only. 11

million UK citizens suffer with deafness and other sensorineural impairments in

varying degrees, with approximately 1 million of the overall figure considered

profoundly deaf. Currently 70% of that number are over the age of 70. As a result of

increased longevity of life all of these figures are increasing at a rapid rate and

deafness is becoming more common within society. More specifically, it affects a

disproportionate number of members of the House of Lords given the average age of

its members, which as of 1 October 2014 was 70 years of age.

6. Positive advances have been made to increase the capacity for effective aural

communication of those suffering with sensorineural impairments, and it can be

tackled rigorously with the use of modern equipment. This equipment consists of

electronic and wireless systems and is greatly enhanced by the increased use of loop

156

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029)

and similar systems combined with in-ear or close to the ear devices of different

kinds. Considerable research is continuing year on year which will undoubtedly

improve the sound quality, audibility and effectiveness of such devices. Although

advances have been made in this area this remains a much under-researched topic.

However, with such advances to date, improved devices are now on the audiology

market and these will improve dramatically as further research is conducted.

7. Given the technological progress in this area there are significant weaknesses and

inadequacies in the current provision of audio equipment in the House of Lords and

across the Houses of Parliament generally. The microphones and loop systems in

both the House of Lords and the House of Commons rely heavily on the position of

the speaker in order for it to provide sound of sufficient, or any, quality.

Furthermore, the loop system itself is of such variable quality that a slight

adjustment in a person’s position may render it useless for the purpose of hearing.

All loop systems bring with them inevitable dead spots. However, the constancy and

level at which the loop system in the House does not work suggests that it is not fit

for purpose. The microphones positioned in the seats are of variable reliance and

quality despite constant maintenance, with the conclusion that the system itself is

insufficient for the work undertaken. Committee rooms and other official meeting

rooms are similarly affected by such poor quality audio equipment, with several

meeting rooms not having any audio equipment whatsoever. This is similarly

reflected in the Gallery of the House of Lords Chamber and other Committee rooms,

depriving a proportion of the general public any access to the live democratic

process they should expect by being present in the House.

157

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - Written evidence (RAR0029)

8. I submit that the House of Lords has fallen considerably behind in its provision of

audio equipment of sufficient quality to meet the day-to-day needs of deaf Peers,

members of staff, and the public. It has fallen far behind its counterparts in the

private sector and as a consequence does not adequately respond to the needs of

deaf members and visitors. It has also fallen behind other areas within the public

sector including, inter alia, art centres, public libraries, cinemas and concert halls, all

of which have made progress in their provision of audiology equipment. As a result,

the House does not meet the duties and obligations established in the Equality Act

2010 towards those with a sensorineural disability. I therefore submit that as part of

the upcoming Consultation the Committee must consider the needs of those

members who have such a disability with the utmost urgency, and make reasonable

and adequate recommendations to rectify the failure, not only for the sake of

members for whom it acts as an employer, but also to facilitate the effective running

of Parliamentary business.

21 January 2016

158

Jesse Norman MP - Written evidence (RAR0032)

Thank you for the invitation to contribute to the Joint Committee’s Call for Evidence on the Restoration and Renewal Programme for Parliament. My responses are below.

1. Would you like to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster as part of the work? If so, what would those changes be?

Yes. Ideally, the process of restoration and renewal will involve a careful reimagining of what the core functions of Parliament actually are, and how those functions--legislation, holding to account, etc--can be enhanced through thoughtful design. Since the world is changing faster than ever, the redesign needs to be as flexible as possible.

For example, the courtyards should be glassed over, allowing natural light to shine through, and the new space used productively. Among other things, there is a severe lack of public spaces in the Palace--that is why the Portcullis House atrium is so valuable.

2. What do you think should not be changed as part of the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal?

If electronic voting is used, it should not be at the expense of voting in the lobbies. That is a priceless mechanism for bringing ministers and backbenchers together frequently.

3. How can the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster support the work of Parliament and parliamentarians? What changes do you think are required to the building to adapt to Parliament’s changing needs in the 21st century?

The keys are better flexibility and technology, in a secure environment. Some overall judgement also needs to be made as to how many people will be working there, and how technologies such as videoconferencing can be used to cut costs and enhance MPs' effectiveness.

The R&R team should conduct a comparative study of other legislatures, in order to assess different ways of working and possible lessons to be learned.

4. Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster?

Better technology in offices and committee rooms. Functional heating and air conditioning.

5. Could the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster make it easier for the public to be welcomed into the Palace and to see and participate in the work of Parliament? If so, in what ways could this be achieved?

Yes--see above. Public education is important, and public access vital. But it is crucially important in addressing these issues not to forget the core functions of Parliament.

159

Jesse Norman MP - Written evidence (RAR0032)

6. What are your observations on the current condition of the Palace of Westminster?

Sadly dilapidated in many places and technologically quite inadequate.

7. What, in your view, would be the most appropriate means to deliver the changes which you would like to see made to the Palace of Westminster?

During Questions to the Leader of the House and House of Commons Commission on 21st January I asked the commission to consider conferring the Palace and other relevant assets into a special-purpose heritage trust. The effect of this would be to separate the politics of the renewal process from the restoration of a national asset. It would be much clearer that the beneficiaries of renewal are the people of the UK as a whole, not simply the current crop of MPs.

8. Are there any services which are currently located in the Palace of Westminster which, in your view, need not be co-located with the Chambers during any potential decant period?

I have not had a chance to reflect on this issue. But it should be a relatively straightforward process to review the core and ancillary functions of the Palace in this light.

Serious thought must be given to the wisdom of a temporary decant from the estate. As a practical matter, there is inevitably a possibility that Parliament may never in fact return to the site if it does vacate the Palace of Westminster. So proper mechanisms to guarantee the return of Parliament to the Palace are a pre-requisite to any decant.

Final comment: In the vast majority of infrastructure projects the success of the final outcome is driven by the quality of the client.

A good client is one which is committed to proper preparation before the build phase begins, consistent in its vision, clear about what is required, sceptical about expertise but trusting once persuaded, and able to hold the contractor to account in a firm, steady and polite way.

In this case it will be essential not merely to have a delivery authority, but to have procedures that provide accountability while restraining political caprice.

I would be very happy to expand on any of these points in further detail, and look forward to hearing more details about the Renewal Programme in due course.

22 January 2016

160

Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and House of Lords - Written evidence (RAR0051)

Background 1. As part of its work the House of Commons Overseas Office (often in conjunction with the House of Lords Overseas Office) makes the arrangements for: i) inward visits (relating to parliamentary diplomacy work and to parliamentary strengthening programmes) by delegations from overseas parliaments on official business (these can include high-profile individuals such as Speakers, party leaders and Ministers); ii) formal meetings of parliamentarians (UK and overseas) connected to committees of international organisations such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; and iii) more infrequently, major international conferences for example, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, G7 Speakers and Presiding Officers, and the parliamentary dimension of the Presidency of the European Union. [Similar such events are of course also organised by CPAUK, BGIPU and certain other parliamentary bodies.]

2. The major such meetings and events, in particular the Conferences, are ‘core’ parliamentary requirements, in that they involve varying degrees of obligation or policy priority by Parliament, in pursuance of membership of various international bodies and of the UK Parliament’s historic international standing.

Summary 3. This submission relates primarily to assisting the international work of Parliament, in the context of Questions 7, 8 and 9 of the Committee’s call for evidence (in particular Qn 8: “Are there any changes which would help to improve the way in which you work in the Palace of Westminster”). In summary the House(s) could offer a much more effective service for international work, via the facilities available for receiving international visitors, if: a) Meeting rooms were designed so that rooms could be linked together (i.e. internal walls removed or folded back) to facilitate larger numbers of overseas visitors/conference delegates b) Fewer rooms had “fixed” furnishings, enabling layout to be adjusted to different needs c) A meeting room could be permanently set aside for hosting official overseas visitors d) Meeting rooms had improved audio-visual capabilities, lighting and telecoms, and if interpretation facilities were available in more meeting rooms (including

161

Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and House of Lords - Written evidence (RAR0051)

those used by committees) and the galleries of the Lords and Commons Chambers.

(a) Inter-connecting Meeting Rooms for larger international conferences 4. Where the House(s) are obliged or seek to host relatively large international parliamentary conferences, it is often preferable for them to take place within the Houses of Parliament, rather than a commercial venue, for the following reasons: I. Parliamentarians (particularly the Speaker and Lord Speaker) are often required to preside over sessions within the conferences. If these take place on sitting days, Speakers and other Members need to be able to reconcile these duties with their responsibilities in the Chamber/Parliament—so co-location on site is extremely helpful in managing logistics/time pressures. II. Both the UK parliamentarians that host, and overseas delegates that attend, the conferences want to meet in the Houses of Parliament because the conferences are parliamentary events attended by parliamentarians/parliamentary officials. III. Commercial venues/conference centres do not always have sufficient capacity or availability on the dates required (many have rolling long-term contracts with corporate clients). IV. In-house facilities and services often provide better value for money and quality. V. In-house provision gives more flexibility over the conference arrangements; for example, delegate numbers can be adjusted at the last minute without penalty, last-minute bilateral meetings accommodated (without having to hire additional meeting space), and resolutions and other paperwork amended efficiently in real time. VI. Security arrangements can be managed more appropriately and effectively, especially for high-profile visitors.

5. The Attlee Suite does not have capacity for more than about 70 delegates sitting at tables, so for larger meetings—with the agreement of the House of Lords—the Royal Gallery has to be used. Whilst this space makes a splendid backdrop for meetings, it is problematic because it cannot be used when the House of Lords is sitting, there is no interpretation nor audio-visual provision, and it is also very cold in cooler months. (Using the Royal Gallery can also involve revenue loss, since it affects the line of route for visitors.) Westminster Hall is problematic for similar reasons.

6. Rooms that can be joined together, through sliding/folding doors or removable partitions, would offer huge flexibility for international meetings/conferences—and also for select committees who could accommodate more visitors for topical evidence sessions or reduce the room size for private sessions. They could also be used for private dining bookings in the evenings or during non-sitting periods (particularly if the furnishings are not fixed – see next section).

162

Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and House of Lords - Written evidence (RAR0051)

(b) Flexible room furnishings (for maximisation of effective room usage and availability) 7. The Attlee Suite and Boothroyd rooms are two of the largest committee rooms on the estate. Aside from the complexity of booking a committee room during a period when it may be required for a committee, the furniture in the Boothroyd is fixed and therefore it is more difficult to use as a conference venue. (Committee room 14, one of the next largest, has similar problems to the Boothroyd room as it is configured for Commons Public Bill Committees.)

8. The House of Commons Administration Committee has recently undertaken an inquiry into the room bookings system, partly as a response to concern from Members about availability of rooms such as the Attlee Suite. The Attlee Suite is a particularly popular meeting room because of the flexibility that it offers to users. Provision of additional meeting rooms that can be configured to the specific needs of the user would reduce the current pressure on rooms such as the Attlee Suite.

(c) Dedicated space for hosting official overseas visitors 9. The official visits arranged by various House bodies are often programmes lasting up to two weeks. A typical day for visitors involves a series of meetings with Members and/or senior officials. Delegations can comprise up to 20 people, including senior foreign parliamentarians and/or Speakers.

10. There is no meeting space set aside in the Palace for these visits to be hosted. There is often limited notice for such visits – perhaps only a couple of weeks (sometimes less). It is often necessary to try to book rooms for a whole morning or afternoon, since it is difficult/disruptive to be constantly moving large groups of people around the Estate. It is sometimes possible to use the CPA UK and BG IPU Rooms but these are not always available, at relevant times. UK MPs/Peers are key participants in many of the meetings and may be inconvenienced if meetings are held on the perimeters of the estate. A suitable meeting room (with interpretation facilities–see below–and not too removed from the Chambers) would be a significant improvement in the service offered to official overseas visitors.

(d) Audio visual equipment, lighting, telecoms, access and interpretation facilities 11. Improved technical infrastructure for many or most rooms would be helpful (and would assist other parliamentary users, such as select committees, not just overseas work):  whilst equipment for presentations etc can be booked for most meeting rooms, it would be helpful if all meeting rooms had more modern audio-visual technology provision to allow (for example, cameras to project a presenter onto a large screen, or to show speaking lists)

163

Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and House of Lords - Written evidence (RAR0051)

 video conference facilities (which can be used by a group rather than digital device internet-based calls which are more suited to individuals) would be useful  improved lighting, adjustable for events or to illuminate a presenter would be a welcome improvement in all meeting/function rooms  charging points for electronic equipment are increasingly expected by visitors. Rooms should also be better equipped for those with additional accessibility requirements, including for those with difficulty in hearing or seeing, or with mobility. 12. Non-English speaking visitors and UK hosts would benefit from more meeting rooms with interpretation facilities which facilitate clearer and more professional exchanges of information, thereby demonstrating the UK Parliament’s respect and welcome for international visitors and its position at the centre of a global parliamentary community:  the Attlee Suite is the only meeting room on the estate with inbuilt interpretation facilities; however, it is one of the most sought-after meeting rooms on the estate (perhaps because of its relative size and flexibility) so is frequently not available despite being the only room set up for meetings that require interpretation  It is very difficult for overseas visitors who do not speak English to view proceedings in the Chamber or the activities of Select Committees. It is not possible to operate with interpretation at all in select committees, and there is only one interpretation booth for the Commons Chamber (and none in the Lords Chamber)  availability of facilities in a smaller room would facilitate work on parliamentary strengthening programmes for non-English speaking countries where these programmes involve inward visits  when hosting larger conferences there is a significant cost-saving to using built-in booths rather than building temporary booths (provided the relevant room is large enough – see section (a)).

12 January 2016

164

Christine Owen - Written evidence (RAR0018)

1. I have read your Terms of Reference, and I feel that there is a significant bias towards heritage and history, which inevitably impacts the use of the building as a place of Government. My focus would be one preserving the building, while making sure that our representatives have a sensible place to work. For example, a new chamber should have comfortable seating for all members of the House of Commons to attend debates.

2. Obviously the current cramped site makes this very difficult. A new central London location for the House of Commons, within walking distance of Whitehall, would be sensible. My suggestion is that you talk to the Royal Family about repurposing Buckingham Palace as a new House of Commons. Buckingham Palace is a huge site, and there would be room along Constitution Hill to add a significant extension. It could have its own access, so the front of the Palace could be preserved. The State rooms, the important balcony etc, could also be used for Royal events such as banquets and weddings, but the Royal Family could live in Clarence House, St James Palace and Kensington Palace, which look much cosier and suitable for family life. (I think this is what happens in Sweden, the enormous Royal Palace is for ceremonial use).

3. Reusing the Palace would also mean that the public could have access to visit the State Rooms throughout the year, rather than just in the summer, and presumably there would be more room to exhibit the Royal Collection paintings etc.

4. I don’t think you should be making any detailed plans for the House of Lords if the work is going to take several decades, because everyone seems to be unhappy about the form and membership at the moment. My suggestion would be to temporarily locate it while the work is done on the Palace of Westminster. Then when the work is finished the House of Parliament could become the debating chamber for the second chamber, and it’s historical and heritage functions would therefore be preserved in an altered form. Good luck with your task.

19 January 2016

165

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Evidence heard in public Questions 1-24

Oral evidence

Taken before the Joint Committee

on Monday 29 February 2016

Witnesses: Craig Woodhouse, Chairman, and Tony Grew, Honorary Secretary, Parliamentary Press Gallery, gave evidence.

Q1 Chris Grayling (Chair): Welcome. Shall we start by getting you to introduce yourselves to the Committee? I don’t think you know everybody here.

Mr Woodhouse: I am Craig Woodhouse, Chairman of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Mr Grew: I am Tony Grew, Secretary of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Q2 Chris Grayling (Chair): You guys are in the long-established Press Gallery. To start off, what is your assessment of the set-up as it is now—the facilities available to you and their condition?

Mr Woodhouse: Our view, I think, is that the facilities are broadly good, the main reason being where they are located: they are right at the heart of Parliament. They allow us easy access to the Chamber, to Members and to other parts of the Parliamentary Estate. There are some issues with them, similar to those that parliamentarians have—the building is outdated, the mobile phone signal is not brilliant and we could do with some wi-fi throughout. But broadly speaking, they serve the purpose for which they were designed and installed at the end of the second world war.

Mr Grew: I broadly agree. They are the perfect facilities for a journalist working in the 1950s, in some ways. When you walk out of the Press Gallery, there is a row of

166

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

16 phone booths with fold-in doors, a little table and a built-in ashtray, which tells us a bit about what life was like for the lobby then.

We have a lot of facilities there that would need updating. For example, in the physical Press Gallery itself, we have speakers, as you do down in the Chamber, but what we really need are plug sockets to charge our devices. One other thing I would point out is that no part of the Press Gallery is accessible to someone in a wheelchair. That is another major issue. Journalists with disabilities are effectively shut out of the building just because of the design that comes with being a post-war design.

Mr Woodhouse: There are some issues with broadcast as well that we might get on to, according to your other questions. I am happy to take those as and when you see fit.

Chris Grayling (Chair): Okay. Who would like to go next?

Q3 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): Thank you very much for giving up some of your time to come and see us this afternoon. As co-Chairman with Chris, it might help if I say, by way of introduction, that at this stage of the whole restoration and renewal project, although we are looking in great detail at the preliminary work that has been done to date, what we will not be getting into by the time we come forward with our report later on this year is detailed design specifics. Reading your written evidence again, I think a lot of the comments you covered were very much about what you might want to see in the future. Some of those details will be ones that we or whoever is doing this in the future might want to return to down the line.

My area of interest is this: if we are to decide to move out of Parliament for a temporary period while works take place, what would you consider to be the most important things for you, as the Press Gallery, when we are not here in the Palace of Westminster? What are your top needs?

Mr Woodhouse: There are several. One would be location. We would not want to be farmed out somewhere else and stuck somewhere where we could not retain access to the Chamber and to yourselves. Although we appreciate there will be a certain amount of “make do and mend”, there will be some specifics that might not have been taken into consideration. For example, the Press Association maintain a constant presence in both the House of Commons Chamber and the House of Lords Chamber. They have journalists on rotation, so they need to be as close as possible to the Chambers themselves.

Other than that, part of what we have been thinking about in drawing up our evidence is that covering Parliament requires certain things. It requires some desk space, an ability to use a computer and an ability to be near your colleagues. Those things will remain, whether that is during the decant or when we come back, no matter how media changes over the future. It is those kinds of thing—the space for us all to be there, as close as possible to the action.

167

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Mr Grew: To address your comments, Baroness Stowell, the reason why the submission that we put forward concentrated on what the newly refurbished building might look like was that when we read through the report, we saw that the recommendation for the Press Gallery was to remove all Press Gallery offices and facilities and replace them with a media centre that seemed to us a concerningly nebulous concept. That is one of the reasons why we put forward that submission.

In terms of the decant and the possibility of having two temporary Chambers for the House of Commons and the House of Lords, I agree—the phrase I would use is “no detriment”. That is a phrase we have heard a lot from the Scottish nationalists. I guess it is something similar for us. We would like to retain a sizeable Press Gallery in any temporary Chamber, so that the press are able to be in Parliament and physically see the Chamber at work. That is really important.

As you know as parliamentarians, a lot of our colleagues, just like a lot of MPs, will be watching what is going on in the Chamber while in their offices and taking phone calls. We really need to retain both an adequate sized Press Gallery and the ability to have close contact with MPs and peers. People outside the building may not have a good understanding of the way in which news is gathered and exchanged between journalists and Members, but those close quarters are a really important part of that.

Q4 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: You have talked about the importance of immediacy. I stress that this Committee has not come to any decision, but let’s say it was decided that both Houses should decant at once and it was not possible to co-locate. Are there any particular considerations about access and immediacy in respect of the House of Lords that you want to raise with us? Also, you mentioned broadcasting. Just so we don’t lose sight of it, do you want to elaborate on what facilities for broadcasting you would want?

Mr Grew: Craig, you have some detailed notes from the broadcasters. In terms of the House of Lords, it is important to stress again that the Press Association have permanent reporters based in the Lords—there is a PA reporter there at all times— so we would, again, want a facility for the press within the House of Lords that was a similar size to the one that we have now. Journalists, frankly, do spend less time in the Lords Gallery, although I am very keen to spend time in the Lords. I have found a lot of sense is spoken there—as I always say, it’s where the grown-ups live. But in terms of just the physical space, it would be the same sort of thing.

Mr Woodhouse: I stress—I used to be a PA Gallery reporter—in relation to the facilities in the Lords that, as you know, the attendance is not as high as it is in the Commons and they are not the same, but I think there could be a temptation, if that facility was not provided, to think that maybe that reporter wasn’t needed there anymore, and that would be detrimental to covering Parliament.

In terms of the broadcasters, they have some different considerations, different issues. To run through them, there are Sky, ITN and the BBC. Sky work out of Millbank entirely; they don’t have desks in the Press Gallery, but they cherish their

168

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

access, obviously, and they come and use the live points, which I will come on to in a minute. The BBC have an office and a studio here, but do all their technical work through Millbank, with the exception of some radio, which they do in the studio, which is very close to the Chamber. ITN have their newsgathering team for Parliament in the building and they are very keen to retain that.

In terms of their actual facilities, the thing that came through quite strongly is that there are several live broadcast points: one in Central Lobby, one in the Committee corridor and one in Portcullis House. They are incredibly keen to retain live broadcast points as close to the Chamber as possible during a decant, because that enables them to cover big events in Parliament. For grabbing MPs and getting people to speak on TV, it’s really important to them to be there. One gripe they have is that at the moment in Central Lobby there are only two broadcast points and there are three broadcasters.

The example given to me was that you can have all three national broadcasters broadcasting side by side in Downing Street, but you can’t do that inside Parliament, which is a huge frustration, and they often have to squabble over it. So when we come back to whatever facilities we come back to, having three broadcast points, three live points, in several different locations would be incredibly useful to the broadcasters.

That’s TV. When it comes to radio, the BBC’s studio, which is quite close to the Chamber, is used to do an awful lot of radio. The BBC were keen to stress that proximity to the Chamber is absolutely vital, because it allows their journalists to be, for example, in Prime Minister’s questions from 12 to 12.30 and go and cut a quick package or do a live for the radio from their location—for the “World at One”, for example—and the same thing during statements. The studio is also heavily used by their regional correspondents when they come up, spend a day, speak to their regional MPs and then go and use it.

In terms of broadcast considerations, those were what came through quite strongly.

Q5 Baroness Smith of Basildon: First, I am sorry that there wasn’t the opportunity, for some reason or other, to speak to Deloitte before they did the report. That, I think, would have been helpful; I am sorry that did not happen.

There seem to be two issues. One is what happens if there is a decant and how you operate then. The other is what happens post decant and the opportunity to modernise and improve. Obviously, there will be further discussions on both of those in order to work with you. But I notice in your report—you mentioned as well, Tony, the media centre not being asked for and not being required. Is that because you are against the concept, or is it just unclear what the concept is? Is it the case that if it was clarified in detail and you had an input, that might be a way forward, but there is just a lack of clarity at the moment?

Mr Grew: I have a couple of points about that. The first is that anyone who is an historian of Parliament, like Mr Bryant, will know that the press has fought a constant battle historically to try to retain its facilities within the building, so we

169

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

were concerned, obviously, that Moncrieff’s, which is a popular dining area, and the café bar—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Best fish and chips in Westminster.

Mr Grew: Best fish and chips in Westminster—and also open to all passholders, not just to the press. There is a delicate ecosystem in how the Press Gallery and the lobby work. It is unusual for journalists from all of the broadcasters and publications to work physically in the same building. Sports reporters do not all work in the same building all the time; they may go to press conferences together, but they do not work alongside each other.

There is a collegiate atmosphere, but it requires walls between newspapers and it requires newspapers to have separate offices, albeit on the same corridor and within proximity of the Chamber, for it to operate. So we were concerned that a media centre would be, first, an attempt to remove the Press Gallery’s historic facilities; secondly, an attempt to put the media into one large room, which would be detrimental to the way in which the Gallery operates; and thirdly, we were concerned because in only one of the options presented by Deloitte was it mentioned that the media centre would be in the Palace, and obviously that is a major concern for us.

The second issue about a media centre is that the broadcasters have already invested significant facilities at 4 Millbank. What they require is not a new media centre in this building, but more access points that they can broadcast from. In terms of non-broadcast journalists, we tend to speak to MPs in public places or in their offices. We don’t need a centre for MPs to go to for us to access them. That is not really how journalism works in that building. So those were the three main concerns that we had.

However, I agree that this is an amazing opportunity for us to remodel this building to make it into something that is fit for the 21st century. Somewhere where mobile phone signals and wi-fi work would be a huge improvement for us.

Mr Woodhouse: On that point, for example, we don’t have access to the Parliament wi-fi officially, so, whether public wi-fi throughout the building is something that you were thinking of, anyway, it would help us do our job and would be incredibly useful.

We have got our own wi-fi in the Press Gallery. The way in which the IT infrastructure works up there is slightly odd: each newspaper controls its own IT infrastructure up in the Press Gallery through a central point to which someone holds the key that plugs into the wider outside. It is a very cumbersome process for rigging up new computers and so on and so forth. I understand why our infrastructures are kept separate, because we all have different systems and do not necessarily need to be plugged into the parliamentary intranet IT system, but as it works at the moment it is very complicated.

170

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Q6 Chris Grayling (Chair): I can take it, then, that we will get an enthusiastic voice of support for an upgrade project from the journalists writing in the Gallery.

Mr Woodhouse: Sorry?

Q7 Chris Grayling (Chair): I assume that when we bring forward our proposals, they will be greeted with enthusiasm by the team in the Press Gallery.

Mr Woodhouse: I hope so. There are obvious concerns. There will be pitfalls. We were discussing this the other day. There is certainly a way to sell this by making sure we protect an incredibly historic building and making sure it is fit for purpose for the 21st century, the 22nd century and beyond.

Mr Grew: Can I add to that? You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. You will face criticism from the press if you decide to spend money to refurbish the building for the 21st century. Similarly, if it falls down, you will probably face even greater criticism. It is a political decision that will take with it the consequences that come with political decisions.

Q8 Chris Grayling (Chair): So you’ll give us a hard time, come what may.

Mr Grew: I am personally very enthusiastic, but I am very enthusiastic about everything.

Chris Grayling (Chair): The truth is that we have to do something about the building, anyway. Even if we move out into a purpose-built Parliament, it is still a grade I listed building that we have to maintain.

Q9 Mr Rees-Mogg: I want to ask about how essential it is to be near the Chamber. I know a lot of the work now goes on in Portcullis House, such as meeting Members of Parliament. The Members’ Lobby historically was full of journalists, but now one or two appear after Prime Minister’s questions. It is not as it was. So is the immediate physical location essential, or would you be happy if the Press Gallery moved to Portcullis House?

Mr Woodhouse: We are very much of the view that we want to retain direct access to the Chamber. I know the criticism is often, “There are only a couple of you up there at any one time”, but you will probably notice that when the Chamber is packed, so is the Press Gallery, and no one is suggesting that MPs should build a smaller Chamber because MPs aren’t in it very often. That immediacy is really important to us to be able to get in at important times and feel part of what is going on.

Also, given the way that the Chamber and our offices are located, it is not just immediacy to the Chamber, but proximity to the rest of Parliament. We can get to the Committee Corridor very easily and we can get to Portcullis House to discuss

171

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

things with people there. We can get down to the Lords very easily. It really is an ideal place right at the centre of the estate, rather than just this building itself.

Mr Grew: In terms of the proximity of having offices there, that centrality is also really important. As I am sure you are all aware as parliamentarians, a large amount of the meeting and talking to MPs and Peers happens because we are all walking along the same corridors; we are in the same areas and using the same cafés. That intercourse between MPs and the press helps the standard of reporting and our expertise in reporting.

Relocating the Press Gallery to PCH will remove journalists’ ability to access the Chamber quickly. I understand that some MPs’ offices are a seven-minute quick walk away from the Chamber, so they might not see the benefit of us being given closer access, but I often find that whenever something happens in the Chamber—for example, when an incident happens or when Mr Rees-Mogg gets up to speak—

Mr Rees-Mogg: Flattery will get you everywhere.

Mr Grew: —colleagues suddenly appear. That ability to access it quickly enhances our journalism.

Q10 Mr Rees-Mogg: Assuming we have a decant, how much less space can you get away with? It is possible that a temporary Chamber will be quite limited in space. As you say, the Gallery is full only during Prime Minister’s questions and things such as that. Can some sharing of public space be done to keep the press happy—a sort of breathing in during the R&R period?

Mr Woodhouse: In terms of the physical Press Gallery, rather than our offices?

Mr Rees-Mogg: Yes.

Mr Woodhouse: We would have to consult on that and come back to you with the numbers if that is something you are looking at. There is very often more than one representative of each newspaper for something such as PMQs. We would be keen to retain that with no detriment, but equally we understand that there are other ways that we can follow the proceedings if we need to. We can come back to you with some numbers, if that would be helpful.

Mr Grew: I would like to come back to you on that. We understand that there may be constraints on space, so that is something we would have to consult with the Press Gallery on. As an example, probably the only time there is pressure for seats in the Lords Gallery is during the Queen’s Speech. We manage to make accommodation for sketch writers, for example, and representatives from each newspaper. We are entirely open to being flexible about that, given the constraints that there may be on space.

172

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Q11 Lord Laming: They always say very nice things about the Lords when they go there; we have noticed that. It warms our hearts to read their texts. You have illustrated very well the limitations that you have to cope with in this building. We are mindful of that for everybody. I was slightly surprised by what I read to be the hostility towards a media centre, because I have always been struck by the flexibility of the way that the media works in this day and age. I haven’t noticed difficulty in getting Members of either House across the road to Millbank. Are you really as hostile to the concept of a media centre as your paper suggests?

Mr Woodhouse: One of the points that the broadcasters were making when I was discussing this with them is that they would disagree with you. They think it is actually quite difficult to get people over to Millbank. Particularly when there is a parliamentary event, they would much rather have somewhere that is as close as possible so they can report as soon as possible after an event has happened. That is particularly the case with live TV or live radio shows that go out as and when something is happening.

Another point that was made is that there are certain restrictions on who you can film from those live broadcast points. You can only film parliamentarians or do live pieces to camera, but, for example, if a particular event of interest takes place in a parliamentary Committee, you can’t grab one of those guys.

Q12 Lord Laming: But in a media centre, you can film who you like.

Mr Grew: The difference is that we are talking about creating a space within one of the most historic buildings in the world—a bland background for broadcasters to broadcast from—whereas in fact the problem is the level of restriction. For example, you can photograph in Westminster Hall but not in St Stephen’s Chapel. That makes very little sense to me. I know that there are various constraints for members of the public, but actually I think the broadcasters would prefer a wider range of access points from which they can broadcast. Television is 70% to 80% about the picture, so if you are broadcasting from inside the Palace of Westminster, you want it to look like you are broadcasting from inside the Palace of Westminster and not from some faceless media centre.

Q13 Lord Laming: What percentage did you say is the background?

Mr Grew: It is somewhere between 70% and 80%—I can’t remember. If you are ever on TV, people aren’t listening to what you are saying; they are looking at the pictures. That is what makes radio such an amazing medium.

Q14 Chris Bryant: Sorry, what did you say?

Mr Woodhouse: The broadcasters were very keen to point out that they are not asking for “Borgen”-style free access and the ability to roam around and film with cameras. They are quite happy to have fixed points; they just need enough of them

173

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

with interesting enough backgrounds to be able to tell the story of what is going on in here.

Q15 Baroness Smith of Basildon: Is your concern also about the privacy between papers? Is that the point you are making?

Mr Grew: Yes, that’s another point about the media centre. A media centre tends to imply a pen—an open room that anyone can wander into. One of the reasons why it works well collegiately is that The Sun is in a different room from the Daily Mail.

Mr Woodhouse: I should point out—I do not know how many of you have been up; we would be more than willing to show you around—that some papers and organisations do share offices. For example, The Sun is in with the Evening Standard, and we are also in with the Daily Record. We are also in with Paul Waugh and ITN, but all of those organisations have different deadlines. We have this agreement not to report on anything that we hear other people discussing, but if I need to take an important phone call, then I need to go into the stairwell to take it so that people are not listening.

That is not to say that in a future set of offices we want every individual organisation to have an individual office, because that is simply not flexible. In recent years we have seen the loss of some regional media but we have gained a lot of online media and our offices as they are currently set up allow us to move people in and out, juggle things around and accommodate everybody. So we are not suggesting that everyone needs to be in their own box, but certainly having some boxes rather than one giant box would be very helpful.

Mr Grew: Just one other point: the make-up of the Press Gallery is constantly changing. I have got this booklet here, “Reports to the Press Gallery” from 1964, which is basically a very long complaint about how bad the facilities are, but one of the interesting things about that is that the BBC have got three pass holders at this point in 1964; obviously they have got considerably more now.

The growing part of the Gallery is from online media, and I think it is actually really heartening that organisations like Huffington Post and BuzzFeed and politics.co.uk are investing significant resource in having two or three members of staff based here. The media may change, but the requirement to have a desk, a space and a semi-private space, as it were, is not a requirement that we suspect will change in 2025 or beyond.

Q16 Neil Gray: Thank you very much indeed for coming in today. You have already mentioned that you see this as an opportunity to modernise the infrastructure and facilities that you require. Do you also see this as an opportunity to modernise some of the more archaic processes of the place, such as 15 minutes to vote when it could take 15 seconds, for instance?

174

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Mr Woodhouse: I would certainly say absolutely yes with regards to broadcasters and some of the things we have discussed: who they can film, what they can do. But I appreciate that the shape of the building and how the rules are governed are done by two different sets of people. So I would encourage some amount of modernisation, and not just modernisation but future-proofing, because I think there is sometimes an element in this place to catch up to what is needed now rather than to leap forward into what might be needed in the future. The increase of digital media in the immediacy, there are some rules that I think could be altered slightly.

Mr Grew: As I said before, it is a huge opportunity. If you look at what the Speaker has done with the new Education Centre down at the Lords end of the building, that has been transformational in the way in which schoolchildren access and experience their visits to Parliament. Obviously it is not just about the press; it is about all sorts of aspects of that. But on that one point that you make about taking 15 minutes to vote, I know that is a particular bugbear with SNP Members, but I would point out that for some MPs that is a really good opportunity to see colleagues and speak to them and perhaps to consult with Ministers. Of course, the House of Commons is already experimenting with electronic voting—somewhat haphazardly, really—for some of the votes. It is a huge opportunity to put all of those things on the table, but as Baroness Stowell said at the beginning, that is a huge conversation for the future.

Mr Grayling, you asked us about how the press will receive your report, which we expect will come out later in the year. The one thing I would urge is when we are looking at a 2025 Parliament and everything that that can and should be, I would urge you to consult as widely and include the public as widely as possible in that. The wisdom of crowds is one that you can use here. As I said, it only occurred to us when we were putting together our evidence that there is no part of the Press Gallery facilities that are accessible in a wheelchair—that is an outrage in 2016. So blue skies thinking and future-proofing are definitely the way to go.

Q17 Chris Bryant: We previously had evidence from people who made that point more broadly about the whole building. Something I should know the answer to but I do not, so I will ask you: who decides who gets a Lobby pass?

Mr Woodhouse: The Houses of Parliament authority—the Serjeant at Arms.

Q18 Chris Bryant: But is there a fixed list of how many people it should be? The question really is: who decides how many people get a desk?

Mr Grew: There are two different things. First of all, there is a historic allocation for publications. Some publications have come along—The Huffington Post started with one and now have, I think, two or three. BuzzFeed started with zero and now has two. Those are matters for the Serjeant at Arms. In terms of allocation of desks within the Press Gallery areas, that is the responsibility of our amazing administrator, Elizabeth Johnson, who is very much the headmistress figure of the Press Gallery, in

175

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

consultation with me as secretary. It is slightly more complicated than the Whips allocating offices to MPs, but it is a similar sort of process.

Mr Woodhouse: To answer your question slightly, we do the best with the space according to the number of people we have. It is for the Serjeant at Arms to decide how many people have passes, how many per organisation and how many they think is an acceptable number. They tend to determine that based on use. They will monitor where the passes are being used. If your pass is being used regularly, they can see that you are regularly covering Parliament and they can see the value in having you here. They will then consider giving you a longer pass or an extra pass for your organisation, and so on and so forth. It is a constant negotiation.

Q19 Chris Bryant: Some of the things to which you have referred, such as the Central Lobby points and filming in Portcullis House, are relatively recent innovations. That never used to exist. I don’t know how many years ago it was—seven, six or five? It was not very long ago. The other thing that happens on a regular basis for big events such as State Opening of Parliament, Budget day and the EU statement last week is that an encampment is built on Abingdon Green. Could you provide us with information on how often you do that? I wonder where you will do that if we decant.

Mr Grew: The broadcasters individually decide whether to build those temporary studios on Abingdon Green. Again, the reason that they build them there is because of the visuals. It has the beautiful Palace in the background.

Q20 Chris Bryant: Yes, but if we are decanted and the whole thing is covered in scaffold, you are not going to have that.

Mr Grew: I think the front of Richmond House has its charms, but I get your point. Again, that would be a matter for the broadcasters. We would be happy to consult with them and to provide you with evidence on that.

Q21 Chris Bryant: That would be useful. The other thing—I should know the answer to this—is that you do not pay for your offices, desks and phones in there, do you?

Mr Grew: That is correct.

Mr Woodhouse: Partly. We do not pay for the desks—the space—but, as I said before, we pay for the infrastructure. It is our computers, our phone lines, our IT, and so on and so forth.

Q22 Chris Bryant: And your cabling? I mean, how do we get cabling in for you?

Mr Grew: It is incredibly complicated. There is a room just off the Press Gallery that is full of a scary amount of different types of wiring and IT systems. That is one of the

176

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

things that we would want to have streamlined. Also, if you are an editor of a newspaper or a news organisation, it is a significant investment to have two, three, four or five permanent members of staff based not in your head office, but here with their infrastructure attached to head office. That shows how seriously editors continue to take the physical presence of their journalists here. They understand its worth and value, otherwise they would not allow their staff to be here at a time of increasing budget cuts.

Q23 Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chairman): I have one supplementary question. I want to go back to the decant period—and there are lots of ifs because we have not made any decisions. If we were to decant from the Palace of Westminster all in one go and if both Houses were to go to nearby but separate locations so there wasn’t a single Palace of Westminster, how, if at all, would that affect your reporting of Parliament? If the Chamber of the House of Lords was in QEII and the House of Commons was in Richmond House, for instance, would that make a big difference to you?

Mr Grew: If we are being honest about it, the bulk of Press Gallery activity is Commons-focused. For many journalists, going to the Lords is going to a completely different part of the building so it would not make that much difference if they were located in different premises. I would urge that the bulk of the Press Gallery’s physical facilities stay as close to the Commons as possible.

Mr Woodhouse: It will have certain effects on certain organisations, as we mentioned before, including for the Press Association. I believe that there is a live broadcast point in the House of Lords Lobby. If you were going to have two separate locations, I would encourage those facilities to be built in the Lords location as well as in the Commons location in case anything needs to be covered from there.

Q24 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: You talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Sometimes we have thought in our deliberations that, possibly, after many years of work being done—after a careful approach to the budget but substantial amounts of money being spent—people might come back and find that ostensibly the building is not that much different from when we left it. A lot of work will have been done in sorting out the basement and the utility services, and stripping out and so on. In terms of a like-for-like refurbishment, should we take an opportunity to do other things with the building?

Mr Grew: I have been—I was going to say I have been lucky enough to have been— in the basement and up in the roof. I have had tours round the building and seen the decrepit state of some of the infrastructure. You would just be missing the biggest opportunity in a century to remake, reform and reshape the building to make it fit. As Craig said several times, future proofing is the way to go. I really don’t see any point in spending £6 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money just to reproduce exactly what we have now. Obviously there are many fine fittings and rooms that you would want to maintain, but I think that future parliamentarians will regret it if you do not take this opportunity to forget about like for like and go for the big picture.

177

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Oral evidence (QQ1-24)

Mr Woodhouse: I think it is a fantastic opportunity to retain a historic world palace while updating all the infrastructure behind it into something that will be fit in 100 years’ time. That would be my recommendation.

Chris Grayling (Chair): Good. Thank you both very much indeed.

178

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Written evidence (RAR0019)

1. The press gallery is pleased to contribute to the consideration of the Deloitte report on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. 2. Despite the welcome refit of the Press Gallery some years ago the current facilities do still present problems, particularly in respect of IT systems and a lack of space for expansion of new online news organisations who want to accommodate staff in Parliament. 3. For more than 200 years journalists have been given access to the Parliamentary estate and dedicated places in the gallery. 4. It is vital that throughout any proposed period when one or both chambers move out of the Palace, the press continues to have the same level of access to both the gallery and to MPs and peers themselves. 5. We urge the committee to consider the press will be accommodated during any decant both in terms of access to the galleries and office space. Approximately 150 journalists have permanent accommodation in the Press Gallery together with a further 100 or so who regularly attend debates, PMQs, select committees and who use our ‘hot-desking’ and wi-fi arrangements. In recent years there has been a significant increase in reporting of parliament - and use of press gallery facilities - by new media organisations.

6. We ask that the committee consider the importance of the role the Press Gallery plays in reporting on the work of both Houses and the inherent dangers in formulating plans for the decant and for the renewed and restored Palace that degrade the ability of the press properly to report on the business of Parliament. 7. It was with some concern that we read the parts of the report relating to press facilities. There are mentions of press facilities in the three scenarios laid out in the Deloitte report - 2B (partial decant) and 3B and 3C (full decant). All three refer to the creation of a new media centre "with space for interviews on and off camera". Only 3C specifies it will be "within the Palace".

8. At present the broadcasters have significant facilities at 4 Millbank. The Press Gallery was not consulted by Deloitte when they were compiling their report, so it is unclear why they have proposed a media centre that has not been asked for. 9. All three options refer to change of use for "reporters restaurant" to offices for MPs. They all also list "change of use, subject to reduction or relocation of reporters facilities" of offices west of Speakers Court. There is concern among press gallery members about these proposals.

179

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Written evidence (RAR0019)

10. The report's proposal that the present Press Gallery facilities - the offices used by the press and Moncrieff's cafe and restaurant - will undergo a "change of use" to become offices for MPs is unacceptable. Moncrieff's plays an integral part in the life of the Press Gallery as well as being a popular venue for staff from across the Parliamentary estate.

11. The offices used by the press were designed for this purpose as part of the repairs to the Palace after the Second World War to allow direct access to the Chamber. Proposals to do away with all such facilities presently used by the Press Gallery and substitute the offer of a "media centre" could be seen as an attempt to remove the press from the renewed Palace. The Press Gallery urges the committee to reject these proposals. 12. We are keen to consult with the joint committee on the proposals for the renewed Palace and would be happy to send some of our members to discuss with them the vital role the Press Gallery plays in our democracy. We would also like to invite the committee to tour the Press Gallery facilities to aid their understanding of the issues raised in this submission.

13. The report's plans for a partial or whole decant from the Palace during restoration indicate that the Press Gallery will be accommodated in the same decant building as the Commons chamber and committee rooms. 14. We welcome this proposal but we would like to consult with the committee and the Parliamentary authorities on the nature of those facilities to ensure that the Press Gallery can continue to work effectively during the period when one or both of the Chambers is located outside the Palace. 15. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the committee's work on the restoration and renewal project. The Press Gallery is ready and willing to contribute positively and creatively to the process. We want to help in the creation of new press facilities in the renewed Palace that will be fit for purpose for the 21st century and beyond, and urge the committee to consult with us on these issues. Craig Woodhouse, Chairman, Robert Hutton, Hon Treasurer and Tony Grew, Hon Secretary. The Parliamentary Press Gallery

19 January 2016

180

Parliamentary Press Gallery - Supplementary written evidence (RAR0064)

Many thanks for inviting us to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster on Monday 29 February on behalf of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

There were a couple of points which we had hoped to mention that did not come up but may be helpful to the committee as you prepare your first report.

1. The lobby room. At present, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman carries out two daily lobby briefings in a specially-designated room at the top of a tucked-away staircase in the House of Commons. We would require a similar space during the decant and again when we return to a restored building. The present room has space and seats for around 40 journalists, plus a table and chairs for the PM’s spokesman and a few aides.

2. Committee room filming technology. Broadcasters mentioned that at present not all select committees are filmed in high definition. Indeed, there are a number of HD cameras which can be pre-booked to film certain committees which may be of interest – but this is often a flawed system as newsworthy events can be hard to predict. As a major refurbishment is taking place it seems a good opportunity to consider installing HD cameras in all committee rooms, along with a new infrastructure for storing and sharing the footage.

We will be holding a Press Gallery committee meeting before the Easter recess to discuss further points raised during our appearance – including the minimum number of seats we could get away with in a temporary gallery – and write to you again as soon as possible.

In the meantime we would like to repeat our invitation to members of your Committee to come and have a tour of our facilities if it would be helpful.

Kind regards

Craig Woodhouse, Chairman Tony Grew, Hon Secretary

04 March 2016

181

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

1. The Parliamentary Visitors Group welcomes this opportunity to feed into the consultation of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster.

2. The Parliamentary Visitors Group is a bicameral forum bringing together parliamentary officials from both Houses with a high-level stake in the welcome, facilitation or impact of visitors to Parliament. Parliamentary visitors include constituents, members of the public, wider civil society, business visitors of Members/staff/officials/Committees, VIP visitors, function guests, commercial customers (tours and banqueting), and school pupils. The Group considers the interface and balance between security, access, heritage, and estates issues; seeking to understand and encourage enhancement of the visitor experience, while balancing this with the impact on Parliament’s core activities and the requirements of security.

Summary 3. Major construction work has to be undertaken on the Palace of Westminster, which also presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rethink the layout and significantly improve both physical access, security and facilities in the Palace, and also public engagement with Parliament. This will help improve the return on investment of the works, and provide a lasting legacy for the public. To summarise our key points:

a) Long term legacy: The works provide an opportunity to improve public access to the Palace of Westminster significantly, incorporating improvements in:  welcome, signage, orientation and interpretation around the Palace  secure search and screening outside the perimeter of the building  management of secure access for different categories of visitor to Parliament  full disabled access throughout the Palace  secure “zoning” of private and public space inside the building  areas for the public to meet Members, engage with the business of both Houses (chambers and committees), and learn about Parliament  protection of the fabric of the building and its collections  access to and interpretation of historic/heritage spaces  practical facilities, e.g. meeting spaces, toilets, places to sit, cafes, bag storage, shops, private dining and events spaces  flow of visitors, visitor tour route  a permanent location for Parliament’s Education Centre  spaces for displays and exhibitions

b) During the works: There is also a significant opportunity to engage with the public during the works, building on the public affection for the building and obtaining buy-in for the works. Even if physical access were not possible, we believe there should be a detailed study of the ways in which the Restoration and Renewal Programme could be exploited to develop digital engagement with those not able to visit physically. Areas for examination might include:

182

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

 Digital engagement - e.g. remote cameras, time-lapse, multimedia guides, augmented reality and smartphone apps - building on the initial interest sparked by the YouTube videos already produced by the programme and learning from other major projects.  The work of Members and Committees, together with the media and communications teams of each House, would also be able to make use of digital such assets to inform and engage.  Using the digital content in Parliament’s education, engagement, and regional community outreach work to spark interest and encourage ownership among the public – both for the Programme and for Parliament.

4. As a symbol of the nation and our democratic values, the Palace of Westminster must continue to embody the principles of openness, accessibility and tradition, whilst adapting to the changing needs of Members, staff and the public, and ensuring the security and ongoing integrity of the building.

5. By focusing on enhancing the building in terms of public access as well as modernising it as a workplace, the Programme could deliver a legacy for the public. We recognise that it will be important for there to be a democratic, cultural, economic and public legacy for those that do not near live London as well – partly this would be a question of working hard to ensure that any Delivery Authority considers how it can spend money around the UK – but we also suggest some ideas about how the public around the UK can be involved.

Public interest 6. The Palace of Westminster is a significant public asset for Parliament. It draws in visitors who have an interest in history and heritage: we then actively engage them in better understanding the role and work of Parliament, with high levels of success.

7. The Parliamentary Visitors Group recognises three purposes of the Palace:

a) It is a working legislature - its primary purpose. b) For citizens, it is the physical symbol of our democracy, symbolising the relationship between Parliament and the people. c) It is also a world heritage cultural site that we have a responsibility to look after, this stewardship role covering physical, cultural, and democratic heritage elements.

8. When the Palace of Westminster was built in the mid-1800s, it was an innovative building, but the needs of Parliament today, one of the busiest in the world, are very different. Public access was not a central requirement of the original building, and as Parliament has increasingly opened its doors and its proceedings, the challenges of access, security, heritage and conservation, ongoing maintenance, and visitor flow have become acute.

9. The Restoration and Renewal Programme will engender a significant amount of public interest and will provide an opportunity further to increase public understanding of

183

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

Parliament via their interest in the building and its collections. The public hold the Palace of Westminster in great affection, and will be hugely interested in the programme of work; indeed, as UK citizens they are a major stakeholder. These points apply equally abroad, with the Palace of Westminster globally renowned and symbolising the ‘Mother of Parliaments’. There is an international expectation of its preservation and renewal.

10. The Restoration and Renewal Programme provides a good opportunity to restore and renew Parliament’s relationship with the public at home and abroad.

Current visitors 11. Over 1 million people visit the Palace of Westminster each year, covering a range of types of visitor, e.g.:

 Heads of State and Heads of Government  “Business” visitors, officials attending debates, meetings (some 3-4,000 a day)  Witnesses to committees, people attending committee meetings  Constituents, lobbyists, Member invited guests  Guests attending functions and events (banqueting guests)  School groups (circa. 100,000 per year)  People going into the public galleries (circa. 140,000 per year)  Visitors on free democratic access tours (circa. 120,000 per year)  Visitors on Clock Tower tours (circa. 11,000 per year)  Commercial tour visitors (circa. 200,000-220,000 per year)  Researchers and other visitors to Parliamentary Archives  People attending exhibitions and public engagement events

Education Services 12. Parliament’s new Education Centre – which has planning permission for ten years - allows Parliament to receive 100,000 school pupils a year. The Programme should include consideration of provision for a permanent location for the Education Centre, ideally with a greater capacity to accommodate more of the school population.

13. It is also important that we are able to continue to offer the school visits programme wherever Parliament is sitting during the Restoration and Renewal Programme: the alternative is that a generation of school children forgoes the opportunity to visit Parliament – and children and young people offer the best hope for renewing the relationship with the public, as voters of the future.

Tour visitors 14. Recent audience research from our commercial tours shows that visitors regard the tours very highly:

 Visitors arrive with high expectations and those expectations are exceeded. Overall people are “wowed and in awe”.  Interest in Parliament itself is the key driver. There is a hunger for knowledge and insight. People want to look “behind the scenes”, understand more about the

184

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

workings, and it is the learning/knowledge that is rewarding. They believe it is their right as citizens and taxpayers.  Visits trigger interest in political engagement, as democratic process becomes more meaningful and personal. The Palace exudes and fosters a sense of personal “ownership”, personal history and pride (particularly among UK and Commonwealth visitors).  Tours are rated very highly across all aspects, including enjoyment, value for money, and likelihood to recommend (between 90-100%). Visitors are leaving as politically engaged advocates.  Most highly rated aspect of the tour – Information/knowledge

15. However, there are frustrations too, including:

a) lack of places to sit down b) lack of opportunity to participate c) lack of signage d) the Palace is not fully accessible to disabled visitors

Opportunities: better access and security 16. The Programme presents a real opportunity to provide a more open, inclusive and accessible Parliament, including full disabled access throughout the Palace.

17. It is an opportunity to completely redesign public entrances and facilitate efficient, secure access for the different types of visitor. This could include significantly better visitor reception facilities that can cope with the volume of people coming to Parliament and eliminate “queuing in the rain”. It could also include a one-way tour route with appropriate facilities at start and end of the route (e.g. toilets, cafes, bag storage, shops), and more places to sit down along the route.

18. Improvements from the security point of view could include: search facilities outside the perimeter of the building, and secure “zoning” of public and private areas internally.

19. There could be more/better facilities for Members to meet constituents and other guests, e.g. meeting rooms, large spaces suitable for open meetings, atrium space, cafes, and spaces for parliamentary exhibitions and displays.

20. Access to, and interpretation of, historic heritage spaces could be provided, together with better signage, both around the Palace and inside, while also providing better protection of the physical fabric of the Palace and its collections.

21. There is an opportunity to enhance public access to chambers and committees for both business and casual visitors:

 Some visitors only wish to see the Chambers in action and do not stay for a long time. Provision of a “viewing space” (as in Welsh Assembly) could satisfy this requirement.  Other visitors have an interest in the subject of the debate and would wish to stay for longer, so a seated area would still be required.

185

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

 Public rooms with live digital feed could be provided to accommodate popular debates and Prime Minister’s Question time, possibly also with commentary to explain proceedings.

22. A newer UK parliamentary building – Portcullis House – illustrates what can be achieved when public access is designed into plans from the outset: dedicated secure access and search arrangements; unescorted access to the public committee floor; better access for the disabled; reception desk and information points; pass-controlled access to non- public areas; and the atrium that provides a “village square” environment for meetings between Members, staff, and guests.

Opportunities: better engagement 23. However, thinking beyond physical access: in restoring and renewing the building, there is a once-in–a-lifetime opportunity to restore and renew Parliament’s relationship with the public.

24. This is important because we know that from a citizen perspective, the relationship between Parliament and the public is not strong:

a) People do not understand the difference between Parliament and the Government. b) People feel that Parliament does not work as well as it should, and there is a steep social gradient in attitudes.

25. Parliament is demonstrably becoming more open. But the public don't yet believe that. The way restoration and renewal is done will be as important as the outcome in terms of convincing the public that Parliament cares about them. And the Programme provides a prime, one-off opportunity to do this.

Opportunities: during the works 26. There will be great public interest in the programme of work on the Palace, which could easily be capitalised on as an educational/engagement opportunity - onsite, digitally, and in outreach work throughout the UK.

27. The public will expect access to the temporary site of Parliament, its chambers and committees, during any decant period to see Parliament at work. Indeed, sitting outside the Palace of Westminster could raise awareness and interest. There could even be a market for commercial tours, because of the curiosity value.

28. The short daily ceremonial of processions and the regular State Opening of Parliament are globally eye-catching traditions which attract and retain public attention and interest. These should not be forsaken during any decant or on return.

29. Experience from other heritage sites suggests that the public would also love to be able to visit the Palace itself during the works. Indeed, it would help create public ownership of this major programme, if public access to selected parts of the work, or viewing points, could be incorporated into the Programme (as happened with the construction of the Olympic Park). However, we appreciate physical access may be restricted for

186

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

health and safety reasons. The security of a possibly empty building would also need to maintained, at the same time as security was provided for any temporary Parliament site(s).

30. A proactive communications strategy employing digital technology, for example remote cameras, could also help meet the public interest and foster public understanding of, and buy-in to, the Programme.

31. Parliament’s existing education and outreach services will be able to build on interest in the works through community engagement. Committees could also to meet outside Westminster during the period, developing a “Parliament in the nations and regions” programme.

Opportunities: legacy 32. A more ambitious aim for a remodelled Palace would be to expand secure access facilities more substantially to provide an entrance which incorporates a Visitor Reception and Information Centre, including interpretation, information services, exhibition space (taking exhibitions out of Westminster Hall, the Royal Gallery, and the Upper Waiting Hall), and other facilities.

33. And/or – any temporary decant accommodation could be used to create a democratic heritage centre/museum of Parliament for further public education, thereby providing a valuable legacy. This could potentially also provide a permanent home for Parliament’s Education Centre, and incorporate further engagement opportunities.

34. We understand that a Parliamentary Heritage Centre, as part of a holistic visitor offer at Westminster, is one of the options being considered by the Archives Accommodation Programme.

35. Ideally, the long term future of the Palace of Westminster would be considered in the context of its location as part of a UNESCO World Heritage site, (while recognising that this would involve multiple stakeholders and it is not something Parliament could instigate alone, even if desirable). As the Hansard Society commented in the introduction to its 2011 report “A Place for People”:33

The Palace of Westminster and its environs – particularly the World Heritage Site and Parliament Square – should be a place of national pride; a public space that reflects, shapes and sustains our national identity and democratic culture. The public beyond London 36. We recognise that, with the best will in the world, not every UK citizen will be able to visit the Palace of Westminster, and yet every British citizen should feel that Parliament belongs to them – including the building. There are various ways that the British public can feel a part of the project wherever they are: imaginative use of traditional and social media, and virtual reality both during and after the project are one route. Another is to

33 Hansard Society, A Place for People: Proposals for Enhancing Visitor Engagement with Parliament’s Environs, 2011 http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A-Place-for-People-2011.pdf

187

Parliamentary Visitors Group - Written evidence (RAR0059)

build in opportunities for formal involvement from the devolved nations – a small but potentially engaging example could be a competition in each nation for an artistic legacy in the Palace. And while not the subject of this submission, clearly there are ways in which the Programme could spend money in the devolved nations and English regions – for example in support services, and perhaps with training and apprentice initiatives.

08 March 2016

188

Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027)

Introduction 1. I am a Chartered Engineer holding a degree in Building Engineering with over 36 years experience in the building construction industry. I was employed by the House of Commons Administration from November 2001 until August 2015 in various roles within the Works Services and Estates Directorates variously as Manager of the Building Projects Branch, Deputy Director of Estates and Principal Surveyor, leading and advising on the delivery of major renovation and improvement works across the parliamentary estate for both Houses of Parliament. I have an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the Palace of Westminster, its construction and its general condition and have appeared in front of various Committees over the years. In 2010 I represented the two Houses to the media to respond to concerns about the leaning of the “Big Ben” Elizabeth Tower, for which I had particular responsibility at that time.

2. When I joined the House service in 2001 I took charge of the implementation of the building works programme. The completed works value in 2002/03 was some £22 million and the annual cost peaked at about £35 million before the re-organization of the Works Services and Estates Directorates was completed late in 2008 and which introduced new management. In six years I managed or oversaw the completion of about £175 million of works across the estate, a significant amount of which was in the Palace.

3. One of the major elements of the programme that I took responsibility for was known as PDVN. This programme ended in 2007 after a total of some 12 years. This programme of work undertook the replacement and improvement to mechanical & electrical (M&E) services, installation of information technology (IT) network cabling, fire-detection & alarms and restoration of the building fabric to the Palace of Westminster. It also removed any asbestos from within the areas worked in. The works were all undertaken in successive summer recesses and the areas completed under my direction included:  The Clerk of the House floor  Commons Library rooms  Ways and Means offices  Cloister Offices  Opposition Block  Lords West Front

4. In addition to this major programme, I oversaw other refurbishment/improvement projects, including:  T Block offices

189

Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027)

 St Stephen’s Tower offices  Jubilee Café  Lords Riverside Restaurant and Bar  Press Gallery offices, including the restaurant and bar  Members’ Tea Room

5. The extent of these works will all have been recorded and been approved by way of business cases.

Scope of Restoration & Renewal 6. The Committee has set out that its task at this stage is to make recommendations in two areas, that of the scope and that of delivery. My submission concerns primarily with the scope as without a proper evaluation of this one cannot properly proceed to matters of delivery.

7. For reference to my points below I note the Committee’s enquiry aims: “The proposed work includes:  replacement of the building’s mechanical and electrical plant  improved fire-safety measures  conservation of the external stonework, and  conservation of the heritage fabric of the interior of the building.” and which also refers to the Independent Options Appraisal (IOA) dated 8 September 2014 and published in June 2015. 8. The basis for the IOA states at 3.1 by way of background that, “Since the post war era, the PoW has only disparate internal restoration or renewal works have been undertaken.”, my emphasis.

9. Following the publication of the Ibbs report in 1990 and establishment of the Parliamentary Works Directorate, major programmes were begun on conservation and improvement to the Palace of Westminster. This programme completed a substantial amount of restoration and improvement works, possibly to the value of in excess of £½ billion. The Parliamentary publication entitled, Five Years of Restoration & Improved Facilities 1992-199, lists many significant restoration, refurbishment and improvement works carried out during that time; which I consider is hardly “disparate”.

10. Regarding M&E, apart from the improvements within rooms as mentioned above which I oversaw, the plant within the main boiler room and the summer boiler plant were replaced in 2001/02. The project to replace the old plant was completed within the summer recess with little disruption to the House. Over the last three to four years there has been the medium-term M&E replacement project which has been replacing the main services distribution infrastructure throughout the Palace of Westminster.

190

Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027)

11. As mentioned above, improvements to fire safety, installation of detection, alarms and compartmentalization, had been major programmes of work and again a significant part of which I oversaw. A new fire hose-reel distribution system was completed in 2001/02. This ensured that fire-fighting measures were available in all parts of the Palace, including the Victoria Tower. A programme to complete the fire alarm systems and compartmentalization was stopped in 2006 by the Director of Estates, however I believe a programme to re-consider completing this work was recently initiated.

12. Stone cleaning and repairs had been progressed extensively since the early 1980s – see Hansard HC Deb 30 March 1981 vol 2 cc126-34. Only four or so internal courtyard areas remained when the programme was stopped in 2006 by the Director of Estates for re- evaluation. The record of the stone cleaning programme can be found in Parliamentary papers such as Factsheet G12, Restoration of the Palace of Westminster:1981-94.

13. To add, stone repairs are not essential to R&R as it does not generally require wholesale decant of offices and if necessary could be completed within five years.

14. A substantial amount of restoration of the building fabric to the Palace of Westminster has already been completed by way of the PDVN programme or by individual projects as mentioned above.

15. The IOA is an extremely detailed document, and repeats itself extensively, but it is disappointing in that it does not refer to the substantial work that has gone before post war. The approach taken to calculate the baseline cost of refurbishing the building is to take the whole area of the building and multiply it by a unit rate per square metre of floor area. This works out at around £10,000 per square metre for the refurbishment works excluding fees, risk and VAT and also any improvement works. In doing this it ignores the different areas of the Palace, some of which are quite fine and others which are much humbler, i.e. one cannot compare the cost to refurbish an office on the Principal Floor with a store room in the basement. It also ignores the restoration work already substantially completed as noted above. This very simplistic approach to cost- estimating seems at odds with the high cost of producing it.

16. Having mentioned that a substantial quantum of work has been completed to the Palace of Westminster over the last quarter of a century, most of which has been completed during the summer recesses to minimise disruption to the business of the House, it is unclear in the IOA why now wholescale decant is required. The IOA has not attempted to schedule the areas yet to be refurbished and takes the approach that everything must be re-done but gives no rationale for this and the justification for the great additional expense that this would cause.

17. I also note the degree of misinformation which has been released by the R&R team to the media which has been used to support its case. For instance, interviews on

191

Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027)

television and radio referred to the crumbling stonework and leaking roofs. I have mentioned stonework above which could easily be attended to now without recourse to R&R. The roofs however began a major repair programme in 2008/09, it is ongoing and should complete ahead of R&R. I believe also that the repair of stone pinnacles is included within the roof refurbishment programme to maximize the value from scaffolding.

18. There is certainly a significant amount of repairs and renovation works still to be undertaken which is made more difficult by the presence of asbestos and the need to keep the building operational. The R&R’s web-pages which has statements like: “There has been significant under-investment in the Palace since at least the 1940s, when parts of the building, including the House of Commons chamber, were renovated following bomb damage during the Second World War. Other parts have not undergone appropriate renovation since the Palace was built in the mid-1800s.” are factually misleading, as are many other statements on those web pages. What is required is a measured approach to the challenges ahead based on the facts and not on platitudes and rhetoric.

Improvements 19. The Committee has asked what improvement works could be considered to improve the way Parliament works. As Churchill quite eloquently said, 'we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’. The question is perhaps, how can a modern 21st century democracy operate in a largely 19th century building with 19th century modus operandi and an 18th century dress culture? Before embarking on Grand Designs, the first principle should be that Parliament needs to settle how it needs to function in the 21st century. It can then fashion the spaces to suit.

20. Notwithstanding this, there are improvements Parliament could consider as part of a general improvement programme which I set out hereafter.

21. Having seen the great success of the Portcullis House atrium as a multi-function space enabling Members to meet and greet their constituents etc., a similar space in the Palace would seem of great benefit to support Members based there. In this regard Cloister Court would appear ideally situated. It could be given a glass roof to provide weather protection and the cloisters opened at ground floor level to increase the useable area and thus create a similar space to Portcullis House atrium. Visitors would arrive in Westminster Hall and then be collected and escorted to Cloister Court via the Welsh Lobby. Catering could be provided and supported from access via Whips’ Court. The Cloisters at ground level would originally have been open to the central yard and as two sides were re-built after the war following bomb damage and therefore this may help support a successful listed building application.

192

Jonathan Prew - Written evidence (RAR0027)

22. In 2005 a new basement was constructed under Peers’ Court. There is therefore the opportunity to create additional basement space within courtyards to help alleviate pressure on back-of-house areas.

23. Rainwater harvesting could be achieved relatively easily with underground tanks in Old Palace Yard.

24. Consideration should be given to digitising Parliament’s extensive and unique records. This would improve accessibility and mean that on-site storage areas could be consolidated to other uses. Original rare and nationally important documents could then be stored more securely elsewhere.

25. In considering potentially the biggest remodelling of the Palace of Westminster since it was rebuilt in the 19th century, sights should perhaps be set higher and more ambitious, i.e. to resolve the conundrum that is the World Heritage Site and in particular the road that runs across it through Old Palace Yard. The space in front of the Palace lends itself to being pedestrianized. This then enables the infrastructure to support visitors to be established and managed more effectively, e.g. creating a visitor centre on Parliament Square for the World Heritage Site as a whole and a dedicated media centre on Abingdon Street Gardens. Black Rod’s Garden would require remodelling to enable vehicles to be managed more effectively and a visitor reception building could be constructed there. Education rooms could be met within a basement structure under Royal Court.

Summary 26. The exceedingly high cost proposed to “restore and renew” the Palace of Westminster at a time of austerity in the public sector demands that care is taken in what is required to be done. More valuable thought needs to be taken in assessing the current condition of the Palace to determine what really needs to be done and therefore how to do it.

21 January 2016

193

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

Summary

 The views of 23 school pupils aged 11 to 17 are reported.  Pupils saw the Palace of Westminster as an important iconic building, giving importance to decisions made there and contributing to tourism.  Pupils wished to see some modest improvements to the Palace’s facilities made alongside repairs and restoration, but not to the extent of changing it or detracting from its history.  Improvements should include better heating and electrics, increased security, more toilets, seating areas for visitors, disabled access, and a less cramped security checking area.  Priority should go to keeping the building’s history, followed by ensuring continuation of Parliament, and improving security, rather than to value for money.  A nearby overnight hostel for young visitors would increase visiting by young people and so interest in the work of Parliament.  The preferred option to balance extent of work, duration, cost and disruption was carrying out repairs and renovation, without significant improvements, at a cost of £3.5 billion over 6 years, with both Houses of Parliament moved elsewhere while the work is done.  It is important to maintain tourist attraction and access to parts of the building during the work.  Problems likely during the works include loss of tourism, dangers of falling masonry or any structural collapse in such a crowded area, traffic disruption, noise and disturbance to Parliamentary work, loss or damage to historic parts of the building and its furnishings, potential for terrorist attack, and structural effect on nearby buildings.

Introduction 1. This submission is made by Pupils 2 Parliament, a project to enable school pupils to consider and feed in their views to parliamentary, government and national body public consultations and inquiries. The project has been approved by the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament to use the term ‘Parliament’ in its title.

2. Pupils 2 Parliament aims to bring the particular viewpoint of children and young people to those conducting inquiries and consultations - plus the uniquely fresh and often challenging analysis that children and young people bring to the making of decisions and policies.

194

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

3. The project also aims to give school pupils the opportunity to learn about and consider key decisions being made by parliament, government and public bodies, and genuinely to participate in democracy by feeding their views into real national decisionmaking.

4. Pupils’ views are independently gathered through discussions with groups of pupils led by someone from Pupils 2 Parliament, using material from the relevant consultation or inquiry document to explain the issues. We specialise in putting the issues and questions even-handedly, without leading pupils in any way or suggesting any responses. All views therefore come spontaneously from pupils, with no adult prompt.

5. This submission reports all pupil views given, without selection, comment or addition. The views in this submission are entirely pupils’ own views, and nothing but pupils’ views.

6. Views in this submission came from 23 pupils aged 11 to 17, through two discussion groups, one at Newtown High School, Powys, and the other at the school’s John Beddoes Campus at Presteigne, Powys.

Pupils’ knowledge and feelings about the Palace of Westminster 7. Four pupils had visited the Palace. They found it impressive and stunning looking, tall, beautiful, with beautiful patterning to the building and impressive furnishings inside, though large to walk around, and the security checking area felt crowded.

8. All but two of the 23 pupils thought the Palace an important building. Most saw it as important to the country rather than to them personally. It is important because of its history (“part of the British heritage”), it is iconic and “when you think of London you think of the Palace of Westminster”, it is where big decisions are made, it is a landmark and attracts vital tourists and so boosts the economy, it is important to many people, and it is a “symbol of power and grandeur”. It is also important to people who work there. If it wasn’t there, “the country would miss it”.

9. Some thought that politicians’ decisions seem more important because they are made in an impressive building where so many big decisions have been made throughout history.

Scope of Restoration - repair versus improvement 10. Pupils voted 14 to 8 that the Palace should be improved as well as repaired and restored. But they recommended that improvements should be kept to a minimum and must not lose or damage the historic fabric, furnishings or nature of the building. As one put it, “don’t make it too nowadays”.

195

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

11. No major changes should be made, but the building should be made safer, the fabric refurbished, and more tourist-friendly for visitors. Some improvements should be made for those working and meeting in the building, and those people should have the say on what those improvements should be. Improvements to help decisionmaking in the building should be considered.

12. There was no wish to see a lot of technology installed in such an historic building. One pupil suggested an external screen showing the debates going on inside, but this was outvoted by 10 to 3 on the grounds that it would spoil the historic look of the building.

13. Many saw the need for full restoration to extend to a high standard and lasting improvement in the structure, safety and services such as electrical supply and plumbing, but preserving the building’s historic look and feel. “Do it properly” and “may as well do it all together”, but “don’t take history out”. Scope of Restoration – principles 14. We asked pupils to prioritise the three principles in the Inquiry’s terms of reference, to which we added that of having good security in a building that could be a target.

15. The pupil priorities were:

Firstly – keeping what is historic about the building (supported by 13 pupils) Secondly – keeping Parliament running properly (supported by 12 pupils) Thirdly – having good security (supported by 10 pupils) Fourthly – getting value for money for taxpayers (not supported by any of the pupils)

Scope of Restoration – improvements 16. Here is the full list of improvements suggested by the pupils, both for those working in the Palace and those visiting it:

 Make the building safer  Do a good job of restoring the walls and roofs  Add some decorative features where needed  Make the building accessible for disabled people  Make some areas bigger (eg the security checking area)  Better heating  More toilets and better disabled toilet facilities  A larger gift shop  More exhibitions of art work relating to Parliament  Vending machines for visitors to use  Technology where it is needed  Bringing any unused rooms or space into use

196

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

 Make public access easier but still keeping the building secure  Upgrade all the electrics  Add sitting areas for visitors  Provide nearby bookable hostel accommodation for visitors  Provide full WiFi coverage  Provide a nursery for small children of visitors.

17. We asked pupils what would attract more visitors to the Palace, including their own age group, and how the Palace could be used to interest more young people in politics.

18. Ideas included providing more information and activities for teenagers geared to interest them in politics and decisionmaking, and being able to book a place (rather than queue) to sit and listen to a debate. They would also like more opportunities to meet and interview MPs and Ministers.

19. Providing nearby overnight hostel accommodation for young visitors would make the Palace much more accessible to young people. Some thought the cost of visits, and the difficulties of travel, reduced the number of visitors, especially young visitors. Heavy traffic and the difficulties of tube travel (though some enjoyed the tube) made the Palace hard to reach. An overnight hostel would help to some extent with this.

20. Many, quite independently in both discussion groups, said that a great attraction for young people (and probably adults too) would be being allowed to sit on the benches in the Houses of Lords and Commons – being able to sit where the debates were held and the decisions made. They thought a lot was lost by not allowing visitors to sit on the benches, and that allowing this would not significantly increase the risk of damage or wear.

Delivering the work – the preferred option 21. We asked pupils to vote between the four options being considered by the Committee, for balancing cost and duration of the work, extent of the work, and keeping Parliament functioning during the work.

22. The preferred option, receiving 7 votes, was carrying out repairs and renovation, without significant improvements, at a cost of £3.5 billion over 6 years, with both Houses of Parliament moved elsewhere while the work is done.

23. The option of adding improvements to repairs and renovation, at a cost of £4.4 billion over 11 years, with one House moved elsewhere at a time, came second with 4 votes.

24. The options of carrying out repairs and renovation over 32 years at a cost of £5.7 billion, with both Houses of Parliament remaining in the building, and of carrying out repairs

197

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

and renovation over 11 years at a cost of £3.9 billion, with one House moved elsewhere at a time, each received only one vote. 25. There was no support for the option of carrying out repairs and renovations plus improvements over 6 years at a cost of £3.9 billion, with both Houses of Parliament moving elsewhere while the work was done.

26. Although pupils had wished to see at least some minor improvements as well as repairs and renovation, they explained their preferred option as the best combination of extent of work, price and duration of work.

27. Many saw the need to keep the Palace going as a tourist attraction – getting a “good balance of time, money and tourism”, not least because its tourism income could help towards the cost of renovation. One view was that if the refubishment time is too drawn out, people will no longer be so likely to restart visiting again very quickly when it was all finished. It was important to try to keep some tourist access through one of the building’s entrances while the work was being done, even if Parliament had to meet elsewhere.

28. One pupil summed up the issue of keeping things going during the works by saying “we still need revenue from tourism and we still need laws in the country”. There were mixed views on whether Parliament actually had to meet in the Palace of Westminster at all during the work. Some thought parliamentary decisions made there seemed more important, and it helped Parliament to work somewhere private away from other sorts of meetings. But the majority thought that parliamentarians could work somewhere else – they might moan about it, but they could discuss and make decisions anywhere (even in someone’s house if there was room): “as long as they make a decision, it doesn’t matter where they are”. One thought it would be good for parliamentarians to do their work in the same sorts of places other people spent their working lives. There was though some concern about the cost of hiring lots of space in “real life” work and meeting places if the Palace could no longer be used for a long time.

29. Pupils were not keen on options with very long timescales for the work to be done. Technology would advance a lot between planning things and finishing them, and nobody knows what will happen or be needed many years in the future. Parliament might not need such a building in 32 years time, looking at the longest possible timescale, and there might not even be a Parliament then of the sort we have now.

Delivering the work – likely problems 30. Finally, we asked pupils what problems they saw arising from doing so much work on such a building in such a location.

198

Pupils 2 Parliament - Written evidence (RAR0016)

31. One concern was the effect on traffic in such a busy central location. It would probably be necessary to close Westminster Bridge at some stage, and there would be major traffic disruptions. 32. Another, major, concern was about the safety of renovating and doing major structural work on an ancient building with tall towers in the centre of a city, with so many pedestrians and so much traffic so near to the work being done. As one pupil put it, “it’s not really going to end well if it goes wrong”. Some were concerned that masonry, or even a complete tower, could fall, causing a disaster. Work in such an area could also have an impact on the safety of other buildings nearby.

33. Many were concerned about the impact of the work on tourism. An iconic building being reinforced and covered in scaffolding and tarpaulins would become much less attractive. There were also risks to visitors in and around a building that was being worked on.

34. Some were also concerned about how difficult it would be for parliamentarians and their staff staying in the building to keep working and making decisions effectively with the noise and disruption of the work going on around them. “It could affect the decisions being made”.

35. There was also concern that some parts of the building and its furnishings, for example some panels, might be damaged beyond repair in the refurbishment. If there were items not able to go back in or on the building, it was important for these to be kept in a new museum display about the building.

36. Another, very different, concern was that while being worked on, the Palace could attract terrorist attack, or even terrorists opposed to what was being done.

37. Some pupils summed up the problems: “transport disruption on the outside, work disruption on the inside, tourism impact that would have an impact on revenue”; and the risk that the work “could affect history”.

38. I am grateful to the Head and staff of the two campuses for the chance to hold these discussions with their pupils. I am especially grateful to the senior pupil in one group, and the member of staff in the other, who worked very hard taking detailed notes of each of the views given by each of the pupils. And above all I am very grateful to each of the pupils themselves for their thinking, votes and views.

19 January 2016

199

John Redwood MP - Written evidence (RAR0003)

I wish to make a formal submission to the Consultation on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster. My recommendations are as follows:

1. Scale back the works to the minimum needed for safety and maintenance

2. Do them section by section, only linking cables and pipes at the end of each piece of work

3. Do not move people out of the Palace of Westminster as a whole.

I believe that the recommendation to move Parliament offsite for the duration of the works is a wholly unacceptable and disproportionate proposal.

In my view, there are sufficient access routes to key areas of the Palace to allow for other sections of the building to be sealed off, while the works take place.

I trust you will take my recommendations into account when coming to a view.

30 November 2015

200

Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE - Written evidence (RAR0054)

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to contribute to the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster's inquiry which is considering options on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace. Please accept this letter as my formal written evidence; I would be glad to amplify it orally if that would be useful. I am writing in a personal capacity.

My evidence is based on the contribution I made to a seminar on the subject of Restoration and Renewal in 2014, during which I drew on my experience as Director-General of the National Trust from 2001-12 to suggest some issues for consideration during the project. The main points I made were:

- the need to have an absolutely clear and compelling vision for the Restoration and Renewal project. Central to this is establishing the 'spirit of place' which will guide the values, principles and practicalities of implementation. Thus this project is not just about the fabric and facilities for MPs and Peers but the presentation of the Palace of Westminster as an iconic emblem of democracy, living and breathing its values including openness, accessibility and comprehensibility as well as showing and explaining its extraordinary physical entity - the need to take really seriously the possibility that the buildings, or significant parts of them, should stay open during the project. I appreciate that this may seem a challenging proposition, but it would do much to maintain the Palace’s position as the seat of democracy and to show it as a living, working place during the process of change. I also believe passionately that staying open would be key to affirming the principles and values that the Palace and its occupants intend to live by in future. I spoke about the importance of 'arms open conservation' and the power of engagement and how this had benefited the National Trust and all who interact with it

I then suggested three principles I felt would be useful to the project:

o no compromise on conservation: these buildings deserve to have the best standards and half-way measures will prove wasteful in the long term. This includes a strong green element to the plans, demonstrating longevity and a passion for the future as well as the past. Within this, appropriate adaptation for use in the twenty first century is more than possible o the need for the Palace to understand its audience(s), including the occupants of the buildings whether MPs, Peers or staff. People are there and will come for different reasons, with different needs, hopes and expectations. It requires a sophisticated process of analysis and provision to meet and satisfy their needs; again there is useful National Trust experience to draw on o be very clear about the story(ies) you will tell and their different components - these will sustain the Palace and public support for it for many years if done well.

201

Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE - Written evidence (RAR0054)

- finally this is not a story of 'fix it and be done' but a constant process of evolution from now on, reconciling continuity with perpetual change, under the framework of a clear spirit of place and vision for the Palace as an extraordinary and vital place.

I hope this is helpful; please let me know if I can elaborate.

29 January 2016

202

The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE & The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO - Oral evidence (QQ25-37) The Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE & The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO - Oral evidence (QQ25-37)

Transcript to be found under The Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO

203

Royal Institute of British Architects, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Transcript to be found under Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

204

Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035)

The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our 40,000 members. We provide the standards, training, support and recognition that put our members – in the UK and overseas – at the peak of their profession. With government and our partners, we work to improve the design quality of public buildings, new homes and new communities.

Conservation architects know the process through which the material, historical and design integrity of built heritage can be prolonged and enhanced. Each site is unique and needs detailed analysis before an approach is adopted.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can work with Government on the restoration and renewal (R&R) programme to ensure the most iconic UK Government building reflects best practice in heritage and conservation architecture.

Questions for members of the public and interested groups

A Scope

What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility?

Tourists and general visitors: A generously sized entrance for visitors to the Palace could be provided with modern interpretation facilities, so that all visitors can enter the Palace easily. A clear and well defined route could lead to the new entrance, providing visitors the opportunity to start their visit at modern interactive displays explaining how Parliament works, its history and the value of the present buildings.

It would also be worth looking into pedestrianizing the east side of Parliament Square to improve the approach to the Palace and enhance the World Heritage site.

205

Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035)

Visitors with a specific purpose: Separate entrance provision for members of the public who wish to visit their MP or to attend committee meetings would be beneficial.

What opportunities or benefits do you think a major restoration and renewal programme could present for Parliament and the wider public?

Opportunity for rethinking how Parliament works in the 21st Century

A major restoration project can help make the Palace more accessible and inclusive for all members of the public. It could also future-proof the iconic buildings by making them capable of maintenance, repair and change without a total shut down.

RIBA can offer valuable resource for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster through our rich collections containing detailed drawings of the original buildings, and through the expertise of architects on our RIBA conservation registrar. Our register of specialists encompasses all aspects of historic building conservation, repair and maintenance, including other Government heritage building restorations.

Opportunity for upskilling the heritage and conservation sector

Throughout the R&R programme there will be significant demand in specialist trades that can maintain and restore the internal and external fabric of the building.

Building skills capacity is needed for both professional and craft skills in the heritage and conservation sector. The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is an ideal opportunity for educating and training the next generation in the skills needed to maintain, repair and enhance the historic buildings and to be an ongoing exemplar project for those skills and craftsmanship.

206

Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035)

Benefit of cultural and economic value:

Good and iconic architecture creates destinations and local identities. The R&R programme will help to continue to build the cultural brand identity of Britain. There are positive social impacts to be gained from this, such as civic identity and pride, cultural value, or whether people choose to locate to the vicinity and bring further growth.

The Palace of Westminster is also a globally renowned iconic building and the R&R programme would help it to continue to build on the £14bn GDP impact of direct, indirect and induced heritage based tourism in the UK34.

In order to keep the iconic historic buildings functional and useful, a conservation approach must be taken to the restoration and renewal project, to ensure change can be introduced in a sustainable manner, rather simply trying to preserve the buildings as they are.

B Delivery

How should the heritage of the Palace of Westminster be conserved and safeguarded, while recognising that it is home to a busy working parliament with regular public access?

In the first instance a better identification of what the ‘heritage’ of the Palace of Westminster is should be made, by defining its cultural significance. An assessment will then have to be made of how much of that significance is intrinsic to the historic fabric of the buildings, and the relative importance or sensitivity of the historic fabric.

Conserving and safeguarding the heritage of the Palace of Westminster will need to go beyond simply preserving the historic fabric. It should be a forward looking process that keeps the buildings operational and useful for at least the next generation, without compromising its cultural assets.

Some change to the historic fabric of the buildings will not only be necessary but may also be desirable - for instance removing obviously negative elements like the striped canopies on the river terrace. The design objective should be to try and locate as much change as possible in the less sensitive parts of the buildings and site.

34 The Economic Impact of the Heritage Tourism Economy, Oxford Economics, May 2013

207

Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035)

Achieving adequate historic fabric protection and operational buildings that are functional in the future will require considerable architectural design skills. The RIBA would welcome the opportunity to provide expertise and guidance to Government on these points throughout the restoration and renewal programme.

What will be the major risks or challenges in delivering a programme of this scale and how should they be addressed?

Expressing a clear guiding vision for the project

A major challenge for a project of this scale and nature will be expressing a clear guiding vision, held and promoted at a very senior level within the organisation.

That vision will need to be expressed as a clear brief, or definition of requirements and outcomes, to ensure the project can deliver a robust and long lasting future for the Palace on budget.

The vision will have to be delivered by a group of dedicated project coordinators to ensure end to end continuity. This group will be accountable for the outcome of the programme, so they need to be known and visible.

Maintaining and enhancing the Palace of Westminster as an iconic presence worldwide

The project team responsible for driving the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster will have to ensure they are satisfied with nothing less than the best available practice and outcomes. The Palace of Westminster has an iconic presence worldwide and the repair and renewal programme must maintain and enhance that.

Embedding sustainability principles within the project plan The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster project should incorporate principle of sustainable design, ensuring the buildings are made more resilient and adaptive to future socio economic and climatic changes. For the buildings this can be achieved by designing for long life, loose fit and low energy. Elements of flood resilient design should also be incorporated. RIBA would welcome the opportunity to support Government in embedding these sustainability principles in the overall project plan. Overcoming the threat of insufficient resources to carry out the renewal and restoration

The RIBA has fed into the market research into the capacity of specialist trades that would be required for the Restoration and Renewal Programme for the

208

Royal Institute of British Architects - Written evidence (RAR0035)

Palace of Westminster. We highlighted there is a great skills shortage issue resulting from declining investment into the conservation sector and a large pipeline of works in the UK that would divert resources from the R&R Programme. However, even if there was no pipeline of conservation projects, there may be insufficient skills available in the UK to tackle the scale of the challenge entailed in the R&R Programme.

Building skills capacity is needed for both professional and craft skills in the heritage and conservation sector. The restoration and renewal (R&R) of the Palace of Westminster is an ideal opportunity for educating and training the next generation in the skills needed to maintain, repair and enhance the historic buildings and to be an ongoing exemplar project for those skills and craftsmanship.

Many of these skills are held in small or micro businesses and the procurement route for R+R must embrace these organisations, not preclude them.

22 January 2016

209

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers & Royal Institute of British Architects - Oral evidence (QQ55-97) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers & Royal Institute of British Architects - Oral evidence (QQ55-97)

Transcript to be found under Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

210

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052)

Introduction

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) is the leading organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, construction, land and related environmental issues. As an independent and chartered organisation, RICS regulates and maintains the professional standards of over 100,000 qualified members (FRICS, MRICS and AssocRICS) and over 50,000 trainee and student members.

It regulates and promotes the work of these property professionals throughout 146 countries and is governed by a Royal Charter approved by Parliament, and monitored by the Privy Council, which requires it to act in the wider public interest.

Since 1868, RICS has been committed to setting and upholding the highest standards of excellence and integrity – providing impartial, authoritative advice on key issues affecting businesses and society. RICS is a regulator of both its individual members and firms enabling it to maintain the highest standards and providing the basis for unparalleled client confidence in the sector.

The chartered surveying profession has a long and proud tradition of working to protect and enhance the Parliamentary Estate. Indeed, when the Palace was being rebuilt to take its current form following the fire of 1834, chartered surveyor Henry Arthur Hunt was propelled to fame having been commissioned by Sir Charles Barry to undertake a single- handed valuation of the building. Our Headquarters is situated directly opposite the Palace on Parliament Square, and we have a deep-seated commitment to ensuring this unique part of our national heritage is preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.

Last year we were invited to meet with Dr. Richard Ware (Restoration and Renewal Programme Director), and we discussed how RICS can support the development of this exciting and immensely complex project. We remain committed to working with the Joint Committee to this end and will be happy to meet with them to provide further advice.

Our response has been directed at the first 4 questions set out in the consultation terms of reference, relating to the scope and delivery of the necessary works from a strategic perspective.

211

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052)

What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility?

Of the five Programme Objectives endorsed by the Programme Board in 2014, the one relating most closely to improving public engagement with Parliament is 2) Accommodate the needs of a 21st Century Parliament. The importance of this objective shouldn’t be underestimated; the restoration and renewal project offers a rare chance to dramatically improve the working environment of our legislature and address the myriad problems currently hindering public engagement with the building.

Accessibility is a real issue, and there are areas of the Palace that are not currently available for the public to view or use. Whilst this is to some extent necessitated by security considerations, the quality of the built environment is also a significant factor. For example, many of the courtyards and cloisters could be made accessible, and a new Visitor Centre could have a huge impact on the way public is enabled to engage with the Palace as a whole. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that fully engaging with the Palace as a built environment significantly improves the public’s understanding of how Parliament works, so the benefits of improvements in this area cannot be dismissed.

The current usage of the car park area directly outside Westminster Hall does mean that the building itself is somewhat distanced from the general public. According to the Independent Options Assessment (IOA), Scenario 3C is the shortlisted option with the potential to develop the car park for other purposes – this may have the potential to provide additional public space.

Some of the strategic options available to the Committee also have the potential to increase the revenue-generating capacity of the Parliamentary Estate. Scenarios 2B, 3B and 3C all project at least some increase in revenue streams resulting from the work. This is an important consideration in justifying the large capital outlays, and in ensuring value for money for public funds.

1. What opportunities or benefits do you think a major restoration and renewal programme could present for Parliament and the wider public?

The Preliminary Strategic Business Case (Oct 2012) set out a comprehensive case for fundamental change. The motivation for this was primarily one of necessity; two of the biggest reasons given for a restoration and renewal programme concerned the urgent need to address the continuing dilapidation of the building, and the need to protect the estate

212

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052) against the risk of being destroyed in the way it was by fire in 1834. Nevertheless, the necessity of such large-scale and inevitably disruptive work also provides the opportunity to reinvigorate the Parliamentary Estate in a way that not only delivers the required restoration work, but also manages to significantly improve the Palace itself, both for the work of Parliament and for the wider public.

Of the options shortlisted by the IOA, options 2B, 3B and 3C are the scenarios offering the greatest potential benefits. Options E1A and 2A will simply address the basic requirements of the restoration programme, with few if any opportunities for significant improvements. Furthermore, Scenario E1A takes place over such an elongated time period that the impact of any changes are likely to be further subdued. Whilst the protection of the fabric of the building is in itself a benefit to Parliament and the public, limiting the ambition of the project by opting for one of those two scenarios will entail missing an opportunity to improve the building that will not be available again for generations.

Whilst we understand that the options being considered by the Committee are not limited to those shortlisted in the IOA, if we consider those in the first instance we can see the kind of benefits that could result, particularly from scenarios 3B and 3C. As referred to above, the creation of a new Visitor Centre could substantially improve public engagement with the Palace, and improved accessibility should be seen as a necessity for a 21st Century Parliament. Improvements such as extra lifts, a new media centre, landscaping and pedestrianising courtyards and improving disabled access would all be effective ways of improving public engagement with and enjoyment of the Parliamentary Estate.

For Parliamentarians themselves, the cramped and often dilapidated conditions within which they currently have to work are much-maligned, and are not conducive to the effective functioning of Parliament. Options 2B, 3B and 3C of the IOA all offer the possibility of remodelling and upgrading the upper floor office areas of the Palace, and the introduction of air conditioning in these areas. This would be a welcome step towards the creation of a more modern, inclusive working environment for Peers and MPs.

One further factor to consider is the role the Restoration and Renewal Programme could play as a brand to attract more talent into the heritage building sector. There is scope to designate the Palace of Westminster project as the flagship training ‘hub’ in this field, with significant socio-economic benefits given the volume of building projects across the UK requiring heritage and conservation expertise. This benefit would also intersect with the broader skills issues affecting the project. The IOA identified a potential shortage of requisite specialist labour in the market as a risk to the programme delivery. By leveraging the iconic status of the Palace to attract more people into the heritage workforce, the programme could go some way towards closing this potential skills gap. The potential for

213

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052) establishing this project as a training ‘academy’ in this way is further enhanced by the long- term nature of the work. 2. How should the heritage of the Palace of Westminster be conserved and safeguarded, while recognising that it is home to a busy working Parliament with regular public access?

As a Grade I listed building with UNESCO World Heritage status, the Palace of Westminster requires exceptionally high building standards and a sophisticated approach to renewing and replacing key elements of the structure. Furthermore, this work will need to be undertaken around the work of Parliament (certainly under the partial decant options and probably even under the full decant options, at least for part of the duration of work). It is useful here to consider the experience of similar restoration projects, notably the conservation work at Hampton Court Palace. This particular project is an example of some of the most complex and highly regulated work that can be undertaken on a building, as Hampton Court is a scheduled monument giving it an even higher level of protection than a Grade I listed building. The work requirements here were determined by regular estate surveys. After the specific needs were identified, the project surveyor then coordinated with the wider project team, including architects and the building management teams to assess whether the works could be balanced against the ongoing operation of the building. Project surveyors have extensive expertise of how this can be achieved, and are experienced in managing project timelines in a way that minimises disruption. Certain key principles are applied on projects like this to ensure the work preserves the essential character and heritage of the building. Original material should be used wherever possible, and replacement materials should be similar in size, texture and colour to the original material which it is replacing. Use of heavy machinery should be minimised and take account of the impact it may have on the fabric of the building. 3. What will be the major risks or challenges in delivering a Programme of this scale and how should they be addressed?

All of the possible options for the restoration and renewal of the Palace involve significant challenges in terms of cost, delivery and timescale. All of the options proposed in the Independent Options Appraisal (IOA) involve large capital expenditures, ranging from £3.52bn to £5.67bn. Furthermore, the immense time period required by scenario E1A (32 years) leaves considerable scope of budget overruns, unforeseen obstacles and other factors that may prevent the project from running on track.

The complexities involved in conducting restoration and renewal works whilst Parliament is still operating within the building (entailed by scenarios E1A, 2A and 2B) will almost inevitably involve unforeseen costs and delays. The challenges posed by conducting such

214

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052) high-level works in the context of only a rolling or partial-decant of the building will be enormous.

RICS members have a great deal of expertise in managing large-scale, complex projects and ensuring they run on time and within budget. Whilst the nature and complexity of this particular project is undoubtedly unique, the sophisticated cost management, project management and building conservation skills it will necessitate are techniques of which our members have unparalleled experience and knowledge. The RICS Building Conservation Forum chaired by Lynda Jubb can be an invaluable source of advice and expertise on the specific issues and challenges involved in heritage projects like this. The RICS Project Management, Quantity Surveying and Building Surveying Boards can similarly provide expert insight into the cost and time management issues the scheme will entail. This is absolutely vital for a project which involves the expenditure of vast sums of taxpayers money, and which must conform to public sector good practice in accordance with the HM Treasury Green Book by delivering value for money for the taxpayer and generating a range of economic benefits.

RICS upholds the highest standards of professionalism and expertise for our members. The RICS Building Conservation Accreditation Register is particularly relevant to a major heritage project like this. It provides the names and contact details of experts across the country – the vast majority of whom are RICS members – with the knowledge and experience necessary to manage the conservation of historic buildings. These individuals are only accredited after meeting rigorous eligibility criteria, and are continuously monitored by RICS Regulation to ensure the highest professional standards are maintained. The expertise they can bring to bear will be invaluable for the restoration programme, especially in meeting the challenges posed by working on a Grade I listed UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Summary The Restoration and Renewal Programme is an exciting project and RICS is proud to be in a position to support its delivery. Whilst the challenges posed by the project in terms of cost, timelines and disruption of Parliamentary activities are considerable, the opportunity it offers to significantly improve the Estate should not be underestimated, and the work should be approached in this spirit. The project should seek to go beyond the minimum requirements to renew the Palace for the 21st Century.

The professionals we represent have the expertise necessary to deliver the programme effectively, whichever approach the Committee decides to take. We are happy to meet with the Committee to discuss our involvement in more detail, and would welcome the chance to

215

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - Written evidence (RAR0052) submit oral evidence at a live Committee session. Please contact me using the details below to make the necessary arrangements.

29 January 2016

216

SNP Westminster Parliamentary Group - Written evidence (RAR0044)

The SNP Westminster Parliamentary Group submits the following evidence as part of the Palace of Westminster Joint Committee’s Call for Evidence:

1. The projected cost of the project, into the tens of billions of pounds, is astronomical in good times, but unthinkable at a time of austerity.

2. We are concerned that the case for the project, especially on the scale proposed by the Independent Options Appraisal, has not been made. The claimed urgency of the works is completely undermined when one of the Options Appraisal Report delivery options takes 32 years to complete. We are also concerned that several planks of the case to carry out the restoration and renewal project, such as the cast iron roof, are being completed outside the scope of the project, therefore undermining the original argument for such a wide ranging and expensive project.

3. The credibility of the Committee's work is damaged when a new build Parliament is not even part of the consideration. It is inadequate for a project of this scale not to fully consider all options. The decision to rule out a new build parliament means the UK Parliament will remain crowbarred into an expensive, impractical and archaic building whatever the cost to keep it going. We firmly believe that the Joint Committee should have been formed to assess the situation and discuss options before appointing expensive consultants to produce options, which could still be dismissed on the evidence coming to light.

4. Should the restoration project go ahead serious consideration should be given to reforming and modernising the way business is conducted in the Houses of Parliament. A replacement or complete renewal of the Palace of Westminster is the ideal opportunity to carry out a full scale review of practices and procedures, including the possibility of replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber and introducing electronic voting. There should be far greater consultation on what the public and civic society wish the Parliament to look like.

5. While the project has been deemed of national importance, there is little evidence to suggest that this is going to be anything other than yet another London capital project, with no economic benefit to other parts of the UK outside London. Without Barnett Consequentials or a legislated commitment to contracted work being secured from all nations of the UK this will not be a project to be of any benefit outside of London.

6. In order to provide UK-wide benefit, the committee should consider and plan for locating the Houses of Parliament around the UK, should they be decanted from the Palace of Westminster for any significant period. It is concerning that this appears not to have been considered along with whether Parliament needs to be located in London at all, but could be housed elsewhere in the UK to decentralise the state.

217

SNP Westminster Parliamentary Group - Written evidence (RAR0044)

7. Should Parliament remain in the Palace of Westminster public access must be improved, especially access arrangements for disabled people. This should be a priority consideration for the project.

8. We are concerned that the Joint Committee has met in private to date. The Committee needs to meet in public for the sake of transparency and to allow public scrutiny at all stages.

9. We believe there should be a Committee form, perhaps a continuation of the current Joint Committee, which should meet in public on at least a monthly basis from when a decision is taken by the two Houses so that the project team can provide an update on progress and take questions.

10. Should the project go ahead we feel there is a need for clear lines of accountability and scrutiny at all stages. As the Chancellor of the day will have to sign off on the costs of the project, we feel it would be prudent that he or she report to the House on at least a six monthly basis on the progress of the project.

22 January 2016

218

Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, Nesta & Parliamentary Visitors Group - Oral evidence (QQ38-54) Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement, Nesta & Parliamentary Visitors Group - Oral evidence (QQ38-54)

Transcript to be found under Nesta

219

Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Written evidence (RAR0030)

Until the end of the last Parliament in May 2015, the Speaker's Advisory Council on Public Engagement (SACPE) constituted a group of expert volunteers, with knowledge of digital technologies, public behaviour, communications and law. We were tasked with advising the Speaker on how the House of Commons is perceived by the public and what should be done to restore the trust required between Parliament and the people it represents. As Parliament's physical manifestation is so closely linked with public engagement, we discussed the Parliamentary estate on several occasions. Our advice to the Speaker and officials is available with more context and commentary at http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/parliament-and-the- public/speakers-advisory-council-on-public-engagement/ alongside biographical information about our group, advice on various aspects of public engagement, and the minutes of meetings.

I thank the other members of SACPE for their contribution. Except where indicated, the points below reflect the consensus views of the group.

Jonathan Drori, CBE Chairman, Speaker's Advisory Council on Public Engagement, 2011-2015

1. The restoration and renewal of Parliament should be bold and imaginative. The quality of our democracy is one of our nation's most valuable assets, which we should celebrate and cannot take for granted. Our Parliament should be symbolically, as well as practically, something of which we can all be proud. It should reflect and even help to define the brand of the UK globally. This is worth paying for.

The following responses address three questions in your consultation:

What changes could be made to the Palace of Westminster in order to improve public engagement with the work of Parliament and to improve accessibility?

2. Parliament itself needs to have a clear, objective and shared sense of the changes that are required to encourage a more open and engaged relationship with the public. Other buildings and institutions have managed to make themselves feel more accessible and improve their reputation; encouraging a feeling of openness, a positive and welcoming atmosphere and being family/public friendly while still retaining authority. 3. The building (and the site more broadly) should embody the ideals of democracy. 4. While retaining its authority, Parliament should feel more inclusive and participatory, and with a much greater feeling of openness and transparency.

220

Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Written evidence (RAR0030)

The architecture itself will contribute and some effect will stem from the technology more easily afforded by new or renovated buildings. 5. (The highly combative, theatrical debates in the chamber are an entertaining spectacle. However, some of our group felt that the physical set-up of the traditional chamber exacerbates what they see as a febrile and aggressive atmosphere, encouraging knee-jerk opposition.) 6. Much about the Parliamentary Estate at the moment suggests 'us and them' to the public. Priority should be given to enabling the representatives and the process of democracy to be brought closer to the public. Previously published proposals, such as those suggested by the Hansard Society contain some excellent ideas. 7. More people need to feel that Parliament is theirs. Investigate the possibility to deliver more mixed uses of parts of the building, bringing a wider variety of people into parts of the Palace for events, workshops and seminars. 8. If such changes aren't logistically or economically possible within the existing buildings or their replacements, then opportunities should be examined across the broader site including Parliament Square 9. For members of the public, the present process for getting into the Commons and the Lords can be time-consuming and miserable. Surely the Mother of All Parliaments in a wealthy nation such as ours can do better than this? 10. There is a need to address sustainable energy use - how could the Palace become the first historic heritage building to become zero carbon?

What opportunities or benefits do you think a major Restoration and Renewal programme could present for Parliament and the wider public?

11. The process of engaging with the public about the programme is a major opportunity in its own right. It has the potential to catalyse interest in the democratic process from a perspective that everyone can have a view on: What should the buildings that house our democracy be like? 12. As currently framed, the consultation is quite formal - both in the format of the material and the questions. The next stage might move from consultation to engagement, with effort made to find more creative ways to engage the wider public; schools, local residents, possibly with imaginative use of traditional and social media As future custodians of our democratic heritage, young people are an especially important group. 13. The formal, traditionally run, consultation process might be complemented by a collaborative design or 'co-design' process. There are online tools available to do this.

What will be the major risks or challenges in delivering a Programme of this scale and how should they be addressed?

14. If the public do not feel they have been engaged and bought into the process, the changes may be seen as a waste of taxpayers' money. Effective, open engagement will mitigate this risk, and should show evidence of the numbers and diversity of contributions.

221

Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement - Written evidence (RAR0030)

15. There is a risk that Parliament will 'run-scared' of the media, who may criticise expenditure, partly because they believe that such expenditure might not be warranted but also because of a 'knee-jerk' requirement to criticise because it makes a 'story'. For the reasons given in Paragraph 1 above, this is a moment for leadership. 16. There is clearly a very difficult challenge efficiently to continue the work of Parliament during a huge restoration and renewal process. Perhaps this could be turned into an opportunity to base one or more sections of Parliament's work in other cities for a period. The changes in working patterns that this would necessitate may encourage a faster take-up of digital and other new technologies than would otherwise be possible, making for a more efficient and effective Parliament in the medium-term.

21 January 2016

222

Baroness Thomas of Winchester MBE - Written evidence (RAR0056)

Although there might well be benefits for disabled Peers if a temporary new venue for Parliament was found, on the whole it would probably cause more problems than it solved, so I would rather improvements were made to our existing building.

Car Parking

Looking at the big picture, several of us need car parking. This would not be easy in Central London at a different venue.

Access

As the building is well-staffed, access, while sometimes frustrating, is pretty good. Staff are always willing to split the door at Peers’ Entrance, to open Chancellor’s Gate and put down ramps to access Peers Cloakroom.

Chamber

It is possible to get four wheelchair/mobility scooter users in the space behind the Clerks and in front of the crossbench, but only just, and if the crossbench is full, then there is no room for manoeuvre. If a P.A. is required (e.g. Lady Campbell’s PA), then there is even less room. Ideally we would like to sit near our party groups, but this would only be possible with some redesigning of the furniture in the Chamber. This could be done as part of the refurbishment. I think this should be looked at as a matter of urgency. If all existing wheelchair/mobility scooter users want to speak in the same debate, then we would have to play box and cox, taking it in turns to sit in the existing place.

There is no hearing amplification where wheelchair users sit, as there is for those who sit on the benches.

Lifts

There are too few lifts which are too small and not all in the right places. There are even fewer lifts for those who have big wheelchairs or even some mobility scooters. This is particularly difficult when there are votes. There is no House of Lords lift which goes from the Principal Floor to the Ground Floor on the river side, so one has to use the House of Commons lift to access the River cafeteria and Terrace, for example. I know this problem

223

Baroness Thomas of Winchester MBE - Written evidence (RAR0056) has been raised for many years, but perhaps now is the time for a redesign of the ground floor to allow such a lift to be built.

Lavatories

The existing ones don’t suit all users, but there are some very good ones. I particularly commend the one near my office, First Floor West Front, which has an electronic seat which can go up and down at the touch of a button, meaning that it is useful for those with different needs. There are some easy adjustments to other lavatories which should be done and which need not be costly.

Doors

Any refurbishment should take care of this. Doors which won’t stay open can, and should, easily be fixed. There are many double doors which only have one side open – impossible for those who cannot open them themselves. The problem occurs on a daily basis, and one often has to ask Peers or even guests to open the other side.

Chairs

It would be easy to provide a few chairs in both the Bishop’s Bar and Peers Dining Room and Guest Room which have arms and which are higher than the existing ones so that they are easier to get out of.

Signage

This is not good for those who are not familiar with the geography of the Palace and would be easy to put right.

02 February 2016

224

Trade Union Side, House of Commons - Written evidence (RAR0023)

Members of Parliament, senior officials and the public more widely will have a keen interest in the future of the Palace of Westminster. The Trade Union Side shares that interest, of course, but our primary focus during the R&R process will be the impact on staff in the short, medium and long term.

Our initial request to those examining our brief submission is to ensure that the lines of communication – both formal and informal – are kept open throughout this process to ensure that the recognised unions are able to present their members with accurate information as early as possible. In a time of uncertainty, there can be few things more disconcerting than learning about potential decisions that will have a significant impact on one’s weorking life from the pages of a newspaper. We understand that there can be no guarantees on this issue, but the House needs to ensure that regular meetings and discussions with the unions take place once a decision has been reached on the future of the Palace.

Secondly, and extremely importantly in our view, we would like the House to make a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies resulting from whatever decision is reached. Such an early and firm commitment would go some way to reassuring those staff on whose engagement, professionalism and goodwill Parliament will rely during what could be several years of uncertainty. We do not underestimate the difficulties of making such a commitment during a potentially multimillion pound relocation programme. But we believe that it is entirely possible to do so.

On staffing issues, our initial concerns – understandably - concern those staff whose jobs are at present tied entirely to the Palace itself. For example, we employ a team of heritage cleaners who have received specific training and developed expertise specifically for the Palace. Information for those individuals – some of our lowest paid staff, all of whom do an unseen but tremendously important job for Parliament – will be crucial.

The same applies to our engineers, all of whom have developed an absolutely unmatched knowledge of the current building. We have in many other forums stressed the importance of this – again mainly unseen – group in keeping the lights on, the heating on and the taps running in the Palace. The future of these individuals must be dealt with in the very early stages of any plans.

In the suggested list of questions aimed primarily at MPs, Peers, staff and other people who work in the Palace, or visit regularly, no 5 stands out for us.

5. Would you like to see any changes made to the Palace of Westminster as part of the work? If so, what would those changes be?

We believe it is crucial that the House is responsive to the requirements of disabled people,whether they be MPs, visitors or – most importantly from our point of view – staff. Resources and focus must be targeted on ensuring that Parliament as a future employer can welcome people of all abilities. In particular, is there a possibility at present that a

225

Trade Union Side, House of Commons - Written evidence (RAR0023) person with impaired or restricted mobility might be unable to access certain parts of the Palace in order to work? We believe that there is; such a person would find it hugely difficult to use the seats in the upper gallery designated for Official Report staff, for example. Any R&R project must ensure that all reasonable adjustments – as an absolute minimum – be made so as to allow disabled staff to carry out roles across the House. As an aspiring exemplary employer, the House must be aiming higher than the minimum required in current legislation regarding accessibility for disabled persons. This may involve, for example, modifying physical features of the building or providing auxiliary aids. It should also ensure sufficient dedicated disabled parking spaces for staff.

Question 7 states: How can the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster support the work of Parliament and parliamentarians? What changes do you think are required to the building to adapt to Parliament’s changing needs in the 21st century?

As a responsible employer, the House needs to look at reducing to a minimum the carbon footprint of a restored and renewed Palace of Wstminster. We are sure that this will be a prime consdieration. However, any decant – which may, after all, last for a number of years – will have an environmental impact of its own. What steps are being taken to ensure that the carbon footprint of those buildings chosen for the decant is also kept to a minimum?

The use of alternative buildings might provide an opportunity for Parliament to re-examine its sitting hours. Despite some laudible steps in this area, the concept of “family-friendly working” is still honoured more in the breach than in the observance here. An obvious way of reducing the carbon footprint of Parliament would be to reduce the number of late evening or night sittings, with the consequent lower energy consumption after dark. Would such a change, resulting indirectly from R&R, provide staff with a better work/life balance by reducing their requirement to work antisocial hours? We believe that it would, but more exmaination will need to be done.

On Delivery, question 11 states:

What, in your view, would be the most appropriate means to deliver the changes which you would like to see made to the Palace of Westminster?

The question as to how the restoration of the Palace should be carried out is, as we suggested, a matter of national importance and debate. But the TUS is more concerned with the more domestic aspects of any change. First, all work, and all working practices, must fully observe relevant health and safety law, and associated codes of practice. As we have stated, our primary concern is that we have an input into the process by which a decision is made and that, subsequent to it, we have a similar input in how that decision is implemented. Along with the building itself, the staff of the House is its greatest asset. Decisions regarding the one are inextricably linked to the other and the Trade Union Side must take a significant role in future discussions on both.

21 January 2016

226

Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch - Written evidence (RAR0036)

1. We are the Unite Parliamentary Staff branch, the only trade union branch to represent staff of MPs and Lords. We have over 500 members, working both in Westminster and in constituencies throughout the UK, and we are fully cross-party, with members working for MPs of all political stripes.

2. We naturally have a keen interest in the future of the Parliamentary estate, although continual turnover of staff means that many of our members will no longer be employed in Parliament when the proposed changes will take place after 2020. Nonetheless, we wish to have our voice heard as daily users of Parliament, for ourselves and for future members.

3. The question of whether to leave the Palace of Westminster entirely and relocate Parliament for a period or to undertake works on a piecemeal basis is one that we are not fully competent to address; we will make no definitive recommendation on that point. We do wish to ensure, however, that certain principles are considered.

a. We recognise the large sums of money involved, and want to see that value is met for the taxpayer. b. Many of our members are currently located in the Palace of Westminster, and we want assurance that any temporary location would provide space and facilities for them to continue their work supporting MPs. c. Other members are based elsewhere on the Parliamentary estate. We note that the proposals are for any alternative location to be in central London, and we want clarity on the location because the nearness of the Chamber dictates our ability to work with our employers. d. We want staff facilities to be retained, both on the remaining estate and on any temporary location. We note that in the past few years one of the few staff facilities, Bellamy’s Bar, was closed in order to open a crèche that while welcome, is beyond the financial reach of most staff.

4. We have other concerns that we would also like to see addressed. If the Palace were to be shut down for a period of years, it would be important to ensure that adequate catering facilities would be provided for staff remaining on the rest of the estate. Many of the food outlets on the estate are based in the Palace, including the Terrace, the River Restaurant, and Moncrieff’s. Depending on the numbers of residual staff, it may be necessary to provide more outlets elsewhere, particularly since Bellamy’s Restaurant has traditionally closed during recess periods. Post Office and other facilities will also have to be guaranteed.

5. Naturally, whichever option is chosen will cause a great deal of disruption as well as noise and potentially other forms of pollution. We are sure that health and safety concerns will be high on the priorities of the project, but want to flag up as well that currently noisy works are often scheduled during recesses with a view that without

227

Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch - Written evidence (RAR0036)

MPs present, loud drilling and other noises can be made continuously. Of course, noise will be inevitable, but we want to make sure that consideration will continue to be given to the non-MPs who will continue to work in proximity to the construction.

6. As the consultation makes clear, this process is an opportunity for Parliament to seek to improve itself and make it a better, safer, more accessible site fit for the modern world. We welcome this focus, and in particular want to stress the importance of accessibility. While some of the newer parts of the estate are better-equipped for disabled people, you will be aware that the Palace in particular (and the Norman Shaw buildings) are not easy to navigate by foot. This should be a clear priority in any upgrades that are made, for staff and for the public.

7. On a related point, we are of course aware of security and other reasons why Parliament has limited maps and signage throughout the estate. We believe that there is a strong case though, for step-free routes to be made much clearer. Not knowing these makes journeys across the estate longer, more difficult and more painful for anybody who permanently or temporarily has walking impairments. We would hope that the aim would be for full accessibility, as for example currently the chapel is not accessible by wheelchair.

8. We understand that there is no dedicated room available for Muslim prayer. Apparently one of the Committee Rooms is temporarily used during Ramadan, but this is not appropriate, and we urge that a permanent space be found, as well as consideration being given to whether other facilities should be developed for the use of people of other faiths.

9. It will doubtless already be a part of the plans, but we would hope that after the refurbishment there would be better wi-fi across the Palace, which has many notorious not-spots.

10. We will of course be happy to continue to be involved in this process, and would appreciate being consulted as matters arise that impact upon staff.

22 January 2016

228

The Rt Hon Lord Wallace of Saltaire - Written evidence (RAR0007)

To move, or to manage a rolling programme while one or both of the two Houses remain? 1. Comprehensive restoration of the Palace of Westminster is overdue, and should not be left – like the issue of an additional airport runway in the South-East – to successive enquiries without reaching a conclusion. The most cost-effective, and efficient, way to manage this restoration is to move both Houses out of the Palace for an extended period. 2. I was taken on a tour of the basement some years ago, which persuaded me of the need for a major programme of renewal. The scale of the works required makes it difficult and costly to complete while the Palace is still being actively used for political purposes. 3. Plans to do so have existed in outline for several years; I first heard about draft proposals to move the Commons out to the QEII Centre, and the Lords to Church House, in 2008-9. Members of both Houses could continue to use most of their current offices during this ‘decant’. Proposed reduction in the size of the Commons from 650-600 would ease the task of moving those MPs whose offices are at present within the Palace itself. The need to do the same in the Lords would act as an additional incentive to reduce its current size. 4. The most appropriate point at which to move out would be at the beginning of a Parliament: ideally, therefore, in 2020. If it were possible to complete restoration and renewal within five years, then one entire Parliament would operate under this arrangement, with successful return after the following general election. 5. Alternative proposals – to move the Commons into the Lords for a Parliament, and then to restore the Lords and its associated offices and committee rooms during the following Parliament, for instance – would further distance the second chamber from the first, and so weaken the constructive scrutiny role of the Lords. This would be a lengthier, and more expensive operation. Attempting to work round the two Houses – and their committees and staff – would require longer summer recesses to allow opportunity for uninterrupted working, and would no doubt be far costlier still. 6. Under any of these plans, there would be a strong argument for Parliament to consider occasional meetings in other parts of the UK. September sittings, if maintained while restoration is underway, could experimentally be held in other cities: universities, for example, are not in full use in the first two weeks of September. A fortnightly sitting of Parliament in York, Manchester, Glasgow or Cardiff (in successive years) might help to bring Parliament a little closer to public opinion, and reduce the excessively London-centric culture of national politics.

229

The Rt Hon Lord Wallace of Saltaire - Written evidence (RAR0007)

Renewal and adaptation 7. The Palace has, unavoidably, to serve a range of incompatible functions: to be a working Parliament, to attract large numbers of British citizens wishing to lobby their MPa, to hear debates and to participate in all-party meetings with MPs and peers, and to accommodate rising numbers of tourists who wish to visit this ‘iconic’ site. But in this respect it is not unique: the US Capitol and the German Bundestag, for example, face the same cross-pressures. 8. Renewal should enable a degree of adaptation to manage the rising flow of visitors, both in terms of security checks and in terms of accommodation. Educational facilities, possibly including a duplicate (smaller-size?) Commons chamber, would improve the experience for visiting schoolchildren; I look to others more expert to advise on how best to improve the tourist experience and the flow through security. 9. One adaptation that would make for a considerable improvement in security, as well as in the aesthetic appearance of the Palace and its environs, would be to close Old Palace Yard to traffic; thus enabling the removal of the unsightly steel barriers, but also opening up the space to pedestrian visitors. This proposal was floated under the last Mayor of London, linked to the plan to close off two sides of Parliament Square as part of the ‘London Squares for People’ initiative. Traffic into and out of the Palace of Westminster would continue to flow through Black Rod’s Garden entrance and the gates of New Palace Yard; the space in between would be closed to traffic, with more discreet barriers than those currently in place. 10. The Palace of Westminster is part of a World Heritage site, together with Westminster Abbey. Kings, judges and others used to pass between the two, in procession or on their daily business; the door in the north transept of the Abbey, which leads to Old Palace Yard, was the daily entrance used by successive kings and members of the royal household. Reuniting the two parts of this World Heritage Site, which was built as a linked group of buildings, would alleviate the criticisms from UNESCO that the site is suffering from intrusive traffic, and might also moderate UNESCO criticism of the site on other grounds – chiefly over the impact of newly-built high buildings on sight-lines. It would also improve the visitor experience; Parliament, the coronation and burial church of English (and British) kings, and the Supreme Court would appear as parts of a historic constitutional ensemble.

14 December 2015

230

David Watkinson - Written evidence (RAR0012)

My thoughts are on the restoration of the historic furniture. I think this should be done in house by myself and our teams.

15 January 2016

231

Women and Equalities Committee, House of Commons - Written evidence (RAR0065)

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne has recently written to the Women and Equalities Committee sharing her submission to your Joint Committee regarding the condition of sensorineural hearing impairment technology in the Palace of Westminster.

We agree with Baroness Nicholson that, unfortunately, the technology currently used is faulty and outdated. We feel that the restoration programme provides an excellent opportunity for the Palace to become a more accommodating place for all those with disabilities and would greatly appreciate if the Joint Committee could take this into account both in relation to any temporary relocation and in the final design of the restored Palace

Rt Hon Maria Miller MP Chair, Women and Equalities Committee

08 March 2016

232

Mark Wyman and Cara Clark - Written evidence (RAR0040)

Submission to be found under Cara Clark

233