Chapter 4: Longer-term resilience of Parliament
Business continuity planning
105.The speed of Parliament’s response to the pandemic was all the more remarkable considering that its plans had to be developed from scratch. Lord Newby observed: “Just as the Government were pretty unprepared to deal with coronavirus in a sensible manner, Parliament was completely unprepared for the concept of no one being able to come [to the Palace of Westminster] for a period. There was no contingency planning.”102 Although business continuity plans existed for a range of circumstances, they did not cover the introduction of social distancing requirements. Lord McFall told us that the House of Lords administration was revising its business continuity plans in light of the experience.103
106.It is regrettable that the potential impact of social-distancing requirements to tackle a pandemic had not been considered in Parliament’s business continuity planning. We note that such an omission was not unique to Parliament; many other organisations faced the same dilemma of operating in a different manner without any plans for doing so being in place. We recommend the House of Lords Commission conducts a lessons-learned exercise on Parliament’s response to the pandemic as part of revising its business continuity plans. In doing so it should seek input from members and take into account the importance of Parliament continuing to hold the Government to account whatever the circumstances.
Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster
107.Parliament’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is pertinent to the long-running discussion about restoring the Palace of Westminster. In 2018 both Houses agreed resolutions to proceed with the works on the basis of a full decant of the Palace of Westminster, as the quickest, cheapest and safest option.104
108.Some witnesses suggested that Parliament should consider the impact of pandemic ways of working on plans to restore the Palace of Westminster.105 Lord Hunt emphasised that should not result in a delay to the works,106 as did Lord Harris, who told us:
“There is a great danger that people will say that because things have worked reasonably well, we either do not need to worry about restoration and renewal or that the decant arrangements could be much more rough and ready than was previously envisaged. I think that would be a mistake … I would be very concerned if the people who cannot face the idea of restoration and renewal and moving out of the Palace see this as an opportunity to put the whole thing off. The building is falling to bits. We may no longer be quite so aware of it because we are not going in, but the dangers remain.”107
109.The Sponsor Body, which was established by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019108 to oversee the restoration works on Parliament’s behalf, conducted a strategic review of the restoration and renewal programme in 2020. The review explored the possibility that working practices adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic might result in a reduction of Parliament’s accommodation requirements, particularly in the light of the potentially high cost of constructing temporary decant accommodation for both Houses.
110.The outcome of the strategic review was published on 11 March 2021. On the possibility of relying on virtual proceedings during the works it said:
“While both Houses have demonstrated that it is possible for their core proceedings (chamber and committees) to be undertaken remotely, in general terms the feedback received from members of both Houses suggested that there is a low appetite among Members … to consider continuing with these arrangements post-COVID-19. Thus, planning for decant should not rely on … virtual or hybrid arrangements, which cannot fully replace the value of face-to-face working, including voting in person.”109
111.The House of Commons Procedure Committee has recommended that the House of Commons administration should “develop the capacity and capability of virtual participation, in case it becomes of future value for business continuity purposes or Restoration and Renewal.”110
112.The review confirmed that the condition of the Palace is deteriorating faster than it can be fixed, and that a period of full decant is still likely to be necessary to complete the works. The Public Accounts Committee had previously criticised the lack of progress with the programme considering its urgency.111 The National Audit Office had also previously cautioned that the lack of consistent political support for the programme posed a significant risk to its successful delivery.112
113.While it is a parliamentary rather than a government programme, the progress and success of the programme will, in part, depend on the Government’s support. Despite both Houses agreeing to proceed with the works on the basis of a full decant, and the programme’s long-established planning assumptions that both Houses will be decanted elsewhere on the parliamentary estate during the works, the Prime Minister wrote to the chief executives of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority in July 2020 to suggest that all options for progressing the works, including the possibility of both Houses remaining in the Palace or a partial decant, should be reconsidered as part of the strategic review, including the possibility of relocating Parliament outside London.113
114.We note that the House of Lords Commission considers the programme on a regular basis, including close working with the Sponsor Body, and remains supportive of the resolution agreed by the House of Lords on 6 February 2018.114
115.We recommend that the House administration consider how its temporary accommodation requirements during decant may change, given that remote working may be more common by the time that both Houses need to decant from the Palace of Westminster.
116.We recommend that the House administration should continue to develop its capacity to support virtual proceedings, in case this is required to support Parliament’s future business continuity arrangements or the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.
117.We welcome the House of Lords Commission’s ongoing support for proceeding with the Restoration and Renewal programme on the basis of the resolutions endorsed by both Houses, including a full decant of the Palace of Westminster as the quickest, cheapest and safest option. However, we regret the continued delays in delivering the programme. While some delays have inevitably resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, the apparent lack of support from the Government for the programme is regrettable. Parliament has demonstrated resilience in the face of the pandemic, yet the continued deterioration of the Palace of Westminster increases the risk of both Houses being forced to resort to virtual methods of working in future.
104 HC Deb, 31 January 2018, cols 878–939 and HL Deb, 6 February 2018, cols 1916–2000
105 Written evidence from Lord Norton of Louth (CIC0002) and Lord Lucas (CIC0004), and Q 75 (Lord Newby)
109 Restoration and Renewal Programme, Strategic Review (March 2021), para 131
111 Public Accounts Committee, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster (Nineteenth Report, Session 2019–21, HC 549)
112 National Audit Office, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme (Report, Session 2019–21, HC 315)
113 See letter from Prime Minister to Sarah Johnson and David Goldstone, CEOs of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, 15 July 2020: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2020-0426/Letter_PM_to_Mr_David_Goldstone_CBE_and_Ms_Sarah_Johnson.pdf. The CEOs’ response, 18 August 2020: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2020-0504/Letter_to_Prime_Minister_Scope_of_Strategic_Review_R_R.pdf confirmed that the Speakers of both Houses, who were consulted on the possibility of locating Parliament outside London, agreed that it would not be appropriate for the programme to consider this possibility as it was a matter for Parliament rather than the programme.
114 See HL Deb, 12 March 2020, col 1093 and House of Lords Commission minutes: 15 September 2020, 6 October 2020 and 30 November 2020