Without action, the Palace of Westminster will, at best, be in a process of managed decline.
At worst, a catastrophic event could occur that endangers lives and interrupts the functioning of democracy in the UK.
In a new report on the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) programme for the World Heritage Site that is the Houses of Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) highlights areas where further work is needed on the R&R programme, ahead of a Parliamentary vote by MPs and Peers around differing options as to how far they will remain in or vacate Parliament when works are undertaken.
The PAC warns that each year of delay in this decision comes at a significant cost of another annual £420m.
Image: Early concept design for proposed visitor space underneath Central Lobby, subject to change and approval - Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority Ltd
Parliament’s spend on maintaining the Palace of Westminster is expected to hit £2m/wk, from its current levels of £1.5m/wk. Indeed, the cost to the taxpayer of the delay till the end of ’26 of the vote to determine the way forward (which had been expected before Easter) is up to £290m.
One critical risk to R&R is the schedule for providing temporary accommodation for decanted MPs and Peers. All the various options for moving forward depend on temporary accommodation being ready on time. The plan would be for the Commons to move to Parliament’s Northern Estate, and the Lords to the QE2 Conference Centre - but the refurbishment of the first is delayed, and the acquisition of the second is taking longer than it should. The R&R Programme is not in fact currently in overall charge of providing a new venue for MPs and Peers to temporarily work - something the PAC’s report recommends could change.
The PAC’s report further warns that many MPs and Peers may not feel ready to make a significant spending decision affecting the operation of Parliament for decades. This is because the level of engagement with Parliamentarians about the scope, purpose and intended outcomes of R&R has not been good enough. The R&R Client Team, which is in charge of the Programme’s strategic direction, had engaged around 43% of sitting MPs about R&R at June ’26, and a new set of MPs will need briefing following the next General Election. The PAC is calling for a plan from the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament for how they will engage Parliamentarians and staff in R&R.
Also critical to building confidence with Parliamentarians that the main works can be delivered well will be delivering other early and enabling works well following the vote. There is a £3bn capped budget for this first phase, with £500m for contingency. The PAC’s report finds that there remain three areas that still need costing, including: riverside security; isolating, decommissioning, and relocating the Palace's essential services (such as electricity and plumbing); and restoration of the medieval cloister court. The report seeks remaining cost estimates, and what overall contingency is left over.
Finally, the PAC considers it vital that, in preserving the symbol of our democracy for future generations, R&R is subject to proper public scrutiny and is fully transparent in its use of taxpayers’ money. To that end, Government should bring forward proposals for a dedicated R&R Select Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “There has long been a political allergy to gripping the nettle that is R&R. I would urge all those who believe a decision on how to proceed should be further delayed to digest the figures in our report, showing each kick of the can down the road costs hundreds of millions in public money. They should then imagine the blow suffered by the UK’s morale and reputation of some kind of catastrophic failure. A lack of action risks, for instance, the Chamber being plunged into darkness during the State Opening of Parliament. Consider the impact of global rolling news footage of Notre Dame-like flames licking out of the building’s roof, resulting in the destruction of our heritage, or worse, injuries or loss of life. These are not notional possibilities, but real and rising risks which our Committee identified three years ago.
“All options ahead involve extremely high figures with very big ranges. At a time of national fiscal constraint, we would expect the Parliamentary Authorities to examine these figures extremely carefully to see how they can be reduced before the vote on Phase 2 on 2030.
“As the vote from Parliamentarians on how to best proceed with this complicated restoration project approaches, then, it is incumbent on the programme to provide as much detailed certainty for Members of both Houses as possible to provide them confidence they are making the right best-informed decisions. Perhaps most critically, questions must be answered as to where MPs and Peers will go in the event of a full decant; delays are continuing to cast a shadow over confirmed homes for both. We hope our report provides a helpful guide for the programme in how to tighten up its governance and open itself up to further scrutiny. Similarly for Members of both Houses, we hope our findings help guide them in their decision, as we move towards taking the next step in protecting this priceless piece of world heritage for future generations.”
