London : 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. 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.
Chair quote
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.”
Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Costing and governance
(Nineteenth Report of Session 2026–27)
Summary
The Restoration and Renewal Programme (the Programme) has reached a critical stage with the Client Board’s publication of its costed proposals paper. The Houses of Parliament are a world heritage site, and we are under international obligations to maintain it properly. Parliamentarians are being asked to reduce the number of delivery options being developed from four to two: Full Decant; and Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus (EMI+). The full range of options is as follows:
- Full Decant (£11.1 billion to £15.6 billion, 19 to 24 years): Where both Houses move out of the Palace for much of the works.
- Continued Presence (£14.4 billion to £22 billion, 33 to 45 years): Where the House of Lords would move out for 24 to 33 years, but the Commons would continue to sit in a chamber in the Palace throughout the works.
- Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement (EMI) (£23.3 billion to £56.3 billion, 52 to 84 years): Where the Palace would be split up into 14 zones to be worked in on stages, aiming to ensure that no more than 30% of the Palace would be decanted at any one time. This option would seek to allow members to sit in both chambers throughout the Programme.
- Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus (EMI+) (£19.5 billion to £39.2 billion, 38 to 61 years): Similar to the above, but with the House of Lords being decanted for eight to 13 years, and the Commons using the Lords Chamber for up to two years.
All these options involve 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 in 2030.
Parliamentarians are also being asked to commit to a seven-year programme of Phase One works, currently capped at £3 billion. In doing so they should consider it will be difficult and costly not to proceed with the entire project.
Parliament currently spends around £1.5 million a week maintaining the Palace of Westminster, which is expected to grow to £2 million a week, while the list of health and safety incidents continues to grow. Without action, at best the Palace will 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. It is crucial that we preserve the Palace as a symbol of our democracy. A failure to act would have serious consequences for taxpayers and future generations.
The costs of delaying a decision are significant: each year of delay adds up to £420 million to the potential lifetime cost of delivering the Programme. The costed proposals were based on the assumption that a vote to determine the way forward would take place before Easter 2026, which did not happen. The Clerks of both Houses consider that the estimated cost has already grown owing to the delay, with up to £290 million being added from the vote being delayed beyond the summer until the end of 2026. There are also wider risks to supplier confidence if the Programme cannot clearly decide a way forward soon.
Our inquiry into Restoration and Renewal had the objective of collecting information for Members ahead of the forthcoming Parliamentary vote on the Client Board’s costed proposals. We have not endorsed a particular way forward in this Report, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so. Rather, we have tested the value for money and governance arrangements of the Programme, with a view to highlighting areas where further work is needed, if Members, Peers, staff and the public are to have confidence in the proposed way forward and its chances of success. We will continue our work on R&R over the lifecycle of the Programme, and have agreed with the National Audit Office that it is available to support a yearly review of its progress, subject to the agreement of the Clerks of both Houses.
In support of our inquiry, our Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown, Vice Chair, Clive Betts, and Sarah Olney, visited the Canadian Parliament in April 2026 to view the progress that the Canadian government are making on their ‘Centre Block Rehabilitation Programme’ (their version of R&R).1 We are grateful to our Canadian colleagues for facilitating and hosting this visit.
The Programme needs a clear and effective governance mechanism that sets out who has authority and accountability for delivering Phase One and developing the Programme towards a final Parliamentary approval decision by 2030. This should support proper scrutiny, and help ensure strong delivery and commercial arrangements are in place.
Without these issues being resolved, particularly should Phase One be approved, we have serious concerns that the Programme will not be able to deliver its aims in a timely fashion and not achieve value for money.
Conclusions and recommendations
1. Having scrutinised the costed proposals, we consider there is enough information to inform a debate and vote. However, there remain significant issues to be resolved regarding plans for scrutiny, governance and transparency of the Programme, and critical risks to its progress from delays to temporary accommodation; all of which need addressing urgently. Without a shared understanding of what success looks like, Parliament will struggle to gain confidence in the Programme and costs and timescales will remain uncertain.
2. The level of engagement with Parliamentarians about the Programme’s scope, purpose and intended outcomes has not been sufficient for the scale of the decisions required. The Programme has developed through a series of decisions made by different people over a long period of time. Many MPs and Peers are unfamiliar with the Programme’s history, making it difficult for some to understand the reasoning behind the costed proposals. This includes, for example, how the level of ambition in meeting the Programme’s scope (known as its ‘outcome level’) was determined. Consequently, many may not feel ready to make a significant spending decision affecting the operation of Parliament for decades. A General Election is due by 2029, so a new set of MPs will need briefing before the next strategic decision in 2030. The Client Team, which acts on behalf of the Clerks of both Houses, and executes the strategic direction for the Programme, had by June 2026 engaged with 283 sitting MPs (around 43%) about the Programme. While this level of engagement is relatively high, we are not convinced of its quality. We do not think there has been enough engagement, particularly on what a completed Palace would look like or on temporary accommodation. Following our March evidence session, the Client Team produced leaflets to summarise key Programme information for Parliamentarians and wrote to all Members of both Houses who had not yet engaged with the Programme.
3. The Clerks are formally accountable for the Programme but cannot take all decisions needed to implement our recommendations. Where agreement from the Client Board, Programme Board, House Commissions or the Houses is required, we expect the Clerks to bring forward proposals, seek the necessary decisions and report the outcome to us.
recommendation
Within six months, the Clerks of both Houses should commission the Client Team to set out a plan for how they will engage Parliamentarians and staff in the Programme, including how they will consider innovative ways of demonstrating what the completed Palace will look like and how temporary accommodation will look and operate.
4. It is imperative that the Delivery Authority and Client Team develop a robust set of cost and schedule estimates to support Parliament’s final decision on a delivery approach for the main project in 2030. Should Parliament approve the Client Board’s recommendations, the Programme will be tasked with delivering the Phase One works and developing the two recommended options further, to support a final decision on how to deliver the Programme by at least 2030. While the costed proposals provide enough information for a decision on reducing the number of options in development, MPs and Peers will require greater confidence in the Programme’s cost, schedule and risk to approve the final delivery approach. Proposals will need to be informed by planning permissions, and more detailed designs and discussions with selected private sector contractors. The Committee’s recent examination of the Bank of England Real-Time Gross Settlement system showed how a competitive dialogue approach allowed bidders to develop competing proposals in parallel as part of a consultation prior to a contract being awarded. This approach was instrumental to its success as a rare positive example of government programme delivery.
recommendation
a. The Clerks of both Houses should require the Client Team and Delivery Authority to produce a timetable of the work needed to develop a more robust set of cost and schedule estimates, and report on progress every six months.
b. The Clerks of both Houses should ask the Delivery Authority, working with the Client Team, to assess whether a ‘competitive dialogue’ procurement approach could be adopted for the Programme, to provide greater clarity on scope and confidence in its cost and schedule.
5. The Client Team and Delivery Authority need to provide greater clarity over the remaining Phase One cost estimates, contingency level and delivery schedule to build confidence that it can be delivered successfully. Delivering the projects within Phase One to time, cost and scope are critical to building confidence with Parliamentarians that the main works can be delivered successfully. Phase One will deliver common elements of the recommended options, including acquiring and preparing temporary accommodation, early and enabling works such as site compounds, and pre-construction activity such as planning and design. Delivering temporary accommodation is controversial, with the cost to refurbish the Queen Elizabeth II (QE2) Centre being around £417 million and the Commons Building Infrastructure Portfolio being around £2 billion. We think these estimates are very high. The Canadian Parliament built a high quality (build) within the existing wider Parliamentary Estate with all the furniture and contents of the existing Chamber. These worked extremely well and would probably cost much less than existing proposals. The method of acquiring the QE2 Centre from the Government needs to be urgently resolved, bearing in mind alternative uses are very limited which should reduce the value. We feel more reassured now, that the Client Team has provided costs for most elements and that the work in Phase One is necessary. However, the projects within Phase 1 are at varying stages of maturity, and some have yet to be costed. Of the £3 billion capped budget for Phase One, there is £500 million unallocated to cover those projects and provide contingency. In particular, 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 Delivery Authority and Client Team will confirm further detail on the costs and schedule for Phase One once they are able to develop an initial seven-year schedule of work common to the options Parliament decides to take forward.
recommendation
Using cost and schedule ranges, the Clerks of both Houses, working through the Client Team and Delivery Authority, should set out the remaining cost estimates for the Phase One works as they become available, and what overall contingency is left over. They should also set out a detailed delivery schedule for these works which takes into account interdependencies between projects.
6. The schedule for providing temporary accommodation remains a persistent risk for the Programme. The Programme is critically dependent on suitable temporary accommodation to move into while work takes place. The plan is for the Commons to move to Parliament’s Northern Estate, and the Lords to the QE2 Centre. The Client Team is engaging with members about the requirements for the temporary accommodation. However, Parliament has yet to agree what it wants from temporary accommodation, or the trade-offs it is willing to make to ensure value for money. The programme to refurbish the Northern Estate, being delivered by Strategic Estates, is delayed due to external dependencies on logistics and welfare space. The timeline for this temporary accommodation is vague, with plans to phase the decant according to when buildings may become available. We are concerned that the Programme is being shaped around the availability of temporary accommodation, rather than temporary accommodation being delivered to meet the Programme’s needs. Governance is complex, and it is unclear who will make vital decisions. We are also growing concerned that the acquisition of the QE2 Centre from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is taking longer than it should.
recommendation
The Clerks of both Houses should require the Client Team, Delivery Authority and Strategic Estates to produce an integrated plan for the Restoration and Renewal Programme and temporary accommodation, covering governance, accountabilities, decision-making, cost and schedule. The plan should also set out how temporary accommodation, including the temporary Chambers, will maintain an environment that is befitting of Parliament’s constitutional and national significance, including ensuring that such accommodation and related spaces reflect its present look and feel.
The Clerks should also take to the Client Board a proposal for bringing temporary accommodation within the Programme. If the proposal is not accepted, the Clerks should set out how the risks arising from divided responsibility will be managed.
7. Governance arrangements are far too complex, with no single point of authority and accountability. Formal accountability for the programme sits with the Clerks of both Houses as Corporate Officers. However, in practice they do not have the authority that Accounting Officers usually have on government programmes. This is because the two Houses are responsible for some important decisions for the programme instead. In the absence of any one organisation/body being ‘in charge’, decision-making becomes more complex. The Programme’s governance needs to balance timely decisions at a working level to bear down on costs, alongside member involvement on its scope and requirements. The Client Team recognises that governance needs to change, and plans to evolve the current governance structure for Phase One to manage the Programme and its external dependencies through one working level forum below the Member-led boards. The Client Team is considering a more fundamental reset of governance for after 2030 when the Programme plans to move into full delivery. It is important that governance changes, which should involve simplifying and shortening decision-making processes, are implemented before Phase One works start, so that the Programme can benefit from greater control and alignment.
recommendation
The Clerks of both Houses, working through the Client Team, should bring to the Client Board proposals to simplify the governance of Phase One to aid quicker decision-making and to effectively bear down on costs and schedule. These arrangements should be reviewed ahead of the start of Phase Two, to ensure they are appropriate and fit-for-purpose for the next stage of the Programme.
8. It is vital that, in preserving the symbol of our democracy for future generations, the Programme is subject to proper public scrutiny and is fully transparent in its use of taxpayers’ money. Public scrutiny of the programme is carried out through many different means with different purposes. Formal scrutiny of the Programme is carried out through the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission which meets at least annually. However, this looks specifically at the Delivery Authority’s spending on an annual basis, with the Client Team also providing spending on the programme delivered by Parliament’s wider estate teams. Independent scrutiny of the Programme is carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General at key points in the Programme’s development, by agreement with the Clerks. However, there does not exist a single forum for open public scrutiny of the programme as a whole on a regular basis.
recommendation
The Government should bring forward proposals for a dedicated Restoration & Renewal Select Committee, where members can hold senior officials to account at regular public evidence sessions, scrutinising progress of the Programme including spend against budget, forecast cost and time to completion and any risks to successful delivery. The committee should also have a role in advising on temporary accommodation, including on possible plans for the temporary Commons and Lords Chambers, as Phase One takes shape and before Phase Two starts.
recommendation
The Clerks should produce an annual update on progress with the Programme. They should also agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General arrangements for an annual independent examination of the Programme.
1 Progressing the Programme
Introduction
1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence in July 2026 from the Client Team and the Delivery Authority on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster.2 The Committee also held a session in March 2026 with the Client Team and Delivery Authority, shortly after publication of costed proposals for the programme.3
2. The Programme is at a critical stage. The Client Board is seeking approval from Parliament to reduce the number of delivery options being considered from four to two. It is also asking Parliament to authorise a seven year, £3 billion capped package of initial works (known as the ‘Phase One works’) to allow the Programme to progress while the delivery options are developed further. The Phase One works include procuring a strategic partner who should work under a tight financial remit to carry out the restoration work and provision of temporary accommodation. In February 2026, the Client Board published the costed proposals report, which include cost and schedule estimates for the delivery options to be considered.4 Parliament should be under no illusion, if they vote for this Phase One package, it will be extremely difficult and costly not to proceed with the entire project.
3. Although Parliament voted in 2018 to vacate (or ‘decant’ from) the Palace during restoration, Parliamentarians have continued to disagree on whether and how fully they should leave while the works are underway. The Client Board considers that Parliament needs to decide in its 2030 vote one preferred way forward for the Programme, because keeping multiple delivery options open creates unnecessary work, and increases risks and costs.5
4. The Client Board has recommended that the Delivery Authority develop two options further: Full Decant and Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus (EMI+), to inform a final decision by Parliament by 2030.6 The full range of delivery options, including their cost and schedule estimates, is:
- Full Decant (£11.1 billion to £15.6 billion, 19 to 24 years): Where both Houses move out of the Palace for much of the works.
- Continued Presence (£14.4 billion to £22 billion, 33 to 45 years): Where the House of Lords would move out for 24 to 33 years, but the Commons would continue to sit in a chamber in the Palace throughout the works.
- Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement (EMI) (£23.3 billion to £56.3 billion, 52 to 84 years): Where the Palace would be split up into 14 zones to be worked in on stages, aiming to ensure that no more than 30% of the Palace would be decanted at any one time. This option would seek to allow members to sit in both Chambers throughout the Programme.
- Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus (EMI+) (£19.5 billion to £39.2 billion, 38 to 61 years): Similar to the above, but with the House of Lords being decanted for eight to 13 years, and the Commons using the Lords Chamber for up to two years.
By the time the vote is taken in 2030, we would expect both the specification and range of costs on each option to be much more precise.
5. The Client Board decided to recommend developing two options rather than just one, to give the Houses a choice. This would also recognise the current lack of consensus among MPs and Peers about how to deliver the Programme, as well as the prospect that the next Parliament could change the direction of the Programme before substantive progress is made in delivering it. Approving the Client Board’s recommendations requires Parliamentary approval, which need votes to be timetabled by the government.7
6. The key organisations and bodies involved in the governance and decision-making of the Programme are as follows.
a. The House of Commons and the House of Lords, which are, separately, required to provide Parliamentary approval for proposals and funding for Phase One and Two works.
b. The House Commissions, (one for each House) which are responsible for the administration and services of the Houses. They also set the expenditure limit for the Phase One works.
c. The Clerks of the Houses who, as Corporate Officers, are the clients for the Programme on behalf of their Houses and are the Accounting Officers for the Programme.
d. The Client Team which acts on the Clerks’ behalf and executes the strategic direction for the Programme and manages and oversees the Delivery Authority.
e. The Client Board, the House Commissions meeting jointly, responsible for making critical strategic choices and recommendations, with advice from the Programme Board.
f. The Programme Board, comprising Members from both Houses, the Clerks of the Houses and independent external experts, which has delegated responsibility for the day-to-day direction and oversight of the Programme.
g. The Delivery Authority, responsible for day-to-day delivery of the Programme.
h. Strategic Estates, responsible for managing the Parliamentary Estate. It is responsible for some of the projects that are part of the Programme, for example the work on the Northern Estate where the House of Commons will decant.8
Engaging with Parliamentarians
7. The Programme has developed through a series of decisions made by different people over a long period of time. As the composition of both Houses has changed, many Members and Peers were not involved in earlier decisions and may only encounter the Programme at a single point in its development. While various reports explain objectives and recommendations at specific stages, they do not provide a simple account of how those decisions fit together or how earlier choices shape the proposals now being put to Parliament. This includes, for example, how the level of ambition in meeting the Programme’s scope (known as its ‘outcome level’) was determined. This makes it harder to maintain a shared understanding of the Programme’s purpose, its agreed direction and the constraints that now apply.9 Consequently, many may not feel ready to make a significant spending decision affecting the operation of Parliament for decades. Without a shared understanding of what success looks like, the forward path will be confused, with the risk of not being able to define clear outcomes for the Programme.10
8. In March 2026 we noted that the Client Team’s outreach to MPs had not worked as well as it might have done, particularly on what a completed Palace would look like.11 By June 2026, it had engaged with 542 sitting Members across both Houses, including 283 sitting MPs (approximately 43%) through meetings, committee engagement and tours and stands.12 The Client Team explained that these sessions were used to gain feedback from Members as well as inform them about the Programme.13 Another General Election is due by 2029, so there will be another batch of new MPs who will need briefing before the next strategic decision in 2030.
9. One of the areas for which the Programme will need to articulate requirements and purpose is temporary accommodation. The Committee’s recent visit to Canada’s Parliamentary refurbishment project demonstrated the importance of this temporary accommodation both looking and feeling like a Parliament. We asked the Client Team how it will be engaging with Members on the requirements for this temporary accommodation. The Client Team stated it will be looking to ensure that Parliament has a space that allows Members to do their job effectively and is fitting for the home of UK Parliament. It will be starting a wider member consultation to show members designs, being careful to show that these are also not ‘gold-plated’.14 The Clerks also stated that efforts are underway to find solutions for events and services that may be affected by any decant, such as ceremonial events.15
10. We asked the Client Team what its plans were to engage with Members of Parliament before a vote. It told us that it has engagement plans ready and scalable depending on the notice the Houses are given for when the debates would happen. The Client Team told us that it would continue with its current communication methods but has also just written to all members in both Houses who were yet to engage with the Programme. The Client Team highlighted that it has sent communication and desk-dropped the Costed Proposals to all Members.16
11. The Client Team told us that it will continue with tours and briefings, and that it plans to have more regular stands in Portcullis House and the Royal Gallery, and will look at a number of innovative ways to make sure Members have the information they need. The Client Team also told us that it has now provided leaflets to summarise information on costs, Phase One works, scope and outcome levels in different leaflets to provide information to Members.17
Developing cost and schedule estimates
12. The Client Board has recommended that the Delivery Authority develop two options further: Full Decant and EMI+, to inform a final decision by Parliament by 2030. The costed options provide enough information for a decision on the way forward, although the EMI options (both EMI and EMI+) are less developed and more uncertain. This is because the EMI options use a different underground design and a different delivery strategy which are less mature, meaning their estimates are more uncertain. All options will face cost and schedule pressure as they develop further, but the EMI options are more exposed because their technical feasibility cannot be confirmed until the next design stage, and their longer timelines make costs harder to estimate.18
13. We asked the Delivery Authority to talk us through the key assumptions underpinning the current cost and schedule estimates for the main works which might change. The Delivery Authority told us there are three key assumptions driving time and therefore additional costs. The first assumption was the debates would initially happen by Easter and then by the summer. The Delivery Authority told us if there were no debate by the summer and there were one by the end of 2026, it had ranged the estimated total cost to the Programme to be between £220 million and £290 million, including inflation. In their letter to us, the Clerks of both Houses stated that if debates take place in early or mid-2027, additional costs could reach more than £479 million, and there are further risks to the acquisition of temporary accommodation and the procurement of strategic partners for the Programme from further delays.19 The second assumption was that the House of Commons temporary accommodation would be available by 2032. The third assumption was that Parliament accept the Client Board’s recommendation to take forward two options for development.20
14. While the costed proposals provide enough information for a decision on reducing the number of options in development, MPs and Peers will require greater confidence in the Programme’s cost, schedule and risk to approve the final delivery approach. The Delivery Authority stated that in 2030, all the designs will be taken another step forward, submitted to planning, and surveys of the Palace will have continued. These will allow a better understanding of the building and the granularity of design information needed for more certain cost and schedule estimates. Securing the necessary planning and heritage consents is likely to be a complex process and could have implications for the Programme’s timetable if not managed effectively. The Delivery Authority also intends to procure a programme partner that will work with it throughout the Programme, and will develop and pass individual packages of work to suppliers when they reach an appropriate level of maturity.21 At all stages, it is essential that tight cost controls are maintained.
15. The Delivery Authority stated that it has yet to finalise its commercial strategy for the main body of work, as this cannot be done until Parliament makes a decision on the way forward for the Programme.22 In April, we reported on the Bank of England’s Real-Time Gross Settlement Renewal Programme as an example of good practice in programme delivery, which was enabled by its procurement approach. We highlighted the Bank’s use of a ‘competitive dialogue’ procurement process allowing potential bidders to develop their proposed designs for the system in consultation with the Bank, helping the Bank to develop as an ‘intelligent customer’. The process included a practical exercise to design and build a simplified payment system, for which the two unsuccessful bidders were also paid, helping to reduce risks that bidders would drop out of the procurement process. The up-front attention to requirements and design allowed the Bank to sign a fixed-price contract with the final contractor.23 There is no reason why Parliament should not go through a similar process so that there is more cost certainty when Parliament has to vote on which option to proceed with.
Transparency and scrutiny
16. We noted that, if this generation does not defend our system of democracy, which the Houses of Parliament are at the heart of, we cannot expect the next generation to defend it in the same way as it has been defended in the past. We emphasised how the Programme is critical to our country’s future and expressed concern over the transparency and scrutiny of the Programme.24 It is of note that the Buckingham Palace remedial project, which is only about a fifth of the size of Parliament, was completed on time and budget at around £400 million.
17. We highlighted that the Client and Programme boards are not held in public. The Client Team told us that the Board minutes are publicly available and that it is required by the 2019 Act to publish an annual report.25 The Client Team noted that the House of Lords has an annual debate on the Programme but the House of Commons does not. The Client Team also explained that formal scrutiny of the Programme is through the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission which meets at least annually. This Commission is made up of Members of both Houses and is chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means with input from HM Treasury. The Client Team explained that, while the Commission looks specifically at the Delivery Authority estimate, the Client Team does provide to the Commission all spending on the Programme delivered by Parliament’s wider estate teams.26 Part of the problem has been that too much of the discussion and costings has not been published. We urge the authorities to be as transparent as possible, which will avoid the suspicions of decisions being taken in private.
18. While these fora may examine spending on the programme on a periodic basis, there does not exist a single forum for open public scrutiny of the Programme as a whole on a regular basis. The Client Team explained that Members of both Houses have the ability to ask questions in the Chamber, to be answered by Client Board spokespeople. Members of Parliament and Peers should be able to ask questions. However, we recommend that a powerful Select Committee is set up to closely examine the project and its costings, and resolve minor conflicts. This is similar to the Canadian model. Independent scrutiny of the Programme is also carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General at key points in the Programme’s development. The Comptroller and Auditor General told us that if the Committee, or any other scrutiny structures set up for the Programme, would find it useful, it would be an appropriate use of National Audit Office resources to produce at least an annual update giving an independent take on progress, cost and schedule.27
2 Programme Delivery
Phase One works
19. The Client Board has asked Parliament to approve an initial package of works, known as the ‘Phase One works’, with a capped budget of £3 billion over seven years. This is a substantial programme of work in its own right, and if not delivered well could threaten the forward progress of the Programme. We expressed concern that it was not clear from the costed proposals what the works are, and not all items had yet been costed.28 The Client Team explained that there are four high-level parts to the package of works. Resilience works which is acquiring and preparing temporary accommodation, enabling works such as setting up site compounds, early works that can be undertaken in areas of the Palace, and pre-construction activity such as planning and design. The Client Team also stated that it has produced a leaflet summarising the information on Phase One in the costed proposals to make it more accessible to Members.29
20. While the Client Team and Delivery Authority have identified what needs to be done in Phase One, they recognise that delivery plans need to be developed further before work can start.30 The projects within Phase One are at varying stages of maturity, and while the Client Team provided us with costs for most elements of these works, it told us there are three areas which have yet to be quantified: riverside security; isolating, decommissioning and relocating the Palace’s services; and restoration of the medieval cloister court.31 These are significant omissions.
21. We questioned the Client Team and Delivery Authority on the level of contingency included within the £3 billion spending cap for Phase One. The Client Team told us that there is around £500 million unallocated for the projects not yet costed and as contingency for any cost increases. The Delivery Authority added that the breakdown of cost for each of the parts of Phase One has some risk contingency built in, and the £500 million is in addition to this.32
22. We asked the Delivery Authority whether it will be able to achieve Phase One within seven years. It explained that one of the first things it plans to do in Phase One is to converge the designs of the Full Decant and EMI+ options that the Client Board is recommending to take forward, so the first seven years of each delivery option are the same. It explained that, once it has developed a schedule of work common to the options Parliament decides to take forward, it will be able to confirm the costs and schedule for Phase One in more detail.33
Temporary accommodation schedule
23. All delivery options for the Programme depend on temporary accommodation being ready on time, but current risks could delay the timetable, particularly for the Full Decant option. Temporary accommodation for the House of Commons will be provided by the Commons Building Infrastructure Portfolio, a programme to refurbish Parliament’s Northern Estate. This programme is delivered by Strategic Estates and must interface with the Programme, making governance complex, and it is not clear who will make vital decisions. The Clerks should also take to the Client Board a proposal for bringing temporary accommodation within the Programme. If the proposal is not accepted, the Clerks should set out how the risks arising from divided responsibility will be managed. Temporary accommodation for the House of Lords will be provided by the Delivery Authority, which is taking possession of the Queen Elizabeth II (QE2) Centre currently owned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).34
24. Delivering temporary accommodation is complex. It requires agreement on how each House will operate in its new space, and then designing and delivering buildings, services, access and security to support that model. The Client Team told us that, as it goes through more detailed work on the temporary accommodation, it would look to consult with Members on the requirements for this accommodation.35 This consultation would seek to ensure that Members have an effective working environment, while temporary accommodation should not be ‘gold-plated’.36
25. We were informed that the programme to refurbish the Northern Estate is delayed and current plans suggest it will not be ready in time for Full Decant or for the main works to begin.37 The Client Board initially planned for Full Decant to start in 2032, should Parliament vote for it. However, the Northern Estate programme will not be able to provide temporary accommodation until 2034 at the earliest. This is due to heritage approvals, external dependencies (such as the availability of logistics and welfare space in Whitehall), and the programme’s compressed timeline and affordability.38 We think it should be possible to accelerate this programme so that the overall programme is not delayed any further.
26. On questioning the Delivery Authority, we found the timeline for the Northern Estate temporary accommodation to be vague.39 The Delivery Authority confirmed it is delayed and there would be a staged decant of the Commons subject to the availability of temporary accommodation in the Northern Estate.40 We expressed concern that the timescales of the Programme are being adjusted to fit in with the temporary accommodation arrangements, rather than temporary accommodation being delivered to meet the Programme’s needs.41
27. Plans for the House of Lords to decant to the QE2 Centre, while more mature than the Northern Estate, are at an early stage. There is limited contingency if there are delays in acquiring and taking possession of the building from MHCLG. The Client Team clarified that the QE2 Centre fit-out cost would be around £417 million and explained that the acquisition costs would be much lower.42
28. We expressed concern with how the acquisition of the QE2 Centre is progressing. The Client Team told us that it is working collaboratively with MHCLG, and the building remains a conference centre until the Houses make a decision.43 The Delivery Authority told us that it needs to progress the procurement process and engage with members of the House of Lords on the design to ensure they meet their expectations and their aim is to complete the QE2 Centre in 2032.44 In their letter to us, the Clerks of both Houses said that were the debate on the way forward for the programme not to happen until after late 2026, there could be an additional 9–12 month delay due to the expiration of relevant Crown Commercial Framework arrangements.45
Governance
29. Good governance requires clarity on who has authority over and accountability for controlling a programme. The Programme’s current governance model is designed for Parliamentary engagement and developing options, rather than clear accountabilities for agile decision-making in delivery. The Governance model involves many organisations, and it is not always clear who is accountable for what. The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 makes the Clerks of the Houses Accounting Officers for the Programme, but in practice they do not have the authority that Accounting Officers usually have on government programmes. This is because the two Houses are responsible for some important decisions for the Programme instead.46 In the absence of any one organisation/body being ‘in charge’, and with the need for consensus across Parliament, decision-making becomes more complex and increases the risk of delays, cost increases and scope changes.47
30. The Programme needs to bear down on cost and schedule pressures by responding to events as they occur, while also ensuring that Parliament can fulfil a commissioning role and hold those delivering the Programme to account.48 The Client Team told us that the Programme’s governance review recognises that, if the Houses agree to the recommendation for the Phase One works package, the Client Team and Delivery Authority will want to get momentum and start to move into delivery.49 The Client Team explained the governance context for Phase One is a mix of delivery and continuing strategic decisions. This means the Programme’s governance needs to get the balance right between timely decisions for delivery, so decisions are made at the lowest level with clear escalation routes and thresholds, while ensuring there is a high level of Member engagement and involvement for strategic decisions.50 The Clerks stated that ensuring responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities are clear, roles are distinct, there is continued transparency with the wider parliamentary community, and decision-making is delegated to the appropriate level, will be key to any changes to the governance in the next stages of the Programme.51 This does sound like the same muddled thinking that has affected the project for so many years. Those in charge should think carefully about how governance is carried out, and particularly our proposal for a senior select committee, certainly for Phase Two but possibly for Phase One.
31. The Client Team told us that, as part of its governance review for delivering Phase One, it is looking to bring together all non-member programme officials, including those responsible wider dependent programmes in Strategic Estates, into one Board to manage the Programme. This is so that the right people can be in the room to look across an integrated schedule, understand the risks and consult one another on any changes and trade-offs needed.52
32. We noted that the Programme’s current governance arrangements are not necessarily the governance the Programme will need when a final decision is made in 2030.53 The Client Team told us that, as the Programme moves from Phase One into the Phase Two main works, with a final decision on the way forward by 2030, the Programme will present a proposal for different governance arrangements.54
For full report, click the link :
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/55631/standard/pdf
