22.In the course of our inquiry it became apparent that for R&R to succeed there must be an ‘intelligent client’ shaping the process and making key decisions regarding the programme of parliamentary building works. In oral evidence, we were asked by a witness to reflect on “how… Parliament [can] be the intelligent client it needs to be, so that when things start, they proceed as they should and the outcomes are what you expected”. Becky Clark, who set us this task, explained:
The intelligent client approach is the best way I have seen to deliver these kinds of complex projects. What I mean by an intelligent client is this: a client who can define multiple objectives. It is not just one thing you are trying to do here.” [ … ]
An intelligent client then finds a mechanism to fit the buildings that you have to the purposes that you need, which means you have to have a rock solid understanding of both of those things. [ … ] There should also be the purpose of, or statement of, needs—what it is that you actually want to achieve.
[An intelligent client must] put in place strong and effective principles for developing a brief that is based on a business case, which is really important.
23.In the delivery of R&R, it is questionable, however, who the intelligent client will be. Becky Clark discussed Parliament as the intelligent client, but others assumed that this would be the Sponsor Body, although this role is not explicitly set out in the draft Bill. Sir David Natzler helped to explain the “theology” of who the client is in R&R:
The Sponsor Body is the client. It then tells the Delivery Authority what to deliver, but the Sponsor Body has to keep on listening to the ultimate client. [ … ] Their ultimate client is the public.
24.Sir David and Ed Ollard, the Clerk of the Parliaments, confirmed that it would be the Sponsor Body that would make trade-offs between scope, cost and quality. Stephen Dance, Director of Infrastructure Delivery, Infrastructure and |Projects Authority, said that his interpretation of the draft Bill was that it would establish the Sponsor Body in this role:
It [the draft Bill] has a sponsor that can be an intelligent client, and a delivery organisation that can be a proper technical competent delivery organisation. The issue will be in the way that it is executed.
25.Describing how she might expect the system to function, Becky Clark said there is a clear hierarchy and staging of the process that should be followed:
The Delivery Authority, in my mind, will not be formulated and started for a couple of years, because you are not yet able to give them a proper design brief. Before you can get there, Parliament needs to have the principles down. [ … ] Then the Sponsor Body needs to be able to take that on board and build a business case around it—a brief. Only then should the Delivery Authority be constituted. That hierarchy, in my mind, is crucial to the success of similar projects.
26.The plans developed by the Sponsor Body cannot be implemented without consultation with members of both Houses and subsequent parliamentary approval of the proposals. Clause 3 of the draft Bill requires the Sponsor Body to develop a strategy for consulting Members of both Houses. It provides that the strategy must be published within eight weeks of the commencement of those provisions, and the Sponsor Body is required to keep the strategy under review, and publish any revised version.
27.Tom Healey, Programme Director of the Restoration and Renewal Programme, noted the need for flexibility to meet the Bill’s requirement to consult with Members of both Houses:
We have to use Members’ time very wisely. First, we have to have a very co-ordinated approach to engagements, so that we don’t keep coming back to you with the same questions again and again. Secondly, we have to use all the avenues that are open to us. Some Members will respond to a questionnaire, some will come to a drop-in session. We have the existing domestic Committees. We need to make sure that we are using every forum that we can to engage with Members in order to reach the widest possible group.
28.There is, however, no requirement for the Sponsor Body to formally consult with staff be they employed by the Commons or Lords or working for Members. It should also be borne in mind that the Palace of Westminster is the workplace for people who are not employed by either House or by a parliamentarian, such as journalists, civil servants and commercial businesses supplying the Houses’ requirements.
29.Becky Clark explicitly included the consultation of staff in formulating the business plan in her definition of the “intelligent client approach”:
there is a fundamental point at which parliamentarians, or the users of the building, which definitely extends to staff as well[ … ] should be included in the creation and authorisation of the business plan of what you want to deliver and the brief around which the design is built.
30.Liz Peace, Chair of the shadow Sponsor Body, told us that consulting with ‘stakeholders’ is currently the shadow Sponsor Body’s main focus; but we heard that the trade unions, workplace equality networks, and representatives of members’ staff had not had any engagement with the shadow Sponsor Body. Sean House, Chair of ParliAble did, however, explain that the workplace equality networks (WENs) had been consulted by the Northern Estate and R&R programme teams regarding accessibility. Ken Gall, President of the TUS, told us that in the future engagement needs to be formalised:
the House trade unions need to be properly involved in proper formal consultation about the way this is done. As Lord Blunkett and others will know, there is a difference between the dissemination of information to staff and proper consultation with their representatives.
31.Furthermore, Sean House and Georgina Kester, Chair of the Members and Peers Staff Association (MAPSA), said that they would welcome a staff representative role on the Sponsor Body. Ken Gall argued that it was crucial for a member of the Sponsor Body to have explicit responsibility for staff consultation: the responsibility should be part of their job description, and their performance in relation to consultation should form part of their annual appraisal. He preferred this approach rather than that of creating a sub-committee on engagement, as he felt sub-committees tended to focus on process rather than results.
32.We asked about the lack of contact between the shadow Sponsor Body and those representing staff, and we were told that, as a shadow body, it currently can only work via the existing authorities of both Houses, and it has therefore been unable to undertake consultation on its own behalf. We were assured that it is, however, fully aware of the consultation and discussions being led by the House authorities, including those on the Northern Estate Programme.
33.The Crick Centre recommended placing a number of duties on the Sponsor Body to ensure that it engages the public in shaping the renewal of Parliament. The Leader of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, said that there should be widespread consultation but that how this is done should not be written onto the face of the Bill. She told us that the views of the public could be discovered by the parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body consulting with their constituents.
34.Professor Matthew Flinders, Director of the Crick Centre, argued for something much more ambitious than formal consultations and parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body speaking to their constituents:
If you look at similar projects around the world, they have been harnessed as a mechanism to inspire and energise the public. That is exactly the approach that should be taken here. The public are not apathetic. They do not hate politicians. Most of all, the public either do not know how to engage or they feel that when they do engage the decision is already taken anyway, so it is all tokenistic.
35.Detailed consultation processes will be necessary to understand the views of Members, staff, and organisations with an interest in Restoration and Renewal throughout the life of the project. We believe it is necessary to write a duty to consult with staff, and to establish an ongoing process of engagement with the wider public, onto the face of the Bill. If the Sponsor Body failed to fulfil this duty it would be failing in one of its most basic and essential tasks.
36.We recommend that a member of the Sponsor Body is given the specific responsibility of engaging with staff and being a route for staff into the Sponsor Body. This responsibility will carry with it a substantial time commitment and place significant demands on the individual chosen for this task. As such we expect resources to be made available to the member in question to allow them to fulfil their duties in this regard.
37.We are concerned that the Sponsor Body should not settle for formal mechanisms of public consultation when a project of this scale requires a more thorough approach to discovering the views of people from beyond the political sphere. To build and maintain public legitimacy R&R will require a more in-depth and proactive approach so that members of the public from all parts of the UK and all walks of life can become involved in shaping our renewed parliament. The ultimate client in R&R is the public. The Bill should not be amended to specify how the Sponsor Body undertakes consultation, but we recommend that Clause 2(4) be amended to ensure that the Sponsor Body has regard to engaging the public in the development of its strategy for Restoration and Renewal.
38.One of the strongest messages we received from those who gave evidence to us was the vital importance of not making major changes to the objectives of the project once these have been agreed. They acknowledged that, in a project of this kind on a complex and high-profile building, unexpected issues were bound to arise, but they urged Parliament to spend the time and care in developing a clear vision of what it wanted to achieve and then to adhere to that. Stephen Dance of the Infrastructure and |Projects Authority summed up the views of most of our witnesses:
In my experience—and I could give you a list—the times when Government and private sector projects start to go wrong is when the client changes their mind halfway through the construction process. Have the debate in the design development phase, make sure the outcomes you are looking for are clear, then let the organisation get on with delivering them. Scrutinise and monitor them, but don’t change your mind.
39.Liz Peace agreed on the need for having a clear chain of responsibility:
one of the reasons such projects go wrong is that there are too many people instructing the deliverers, and the deliverers in turn then give confused messages to the contractors.
40.The Crick Centre was of the view that the governance structures proposed by the draft Bill were largely in line with best practice in relation to large public sector projects, but they added the caveat that, given the political prominence of this project, “the Sponsor Body-Delivery Authority nexus will have to play a more proactive role in managing key stakeholders than is usually the case.”
41.The Crick Centre noted that establishing a structure that would protect the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority from political interference was central to the governance arrangements:
The proposed governance structure aims to depoliticise the R&R programme. It seeks to distance R&R from what Walter Bagehot called the ‘busybodies and crotchet-makers’ in both Houses who might seek to intervene and interfere to the detriment of the project (and to the detriment of the mental health of those overseeing it) while maintaining accountability to Parliament. Furthermore, the establishment of an ‘independent’ authority delivering the work might assuage public concern and media accusations that this is an example of politicians feather-bedding their nest, taking some of the ‘heat’ out of the project. Finally, neither House has the capacity to assume direct control of the project, and the history of the Palace of Westminster indicates that this would likely end in failure.
42.Tom Healey, Programme Director of the Restoration and Renewal Programme, said “The fact of establishing the Sponsor Body as a statutory body in and of itself gives it a degree of protection from constant interference.” Challenged that the power afforded to the Leader of the House of Commons to abolish the Sponsor Body could be utilised to compel the Sponsor Body to make changes to the project at the whim of Parliament, Liz Peace told us that the Estimates Commission would provide a degree of protection:
if indeed that happened, we would have to identify the cost of doing that. That would actually involve going back to the Estimates Commission, and if it exceeded what had been agreed would be voted, it would in turn have to go back to the whole House.
43.Clause 6(4)(a) requires the Sponsor Body to seek “further Parliamentary approval” before “proceeding with Delivery Authority proposals that the Sponsor Body considers would significantly affect the design or timing of Palace restoration works”. Becky Clark told us this provision presented a potential challenge to the success of the R&R programme:
I was somewhat alarmed by the foreword to the draft Bill, where it is mentioned that parliamentarians of both Houses will have the chance to consider what is described as “significant changes”. That is far too vague. [ … ] Successful and timely delivery of any major project means that changes can occur only at certain points.
44.Sir David Natzler and Ed Ollard told us that, in their view, “significant changes” was too low a bar to prevent undesirable levels of political interference in the rebuilding project:
we think that “significantly” should be replaced by “substantially”. Our concern is that almost any change could be “significant” in someone’s eyes, and a higher threshold is preferable to avoid pressure for Parliamentary approvals on minor details.
45.While we accept the point Sir David and Mr Ollard were making, we do not think there is a sufficient difference in the threshold of “significant” versus “substantial” change to prevent the interference they fear.
46.Contemplating what might constitute “significant changes”, Matthew Vickerstaff, Interim Chief Executive of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, thought it difficult to define but suggested “if there is a big change of the likely re-entry time of Parliament’s two Houses into the building, in our view that would count as a significant change.” Stephen Dance said that it might not be possible to decide what constitutes a significant change before the business case was agreed:
At this stage, we have not really got a project, because we do not have an agreed output, programme or cost. When the Sponsor Body and the delivery organisation have produced them, through the outline business case process, it will be perfectly legitimate for them to say, and for Parliament to decide, what would represent a significant change. But it will be measured by reference to those three things—cost, programme or output.
47.In this context, we welcome the determination of the Chair of the shadow Sponsor Body to plan carefully and then implement the agreed programme:
We will set the scope of the project, and once we have done that, I believe we have to stick to that, barring some irrepressible need for a particular change. We have to be very clear about what we are doing, how long it is going to take, and what it is actually going to cost.
48.We agree that the Sponsor Body should be required to seek the approval of Parliament before implementing any significant changes to the Restoration and Renewal programme. Removing this duty would run the risk of the project spiralling out of control without parliamentary oversight. For the success of the Restoration and Renewal programme, the definition of “significant changes” for which obtaining parliamentary approval would be proportionate must be established, once the business case has been agreed.
49.Overall, we are satisfied that the structure of Governance proposed by the draft Bill provides sufficient independence to limit political interference in Restoration and Renewal. In Chapter 4 we discuss the various agreements that will govern the relationships between Parliament, the Sponsor Body, and the Delivery Authority and observe how they will shape the process for making changes to the agreed plans.
50.We have already touched on the issue of whether the Bill should place specific requirements on the Sponsor Body in exercising its functions. Clause 2(4) of the draft Bill lists seven areas which the Sponsor Body must have regard to:
(i) any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the Parliamentary building works are being carried out, and
(ii) the Palace of Westminster (after completion of those works)
51.This list is based on the priorities identified in both Houses when the motion to proceed with the Restoration and Renewal project was debated. We have considered whether further requirements should be laid upon the Sponsor Body.
52.The final two functions listed in clause 2(4) relate to Parliament’s relationship with the public. We have already discussed the need for Parliament to take the opportunity of the Restoration and Renewal Programme to improve opportunities for public engagement with Parliament. We could not understand why, unlike the other areas listed, the provision of educational facilities in the restored Palace was considered “desirable” rather than necessary. Furthermore, while we have no doubt that improving visitor access to the Palace is necessary, it seems to us to lack necessary ambition, particularly in relation to those who have no practical means of visiting Parliament in person. We note that, in its supplementary evidence, the Crick Centre suggested there should be added to the list the need to promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament, especially with regard to the regions of England and the devolved nations.
53.We recommend that Clause 2(4) be amended to place on the Sponsor Body the requirement to take account of “the need” rather than “the desirability” of ensuring educational and other facilities are provided in the restored Palace. We also recommend that a further point be added to the list concerning the need to promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament. This should give the Sponsor Body the opportunity to consider how the building can be adapted to enable greater outreach.
54.In written evidence Historic England said that heritage conservation should be referred to specifically within the Bill. They suggested a new sub-paragraph should be added to Clause 2(4)which would explicitly require the Sponsor Body to have regard to:
the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.
55.Historic England considered that the programme of restoration and renewal could be “done in a way that is sensitive to the historic nature of the building, while meeting modern standards of accessibility and functionality.” However, it called for greater emphasis to be placed on full excavation of archaeological deposits that may be uncovered by the works. It also said that R&R would present an opportunity for “insensitive alterations and additions to be removed or replaced”. In 2016 the Joint Committee on Restoration and Renewal agreed that the R&R programme would provide an opportunity to emphasise the architectural value of the existing buildings, open areas which are restricted or underused and remove long–standing but temporary additions which no longer serve a purpose.
56.Describing the challenge of making decisions about conservation, Historic England said:
Historic England believes in constructive conservation, which seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. So less important fabric does not need to be as rigorously protected as that of greater significance to the history of the place. Inevitably, on a site in such continuous and intensive use, the full significance may not always be clear, and short-term expediency will have led to damage and concealment. The full programme of change will need clear information on the original and subsequent use and symbolism of each part of the site. The programme should assess these as well as future needs.
57.Becky Clark advised us that, because of the archaeological significance of the Palace of Westminster, it would be beneficial for the Bill to include a requirement that the Sponsor Body had regard to historic conservation. Ms Clark added, however, that this requirement should take no greater precedence than any other placed on the Sponsor Body. Professor Flinders was essentially supportive of Ms Clark’s proposal but identified tension between the conservation of the past and the opportunity for a broad and ambitious version of ‘renewal’:
My concern is that when it comes to emphasising the renewal element of the project, there is a slight risk that heritage and security might become reasons not to do things. For me, it is being aware of the potential trade-off or tension between them, but I would not have any problem having that clause in, as long as it was accompanied by one that said that the Sponsor Board should have a duty to promote the public understanding of, and engagement with, parliamentary democracy.
58.Sean House, Chair of ParliAble, sounded a similar note of caution when he told us that: “in the past, accessibility and inclusion has always had to fight with security considerations and, principally, heritage considerations. It is normally the smallest child of three and gets overlooked. “
59.Explaining how trade-offs between historic conservation and renewing a buildings purpose can be made, Becky Clark said:
The heritage is a fundamental part, not just of the building’s significance, [ … ] but of its identity, the way people feel about it, the way people use it and the way the building has been used—often for centuries, in the case of cathedrals. The imperative in modern terms is not to preserve it in aspic, but to sensibly and responsibly manage change. If you think about the heritage concern in those terms, it becomes less of an oppositional force to trying to do new things.
60.We are sympathetic to concerns that an explicit provision protecting the heritage of the building could override opportunities to renew and enhance its purpose. Renewal should not stand in opposition to conservation and—in the most prosaic terms—improved lighting, heating and IT can do as much to enhance and protect the historic features of the Palace as they will to underpin improved accessibility and greater public engagement.
61.Given the historical and archaeological significance of Palace of Westminster we recommend that Clause 2(4) be amended so that the Sponsor Body has regard to the UNESCO World Heritage status of the Palace of Westminster and its environs. This requirement should not, however, automatically take precedence over any other legal requirement, especially that relating to access for people with disabilities.
62.Clause 2(4)(a) requires the Sponsor Body, when exercising its functions to “have regard to … the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money.” Some of our witnesses were concerned that this term was imprecise. The joint submission from Sir David Natzler and Ed Ollard said ‘good value for money’ “needs context to be meaningful, and it is not clear how this is to be assessed.” The Chair of the shadow Sponsor Body accepted that “ the phrase ‘good value for money’ can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people” but thought the Sponsor Body was up to the challenge:
What we will then need to do is to look at the extra value that will be created by doing other things while we are taking apart the innards of the Palace of Westminster. That is where the value-for-money judgments will become, dare I say, subjective, but in a way that is what the Sponsor Board is going to have to do.
Having got the base finance, or worked out what the base programme is, it will be about looking at how we seize the opportunity to improve the visitor experience. [ … ]
I see the Sponsor Board looking at each of the areas where there is potential for added value. Sometimes, of course, that value is going to be quite difficult to quantify. Obviously, we will do it all properly, by the Treasury Green Book and all that sort of thing. We will have to look at our business case, and look at all these individual features. I always have arguments with the Treasury about how you quantify the non-financial benefits of something.
63.Commenting on how the non–cash benefits are valued, Tom Healey noted that there would be a role for the Infrastructure Projects Authority (IPA):
We will have to make sure that we take the right advice from the Treasury and the IPA, and we will have to make sure that we have the right expertise in the team to do that.
64.Matthew Vickerstaff of the IPA said that using the Treasury’s Green Book analysis allowed for non–monetised benefits to be evaluated, noting that it was “partly scientific”, “slightly an art form” but “creates a very disciplined approach”. Stephen Dance added that establishing the principles of the project would help to determine the value of the wider benefits:
The solution is to have a clear view of the outcome that one is looking for. That could be better public access, better circulation around the building or the ability to access or be adaptable to modern technology. There will be a set of principles that the Sponsor Board set up by this Bill will enable you to agree on. Then it is a question of measuring the way in which those outputs are achieved and the cost of those outputs, and coming to a judgment as to where the value-for-money equation lies. The techniques that Matthew referred to in the Green Book for doing that will be helpful and will be available to the Sponsor Body and the delivery organisation to access and use to build the outline business case that will come before Parliament.
65.Maintaining control over the costs of even the most basic aspects of Restoration and Renewal will be no easy task for the Sponsor Body. Nevertheless, there exist well-established processes that will enable the Sponsor Body to monitor whether value for money is being achieved both in the restoration of the fabric of the Palace and in determining the added value of those parts of the work that are designed to enhance public engagement and understanding of the political process.
66.We welcome the Chair of the shadow Sponsor Body’s assurance that she will challenge the Treasury regarding the non–cashable benefits of the programme if it becomes necessary. We are confident that the Sponsor Body will make the case for the value of those aspects of R&R that will drive public participation in parliamentary democracy. The challenge of delivering value for money underlines how vital it is to agree a clear vision of what Restoration and Renewal is intended to achieve.
67.The United Kingdom’s threat level from international terrorism is at severe, meaning that a terrorist attack on the UK mainland is highly likely. The Houses of Parliament is known to be a target for terrorists. In March 2017, PC Keith Palmer was murdered within the precincts of the Palace in an attack which saw the deaths of four other innocent people.
68.Clause 2(4)(b) of the draft Bill provides that the Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, must have regard to “ the need to ensure that [the] works are carried out with a view to ensuring the safety of people who work in Parliament and of members of the public.”The draft Bill does not contain any other provision addressing security.
69.The comprehensive rebuilding required by the Restoration and Renewal programme will inevitably present challenges for those responsible for the security of the Houses of Parliament. We have every confidence that they will successfully meet those challenges, but they will need the cooperation of the Sponsor Body in order to do so. We recommend that Clause 2(4)(b) of the draft Bill is amended to provide that the Sponsor Body must have regard to the safety and security of the people who work in Parliament and members of the public when carrying out its functions.
70.Clause 2(4)(d) requires the Sponsor Body have regard to the need to “ensure that any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the Parliamentary building works are being carried out is accessible to members of the public”. The Clerks of both Houses expressed concern at the unqualified nature of this provision: “not all parts of Parliament are or should be open to the public. The important right to be preserved is democratic access to the proceedings of Parliament.” We agree with that view.
71.Members of the public must be able to exercise their democratic right to access the proceedings of Parliament throughout the Restoration and Renewal programme. We recommend clause 2(4)(d) is amended to reflect the fact that this essential right is not the same as an unqualified right of access.
72.Given the scale of taxpayer investment it is essential that the R&R project benefits the whole of the UK and not only London. In the long–term this could be achieved by creating a building which is more welcoming and accessible to people from all parts of the UK, but a nationwide benefit could also be achieved during the process of construction. The leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, said
there is an opportunity for UK SMEs and specialists to take full part in the work. The Sponsor Body would be keen to ensure that happens, and I have certainly had lots of letters from different organisations interested in taking part in this conservation and restoration.
73.Sir David Natzler noted that developing apprenticeships will be of great importance to the project, especially in relation to trades and skills that are not readily available at present. Ms Leadsom said that ensuring that R&R benefits British businesses should be a “fundamental” aspect of the project and that the Sponsor Body’s process of consultation could encourage SMEs to become involved.
74.We explored whether the draft Bill should be amended to encourage or, indeed, require prioritisation of British businesses in delivering the building works. The Leader of the House noted that some specialisms are only available from businesses in other countries and therefore a prescriptive approach would not be helpful. Sir David Natzler, however, thought the Bill could include a provision related to nationwide benefit. Sir David said it would be perfectly reasonable to say that there must be due regard to the need for the economic advantage of the expenditure to be spread across the United Kingdom.
75.Ed Ollard was sceptical that increasing the provisions in the Bill would be helpful to the Sponsor Body:
This programme’s effective delivery will depend on relationships between all the constituent bits and understandings. To try to tie too many of them down in the Bill will end up creating a really complicated cat’s cradle of different legal responsibilities. I would be cautious about putting such a requirement in, given that [ … ] from the original Joint Committee onwards, the wish to ensure that the whole country benefits from the investment made in this programme is perfectly well understood.
76.We consider it vital that the opportunity be seized to produce advantages for the whole UK. These should include the development of apprenticeships and investment in shortage skills, proportionate capital funding for all nations and regions, the fostering of smaller businesses to undertake many of the specialist roles that the project will require, and ensuring that commercial opportunities are spread throughout the UK. We do not wish to be prescriptive about how to achieve these benefits, but we note the opportunities provided by the Government’s Construction Industry Strategy to engage with the industry in areas such as training and skills. We are also aware that, although there is a tension between maximising economic benefits and obtaining value for money, the private sector groups heading large-scale projects such as the expansion of Heathrow Airport and Crossrail have allocated resources to ensuring the benefits of their building works are spread beyond a narrow geographical area and ‘the usual suspects’. Arguably, an even clearer duty lies on Parliament to follow this approach.
77.There should be an audit of the Sponsor Body’s success in achieving this and it will be for Parliament as the ultimate client to hold the Sponsor Body to account for creating nationwide benefit from Restoration and Renewal.
20 Qs239 & 244
23 Clause 3(2), (3) and (4) of the draft Bill.
24 Q 6
28 Insert Ref
30 Q152, Q155
38 DPB 003, para 7
39 DPB 003, para 3
41 Clause 9(2)
43 Clause 6(4)(a) draft Bill
49 DPB 002, p 3
50 Ibid, p 1
51 Ibid, p 2
52 Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, 8 September 2016, HC 659 2016–17, paras 232–233
53 DPB 002, p 2
57 Clause 2(4)(a) draft Bill
63 See the MI5 websites for more information https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels
64 Clause 2(4)(b) Bill
68 Q176, Q188
Published: 21 March 2019