Committee publication · Correspondence · 13 July 2026
Joint letter from Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Chair of Public Accounts Committee relating to Restoration and Renewal Programme: memorandum from the Clerks, 3 July 2026
From: Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry: Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Costing and governance
Summary
Joint letter from the Clerks of both Houses to the Public Accounts Committee on the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, dated 13 July 2026. The Clerks confirm acceptance of the NAO's recommendations and emphasise the critical need for parliamentary approval of the R&R Client Board's costed proposals to progress the £3 billion phase one works. They highlight accumulating costs from parliamentary debate delays (£100m–£479m depending on timing), interdependencies with other estate projects, and ongoing Member engagement despite mixed views on delivery options.
Key findings
- Parliamentary debate delays since the expected Easter 2026 timing cost £100–135m if held in July 2026, rising to £223–288m if delayed to December 2026, and over £479m if held in early/mid-2027, due to inflation, maintenance, and unnecessary option development.
- The R&R Client Board recommends reducing four delivery options to two ('full decant' and 'enhanced maintenance and improvement plus') and seeks approval for a seven-year, £3 billion capped phase one works package with a final delivery option decision by 2030.
- Ministry of Defence unavailability of car park land has extended the Commons Building and Infrastructure Portfolio (CBIP) timeline by four years and increased Richmond House costs by circa £258m, with potential R&R Programme impacts of £280–600m excluding inflation.
- Over 850 direct engagement interactions with Members in the new Parliament alone (44% of sitting MPs, 35% of Lords members engaged); Members express frustration at delays, health and safety concerns, and mixed views on decant versus enhanced maintenance options.
- Clerks accept NAO's conclusion that the Client Board's costed proposals provide sufficient information for decision-making and that phase one works are sensible; financial controls include monthly HMT/Cabinet Office meetings, annual estimates scrutiny with public hearings, and NAO audit of Delivery Authority accounts.
Tone
FactualTopics
Key actors
Clerk of the House of Commons, Clerk of the Parliaments, National Audit Office (NAO), R&R Client Board, R&R Delivery Authority, House of Commons Commission, House of Lords Commission, Ministry of Defence
Notable line
“… the R&R Client Team and R&R Delivery Authority. The R&R Client Team is a parliamentary joint department that acts as a client on behalf of both Houses, providing oversight, assurance …”
Key Quotes
“Renewal (R&R) Programme is at a critical stage. The Programme has developed through a series of decisions taken over many years and across several Parliaments.”
“"The Restoration and Renewal Programme addresses a clear and urgen t need to reduce risks to the Palace of Westminster. There is no way forward that does not incur cost and risk, with inaction itself being a choice with serious consequences.”
“It is not sustainable to continue to put many millions of pounds regularly into maintaining ageing infrastructure whilst not fundamentally addressing the underlying issues.”
“If debates take place in July 2026, additional costs are between £100 million and £135 million (compared to the original assumption of debates being held by Easter recess).”
“Clear direction is required by late 2026 to avoid an additional 9-12 month delay”
“… the public value the building and its symbolic importance to the country and, although they do not take the costs lightly, ultimately want it to be restored and protected.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗