Welcome back to the Public Accounts Committee on Thursday 19 March. We now move into our second session on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament. The Palace of Westminster is in significant need of restoration and renewal. Parliament spends at least £1.5 million a week patching up the Palace while the health and safety list grows. This issue has been discussed for more than two decades now. Without a clearly articulated vision of exactly what the Restoration and Renewal programme should produce, there remains a very confused forward path. This project is at huge risk of not being able to define clear outcomes—what is to be achieved at the end of it. Without that, the project planning will remain obscure and the costs and timescales uncertain. That will impact on the procurement and tendering processes, which is bound to result in unrealistic costs and timescales. Parliament needs to be very clear on a simple and effective governance mechanism, so that once contracts are let and the project starts, there is clear scrutiny from beginning to end. That is to ensure that the stages and costs of each implementation are being met on time and on budget. Parliament should set out a single, clear way forward for whether to fully or partially decant. I have considerable concern that the proposed costs and level of work are not going to clearly deliver the outcomes to produce a properly costed and timely refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament. There is an existential danger that a catastrophic event will occur in this building, potentially interrupting the functioning of this country’s democracy and, most critically, endangering lives. We cannot go on discussing this for another two decades, hoping that we will not get a serious health and safety incident. With all that, we need to hopefully find a little clarity in this hearing from our witnesses. Charlotte, will you briefly introduce yourself and how you are associated with Renewal and Restoration, because Committee Members may not know. Russ, can you then do the same?

I am Charlotte Simmonds, the managing director of the Restoration and Renewal Client Team. That is a joint Department of both Houses, which acts as the sponsor for the programme.

I am Russ MacMillan, the chief executive of the Delivery Authority. The Delivery Authority was set up as a special purpose organisation to deliver the programme on behalf of Parliament. We bring together skills from the public and private sector to do that.

Thank you both very much for coming. You were probably warned that you would be asked to make an opening statement about the R&R project, particularly team engagement activities with Members, peers, House of Commons staff and MPs’ staff, so over to you, please.

Restoration and Renewal is a major infrastructure programme to restore the Palace of Westminster. The Palace is an iconic building, an international landmark, home to the UK Parliament and a workplace for thousands. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. As you said, it is in significant need of works. The services and systems are very old. They have deteriorated and need repair and replacement. There has been no significant renovation since the post-war period. On a daily basis, colleagues work hard to keep this place safe and operational, but the underlying issues need to be tackled. As you said, we are spending £1.5 million a week to repair and maintain the Palace, and colleagues are dealing with about 2,900 reactive maintenance tasks a month. Continuing in that way is unsustainable and will lead to expensive managed decline of the building and increasing operational and safety risks. Parliament previously recognised the need for restoration and in 2019 passed an Act to establish the programme. Shortly after that, the independent Delivery Authority—Russ’s organisation—was created to develop and deliver the works. The two House Commissions acting as the R&R Client Board are now the key governance body overseeing the plans. They have produced the costed proposals report, which sets out the costings and timings for a number of ways to deliver the restoration works. It presents two key recommendations: to pursue a phase 1 package of works that are foundational to the whole programme, and to reduce the number of options in play from four to two. Those proposals need approval from both Houses. We expect to have debates soon, but that is subject to Government timetabling. You also want me to touch on engagement—we have a statutory duty to engage with Members and seek the views of others. My team, the Client Team, were established in 2023 after the programme was reset. Since then, we have focused engagement activity around assessment of a wider range of options and a single scope selection—a particular focus after the 2024 general election and now, with publication of the report. Since that reset, we have had around 1,300 interactions with Members of both Houses. In the Commons, that equates to engagement with 41% of sitting MPs and, within that, 38% of MPs who were elected for the first time in this Parliament. We continue to engage extensively with staff, and the trade unions and staff associations that represent them. We have had over 1,500 engagements with House and Members’ staff in this Parliament. We continue to also engage with the media. Over 90 journalists have been briefed, and we have had quite extensive media commentary and coverage. We also shared the report with the 150 external organisations and individuals we have engaged with through this Parliament. We continue to poll a representative sample of the UK public. The latest wave was conducted just after the report was published, and the trends remain stable: consistently, 70% of those polled continue to agree with the need to restore the Palace for future generations. I hope you have seen us being active in the last couple of weeks. Since the report was published, we have had stands here in Portcullis House, as well as in the Royal Gallery. We have been presenting to party groups and various Member Committees. We are active and available. That is on top of our normal day-to-day offering of tours and briefings. Russ can talk about supply chain engagement.

We have engaged extensively with the supply chain—first to test the commercial arrangements that we are proposing and check that they match the market, and secondly, to make sure they are ready to go on what we think is a significant economic opportunity for them. We have also done a lot of engagement with some of the external bodies on which it all depends—potentially Westminster City for planning, and Historic England for listed buildings. To offer a brief overall reflection from a delivery perspective, we support the report and its recommendations, and we think it is a pragmatic first step towards mobilising the programme. You would expect me to say, from a delivery perspective, that proceeding with one option would be easier, better and less expensive, but I am absolutely confident that that advice has been heard, understood and weighed up against a range of other considerations.

I thank you both very much for those opening remarks. The examinations by this Committee, backed up by hearings from the NAO, will hopefully inform Parliament when we come to a vote. Of course, how thorough our work on this subject can be will depend on when the vote comes, but we would like to do a really thorough piece of work checking the information that you are giving Members of Parliament on costs, times and governance. This is all really important stuff. Thank you for producing the report—my copy is well and truly thumbed. Wouldn’t it be an abrogation of the duty of this Parliament if we do not decide, in the whole five years of this Parliament, whether we want to decant? From that decision, everything else flows: without it, you cannot begin to start specific work, costings or sensible engagement, as Russ has just told us, with contractors. Running two hares at the same time seems to me not a sensible way forward.

I can come in and help with the understanding of the rationale for phasing in this way. The Client Board has recommended this phase 1 package of works, capped at seven years and with the two options continuing to be in play. The Client Board, in coming to this conclusion, decided to defer the decision on whole-programme costs and schedule to a next decision point. That was in line with emerging best practice, particularly from the Office for Value for Money, which warns against too much construction before decisions and delivery plans are sufficiently mature. Notwithstanding what Russ has said, the Client Board took into account a number of additional considerations, including the fact that there is a lack of consensus between Members—including, probably, on this Committee—about the best way to deal with decanting or not decanting from the Palace. They put all that together in part of their considerations and made these two proposals, which are fundamentally a pragmatic way forward to get momentum on this programme, which we have been lacking in the last couple of years.

Ultimately, Parliament will have to resolve the differences of opinion. You are now contemplating adding seven years with phase 1 work, so there is a possibility that we will have spent five years in this Parliament, and then another seven years doing whatever preliminary works we are going to do in phase 1. We are simply kicking this whole thing down the road by potentially up to another 12 years. And we are spending £1.5 million a week. We have spent over £500 million already just on the R&R bit of it. We are just wasting money. Surely the duty of everybody in this Parliament is to give them sufficient information, have a debate, have a vote as to whether we are going to decant or not, and then work forward from that. Maybe the next Parliament would not approve that plan, but at least they would be handed from this Parliament a package that they could approve or not.

It is the Client Board’s report and recommendations—

I understand that. You are on here on their behalf, to speak for them.

Absolutely. The Client Board’s recommendation is for this phase 1 package of work—seven years and capped at £3 billion, or £429 million a year. That work would start as soon as a decision is made; so it would start in this Parliament. This report has also been a long time coming. This is the information that we and the Client Board feel Members need to make a decision. We have had independent advice and assurance. That is also published alongside this report, which says that Members have enough information to make a decision. The debates need to be forthcoming. Members need to debate this and give us the direction that we need to progress with the works. I will just add that the motions are amendable.

I wonder if it would help just to talk you through how we are going to approach the phase 1 works, which I think would respond to some of the concerns—

With respect, Russ, I think that other Members will ask other questions. Can we deal with this in a logical sequence? I am sorry; I did not want to cut across you. We do want to discuss that issue, of course. Unless either of you have an answer on my particular question, I will move on to Sarah Olney.

The only thing to add on that, which I think Russ would agree with, is that we are absolutely aligned with this and the report itself shows that we absolutely need to reduce the numbers in play. The report recommends going down from four to two options. The more options we have in play, the more risky this programme will be. But it is a pragmatic conclusion, after a lot of consideration by the Client Board, to propose these two recommendations for phase 1 work and to reduce the options from four to two.

I think it is important to be clear that a lot of the activity in phase 1 is common to the two options. The reason it allows us to mobilise and progress the programme is because with the types of activities that we are doing in phase 1, like setting up the site and proceeding to planning, we think we can do them in a way that effectively is common with both options.

I have a very simple question before I pass over to Sarah. Running the two options is going to add how much more than running one option?

Paragraph 211 of the report—I do not have the figures on top of my head, but I know the paragraph—sets out that if we take forward two options, there is additional spend of between £95 million and £160 million.

In addition to that, there is some increased risk around planning and supply chain appetite, which is much harder to price.

Okay. Catherine, you have a question in a minute; if you are not happy about the answer, do come back in a minute. But first, Sarah Olney, please.

Mr MacMillan, can you just say how developed the plans for the phase 1 work are? And just to clarify things, is the extra £196 million—as set out in paragraph 211—the cost of running phase 1, which would support either of the two options, as opposed to running phase 1 when one option has already been decided?

I thought that the question from the Chair was: how much more does it cost to continue with two options?

Yes.

It is between £95 million and £160 million in additional cost to keep two options, rather than one—

On the table as you embark on phase 1—thank you. Mr MacMillan, back to my question: how well developed are the plans for phase 1?

Very well developed, because effectively what we have is two whole programme options: the EMI+ option and the full decant option, which you will have seen in the report. What we have effectively done is taken the first seven-year chunk of that. In the next phase, we intend to start with the activity that is necessary to consolidate those two designs. There are some subtleties in the way in which the two designs have been approached. We are clear what is within the phase 1 works and the report lists out, in quite a granular level of detail, the exact activities. A significant part of that is getting the temporary accommodation ready for both the Lords and the Commons, which is clearly necessary for all of the options. The other significant activity is around enabling the construction activity that will follow in future phases.

What controls will you put in place to ensure that you stick to that £3 billion spending cap?

I will answer for the Delivery Authority; Charlotte might want to comment on the external answer. First, within all our plans there are significant allocations of contingency, which we think is the right thing to do in accordance with the risk presented within the programme. Clearly, good risk management is absolutely crucial; the thing that we need Parliament to help us with is, once we get some decisions, generating a stable delivery environment. Within our own organisation we have set it up in such a way that there are effectively internal checks and balances. Lots of it is internal assurance, and Charlotte may wish to comment on all of the external assurance.

I am happy to. In terms of the governance, the top governance body is the two House Commissions acting as the Client Board. They have delegated day-to-day oversight to a Member-led programme board, which includes politicians and lay people with particular experience in major programmes. There is a whole host of scrutiny that is undertaken on the DA work through that, on top of the scrutiny within Russ’s organisation. Specifically in relation to the cost of proposals report, we reconvened an independent advice and assurance panel to make sure that we were ready for this stage of decision making. That was in place of a more typical NISTA gateway review process, which we will continue using as we move forward through the programme. We will reconvene the independent advice and assurance panel as and when needed, particularly at points of critical Member decision making.

Mr MacMillan, there is still more detail to be worked through in terms of developing the phase 1 plan. Do you remain confident that the £3 billion budget will be met as that work is developed?

The detail that needs to be worked through is about how we are going to bring the two options together to proceed with the common elements. We have a plan to do that as part of the next phase of detailed design and, obviously, in putting forward the proposition of phase 1 works we have laid out how we think that might happen. The underlying detail is a total of three years’ work—since Parliament set our requirements in 2023—to develop a delivery schedule and cost estimates. So yes, I am absolutely confident.

And you are confident that your cost and schedule estimates are robust, even without that further detail required?

Yes.

How can you be if you have not designed them yet?

The end state design of the two options is the same.

I am not talking about the end state design. Of course the end state of design is to produce a satisfactory R&R, but I am talking about the phase 1 works. You have not fully designed them yet, but you are asking Parliament to vote on a £3 billion package. How can Parliament be sure that it is voting on a correct figure when we do not know what the package is going to be? Or will we know by the vote precisely what the package is going to be?

We do know what is in the package, because broadly speaking the first two years of the seven will be securing and mobilising our partners and running a commercial competition. The next two years will be taking the design into the next phase; as part of that design activity, we will look at how we can converge the two designs that currently exist. We will then move to waiting for a planning decision, and then, in the final two years of the programme, we would expect to be setting up site compounds and building a river jetty. Those sorts of activity would have to happen irrespective of the option. In parallel to all of that, there is the development of the two temporary accommodation solutions. The particular bits that are in the first phase are much more common than what will happen thereafter. Bear in mind that we would expect a decision no later than 2030: that is only four or five years into the seven-year period.

Has there been any external assurance that either the specifications that you are proposing or the costings are realistic, or are those costings entirely internal?

Yes, we have a normal “three lines of defence” model. The first two lines are managed within the Delivery Authority. We then procure our own independent assurance, and then Charlotte’s team does further assurance in addition to that.

What is the independent assurance?

In terms of who does it, or—

No, on the design and the costings. How do we know that what you are proposing to us is attainable within the £3 billion budget?

The independent assurance, as with all assurance, developed a range of actions that we needed to close out, and we believe that we have closed out all of the actions necessary to move into the next phase.

You are not answering my question. What external assurance have you had that what you are going to put before Parliament on phase 1 works—this is a really serious matter—is reasonable, is properly designed and is achievable within the £3 billion budget? Is there any external assurance for when Parliament votes for that proposition?

Yes.

What is the external assurance?

There is the external assurance that we have procured. We have had expert panels. We have had—

What are those expert panels?

We have expert panels on design, which bring together design expertise to scrutinise our designs. We also employed a firm, Grant Thornton, to review our cost and schedule estimates. It produced a significant report that was then seen by the Programme Board. Then, beyond the Delivery Authority, we are under significant scrutiny from the Programme Board and the Client Board, and then Charlotte and her team have commissioned their own independent advice.

We also employed Gardiner & Theobald to look over the cost information, and we went back to the independent advice and assurance panel, which had four experts coming together to look across and follow up on the plans for phase 1 works.

Obviously the NAO will have access to all that information—from Grant Thornton and everything else—to do its work, but is it in the public domain? Will this Committee have access to all that information?

The independent advice and assurance panel’s earlier report is available and published alongside that. We have not published the other independent assurance, but it is available to the National Audit Office, and I am sure we could make it available to this Committee if that is something that you would desire.

That would be helpful. Thank you very much.

I wanted to ask about the outcome levels that are being looked at, but it is hard to understand the parameters without fully understanding the issues that have just been raised in relation to the options. I just want to be clear about the additional programme spend that you anticipate from having two options rather than just one. Can you give an example of what that additional programme spend would be?

One example is that, because we need to proceed with planning before we have had a final option selection decision—

So having to do that for two?

We would put in a single end state for planning, but we would need to develop two environmental impact assessments, for example, because the environmental impact of a 25-year programme would be quite different from that of a 60-year programme. That is an example of an additional activity that we would need to do, which has a cost associated with it.

That is helpful to understand—thank you. I understand that you have looked at a scale of six outcome levels. What are the differences in costs between the outcome levels being considered?

The Programme Board looked at six outcome levels in 2022-23. I can talk about how they were discounted and then cover the cost differential between what was selected and the level below. I would have to write to you with the full comparison of the costs, if that is okay.

Okay. I guess the question is: how much of it is driven by cost?

Let me talk you through the outcome levels themselves. Outcome level 0 looked at prioritising works to priority areas within the Palace. That was discounted: it would effectively have ended up with bits of the Palace being mothballed, so it was decided that it would not be suitable. Outcome levels 1 and 2 were discounted by the Programme Board, because they were found not to comply with legislation requirements and parliamentary standards. We have discrete parliamentary standards to ensure that proceedings run efficiently and that you are all secure. Ultimately, the Programme Board selected outcome level 4, which is reasonably ambitious. The cost differential between level 4 and the one below at that time was a 2.6% increase. It also had a lower consenting risk, which Russ has talked about, and provided for a degree of future-proofing.

It is difficult to move into percentages when we have been talking about actual figures. Are you able to put a figure on that?

I don’t know if I can put a figure on that.

So it was 2.6% of what?

Sorry—it was 2.26%.

I think what Catherine is getting at is that there were six outcome levels. We discussed, on the Programme Board, a huge amount of the detail. If we could have the actual figures that the Committee considered at the time, which will of course be out of date, they will give us a precise difference between each outcome.

We can definitely provide those. I am sorry that I do not have that information to my fingertips. There is a lot of information on this programme.

That is fair enough. If we had had that information, the red table that we saw on the Programme Board would have made a lot more sense to Members, with outcomes across the top and delivery levels along the side.

Absolutely—we can do that. It is also worth making it clear that with the outcome level we have, about 85% of the construction costs relate to the four priority areas that the Houses agreed in 2022: fire safety, mechanical and electrical services, asbestos and building fabric.

Presumably outcome level 4, which you have chosen, is at a level that will make the building safe and functional? What Members and the public would probably like to understand is what we are missing out on from levels 5 and 6, so that it is clear what choices are being made in terms of compromise of historical preservation or additional functionality.

Outcome level 5 had the greater ambition, and the difference between outcome levels 4 and 5 included things like covering over atriums with glass roofs, which had previously been discussed in the Chamber and described as frivolous. Level 4 does not include that, and it has less intervention into the additional bits added to the Palace over time—we will still undertake work on those, but there was a greater amount of demolish and rebuild of those areas with level 5. Russ, do you want to come in?

I think you have covered the key points. I appreciate your point about percentages earlier, but it was another 5% spend, so it was not a very significant increase over and above what we are proposing.

For level 5 or for level 6?

No, we are one from the top with the level that we are on. There is only one above. There was a theoretical option 6 developed, but it was never priced in the same way.

Okay. Just to be clear, when you are covering atriums with glass, for example, has there been an assessment of whether those atriums are for public use or for Members’ use? To what extent does that compromise the utilisation of the Palace?

It is a very early stage of the programme to decide who would use which spaces, and it was an original design intention to cover the courtyards to provide additional space that could be available for either Member or public use.

Okay. I guess we need some clarity on all of that. Obviously, where you are making such a large and long-term decision, to be clear that the level 4 outcome is the right level to pitch it at, there would need to be quite clear information around what is being compromised, so that there is clarity about the decisions that have been made. Are you ensuring that those options are still open? At what stage would outcome level 4 be the defining option: at the end of phase 1, or at the initial stage of development? At what stage are those options being closed?

That was effectively decided in 2023 and, I think, confirmed in the strategic case in 2024. Since then, we have spent three years developing the outcome level 4 scope. The answer to your question is almost a historical one rather than a future one.

Okay, fine. It is just helpful to understand how we have got where we are in order to understand where we are going forward.

Very good questions, Catherine. I have an additional question. I am sure that when the main project starts, people will say, “It will be a good idea to cover that atrium,” or “It will be a good idea to do something different.” You say that those ideas could be accommodated eventually, but how will you deal with planning? You are going for planning outcome level 4, but if people wanted to go beyond that in any respect, will you not then have to go back for planning?

You are absolutely right. At the point at which we go to planning, we start to lock things down, but the planning strategy we are adopting is similar to the one used at Buckingham Palace, where you take forward packages of planning activity incrementally. Notwithstanding the planning answer to the question, it is important to say that we will go into the two-year phase of detailed design as part of the first phase. We need to engage significantly with Members through that phase, but I think that there is an expectation on our part that we will be locking down the design through that two-year period—through phase 1 works—prior to planning. We certainly would not want to be making significant changes to the overall architecture of the design once we move through the early 2030 period.

That is very clear. What is not clear is whether taking two options to planning will greatly complicate the planning process, because the planners will want to know timescales and lorry delivery movements. There is a huge amount of detail connected with each option. I asked about Parliament making one decision, which I vehemently think is the right thing to do, but if we are not going to do that, the planning process will be a lot more complicated and will take a lot longer, will it not?

Planning risk is absolutely one of the concerns associated with taking forward two options. At the moment, we have said that we need further down-selection no later than 2030, and we are expecting to put in our planning application in early 2030. We need to do a lot more work on that, both internally and with the planning authorities. Clearly, if we discover in that process that the risk is more significant than we expected, we can think about how we sequence those two things differently. As things stand, the initial package of works is predicated on the assumption that we would go to planning prior to an option down-selection decision, noting the significant risk that exists with that assumption.

Sorry, but I want to understand this very clearly: you are going to planning in 2030, and you hope that by then Parliament will have voted to decant or not, so that you will then be able to go to planning with one option.

That would be the ideal scenario, but we need to work that through further with the planning authorities and internally.

Otherwise, you are putting in a planning application in 2030, and you are not going to get planning permission until 2032 at the absolute earliest. I have dealt with this professionally; I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor. A planning permission of this complexity is likely to take a lot longer than two years, however well you do the pre-planning discussions. We are sitting here in 2026, and we are looking at another six years, at least, before any substantive work can start.

As I say, we are working through that risk at the moment. There is an opportunity in how we sequence them. We have said that we need a down-selection decision no later than 2030. Parliament clearly has the opportunity to bring that forward, if that is what it chooses to do.

Colleagues have probed the decision making on the outcome level. I would like to probe on the reduction to the two options. The recommendation is to rule out the continued presence option. Under enhanced maintenance and improvement, you have basically added in this EMI+, which I understand to mean that the House of Lords decants but the House of Commons does not. Can you explain a bit more about the considerations that the Client Board made to eliminate continued presence and the original EMI options?

The report addresses a number of criteria that were looked at when assessing the options. Continued presence seeks to move about 65% of the Palace out, so it is a 65% decant. That was discounted because of the challenges of delivery outweighing the benefits. Specifically, that was around the House of Commons being decanted to the House of Lords Chamber, with permission, for about 11 to 15 years. There were concerns about geographically peripheral parliamentary life for MPs on a very split site over a longer period. It also required the longest period of decant for the House of Lords. Those were the primary reasons for discounting continued presence. The basic EMI variant, which looks to decant no more than 30% of the Palace with neither Chamber decanting—both Houses would stay in their own historic Chamber—was discounted for similar reasons: the challenges of delivery outweighed the benefits. That had the highest cost and the longest duration of the options being looked at, and there were concerns about risks to House of Commons parliamentary business if there was a need to deal with asbestos removal around the sittings of the House. For the House of Lords, there were concerns about temporary platforms in the Chamber for several years, and about temporary facilities in temporary structures for Committee proceedings. There was also an overall risk of unplanned decant if the mitigations were not sufficient. Those were the reasons for discounting those two options.

Does EMI+ require the Commons to be decanted at all?

Under the EMI+ option, the House of Commons would move out for one to two years, but would remain in the Palace. With the approval of the House of Lords, the House of Commons would move into the Lords Chamber.

Going back to the phase 1 works, the breakdown here suggests that we are spending money on both QEII and Richmond House, which would be necessary only in a full decant option. Is that one of the drivers? By holding both options on the table for longer, we are actually having to do work to create two decanting options that, under EMI+, would not be needed, so that would be wasted money.

The Queen Elizabeth conference centre is the preferred location for the House of Lords. Both recommended options would see the House of Lords move into the QEII. I should say that, even with works today, we decant people who would be disturbed by the works. We will need to move people out of the House of Commons into the Northern Estate—this building, back to Norman Shaw North and Richmond House. It is true that if you go to a full decant, you need a temporary Chamber. If you move to an enhanced maintenance and improvement-plus option, you do not need a temporary Chamber, but we are looking to provide a facility that would allow the Commons to have a contingency Chamber, should it be required. There is a distinction in the phase 1 works in that package, but we are proceeding on the basis that we will need temporary accommodation. The Northern Estate as a whole needs considerable refurbishment in its own right.

On this £328 million for Richmond House, you are basically saying that you are going to create an alternative Chamber in Richmond House, regardless of whether Parliament makes a decision on EMI+ or full decant.

We will move forward to design and future-proof the programme. If and when a decision comes on which option is taken, we would move from either continuing to develop and deliver a temporary Chamber, or provide that space for use for an alternative purpose for the House of Commons. There is a lot of other refurbishment work within Richmond House in and around that.

Having worked there as a civil servant in the Department of Health, I know that it is a ridiculous building. It does not function. We have stuck together some old terraced houses and a modern building, so I am sure we could do something quite radical. This is my last supplementary. Obviously, we are interested, from the Commons side, in MPs’ views. I am keen to understand how you have reflected MPs’ views on the four options by eliminating those two options and keeping just the full decant and EMI+ on the table.

The Client Board and the Programme Board have been presented with feedback from the Member engagement that my team have conducted. That fed into their considerations. Effectively, the Client Board feel that keeping those two options gives Members in the next Parliament a genuine choice, because there is not currently a consensus about whether to decant or not. There are specific views from Members that we have collected over time. All that information has been fed in, but generally speaking, the really contentious point is to decant or not to decant.

How many MPs have you had feedback from?

We have engaged with 41% of currently sitting MPs, which is about 266.

Given that every MP is going to have to vote, there is obviously a risk that the 59% that you did not speak to may have a very different view.

Absolutely. We will continue to try to target every single Member. The report was desk-dropped to every Member’s desk within two hours.

It is important we understand the extent of that consultation, and 41% would leave me nervous.

Anna is absolutely right. Over half of the Members in this Parliament are new, and I am particularly concerned about those new Members because they do not have the hinterland that some of us do who have been here a little longer. This is all completely fresh to them. I am very keen that there is an enhanced effort to brief those new Members in particular.

Chair, could we perhaps ask them to break down that 41% to determine how many are from the ’24 intake? Do you have that data?

So 38% of newly elected MPs in the ’24 general election have been engaged with.

Can I come back on Anna’s excellent questions? I fully appreciate that at some stage—I hope that it might be in this Parliament—you will give Parliament a genuine choice between decanting and not decanting. From my soundings of Members of Parliament, views are perhaps shifting, but it does not matter. It must be a genuine choice. The decant option is very clear because we all know exactly what we are aiming at, but the non-decant is certainly not clear. Dividing the House into 14 sections is complex. The proposal is complex. We know in this Committee that when things are complex, there is plenty of scope for things to go wrong, and it requires only one of those 14 to take longer or find more asbestos or whatever, and the whole programme will be put out. Why are we not getting a genuine remain choice, which would be simple? The choice could be this: we do it in two halves, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Everybody knows that it’s black, it’s green and it’s red—everybody knows which is which. You simply do one half, the House of Commons decants to the other half, then they come back into the original half, the other half is done and then the job is done. It seems to me that that would be a much simpler and more realistic proposition. The advantage of that is, as Anna touched on in her excellent question, that you would not need the Richmond House decant facility, so you would immediately save £350 million. If Parliament had a proper choice of decant or not, you would save another £100 million. I have saved nearly £0.5 billion on the whole process by doing that.

I can inform you that the half and half, 50:50 option was considered by the Programme Board in ’23, when it looked at a wider range of options. It was discounted based on its cost, duration and risk compared with continued presence. The Programme Board recommended taking forward the full decant option and the continued presence option. Then the Client Board wanted to introduce a rolling programme, which became enhanced maintenance improvement.

Why do they want a rolling programme?

The rolling programme was originally the “do minimum” counterfactual, but it became a fully fledged option that was taken forward. They were deemed to be preferable to the 50:50 option at that stage.

I hear your explanation.

I must confess that I am quite bemused about this whole thing. I want to ask a few questions—ostensibly about cost, although I think that cost is pretty irrelevant at this stage. Is the objective of this exercise to basically do necessary repairs to the UNESCO heritage building, or is it to provide better accommodation and offices for the Lords and the Commons? What do you think is the actual objective of this operation?

Under the 2019 Act, there are areas that the programme must have regard to. They include visitor services, education services, security and a host of others. The Act did not establish the priority areas of work. When we had the reset in 2022, we made sure that the Commissions at that time and then the Client Board confirmed what those priority areas were. It was taken through the Houses in 2022, and the areas were agreed to be fire safety, mechanical and electrical services, asbestos and building fabric. Those are the core areas of work that this programme has been designed around, but there are a number of areas that we must have regard to and which the outcome level does take regard to. It is there to deliver the overarching requirement under the Act, which is to restore the Palace as a whole.

I listen in horror. I built the stadium at Southampton, which was not as big a project as this, but we built it on budget and on time. The only way we did that was by identifying what the design was, what we wanted and what it was going to cost. The other thing we did, which you have got to do in this situation, is bolt down the downstream risk from variations and changing your mind on the existing plan. What you need to start with, in my opinion, is what you want to achieve. Then you should be able to cost it relatively straightforwardly. I listen in horror: you talk about too many boards—there are boards everywhere. That is a disaster; it means that people change their minds, and then you have to consult and discuss things with people. I am confused. I think there is a huge danger if we do not get a small, lightweight team of people with construction experience. I am one of the new MPs, and other than being on this Committee, I wouldn’t have had much—

I think we will come on to governance—

I want to understand this. Is the IAAP made up of people with construction experience? There does not seem to be much construction experience on the two guiding boards.

Yes, the independent advice and assurance panel was made up of people with construction experience—absolutely. There are external members of the Programme Board who were specifically chosen for their major programme experience as well.

How much are you factoring in AI, which is, in all likelihood, going to reduce the number of staff that MPs need rather than increase it? There will likely be less demand for offices and accommodation, and more opportunity to use technology. Is that being factored into the equation?

It is factored into the opportunities work that Russ’s team will start to pursue. I would add that, under the Act, we have a statutory duty to consult Members and all Members of both Houses have to decide on this programme and on the costed proposals.

I am with Anna on this: we need to know what we are deciding on, and I do not think anybody is quite clear on that. A lot needs to be done before this can be sold effectively to MPs and Members of the House of Lords—I assume they have to agree to it as well. I am a new boy; I was elected in ’24 and I have not been on the tour, which I am not sure has been particularly well-publicised, although that may be my deficiency rather than yours. What are you going to do with the tour? Will you tell people what you might do rather than what you are going to do? That is one question. I know that we are under time pressure, but do not forget, Russ, that there is no point in costing stuff now. We have just seen oil prices double and construction costs have gone through the roof over the last five to 10 years, so there is little point in trying to cost something now that you are not building until 2032. What you need to do is work out what you are going to do, what you want, and then cost it when you are going to build it and lock down all the variables that are going to cost you a lot more and waste taxpayers’ money.

On the process point, the process that you have outlined, of being very clear on the requirements and developing solutions against them, is, in our view, what happened in 2022-23. We have been given a very clear set of requirements. We have then worked to develop a scheme against a very clear set of requirements, and effectively we are proposing cost and schedule envelopes on that basis. Clearly, the big outstanding decision is which variant of decant Parliament wants to choose—that is the big unresolved issue that we need to firmly lock down the programme. On your point about costs and risks looking a long time into the future, that is exactly why we have very wide ranges of costs and significant elements of contingency in the numbers. Full decant at the bottom end of the range: 30% contingency; top end of the range: 80% contingency. On EMI+, that rises to 130% contingency at the top end of the range. That would absolutely reflect the sorts of uncertainties that you have just outlined.

I am not going to go on. The only other question I have is about RAAC and asbestosis. If it needs to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with, particularly RAAC. How much is that likely to cost us? That I see as a necessity purchase rather than an arbitrary purchase.

RAAC is not particularly extensive in the Palace. It tends to be in the 1970s additions. It is something that we feel we have a good handle on through the survey work, and it is absolutely something that we are planning to address. Similarly, we have done some sampling surveys to try and get a handle on how much asbestos exists. Again, as Charlotte mentioned, one of the big priority areas for the programme is dealing with asbestos in the Palace, and that is built into the programme.

Lastly, on the £1.5 million a week that you are spending on what I think you called refurb—

Repair and maintain.

Does that include these wretched gates and everything else that has gone in? Is that all included or is that on top?

It includes the works to the Palace itself.

The gates you put on the outside—who signed all that off?

The accountable officers in the Houses are the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments. They are the accountable officers and the corporate officers.

It must have cost tens of millions to do all the wretched gates that hold me up coming out of Parliament now. Who actually signed off on that?

It was £64 million, to be precise.

I know, Geoffrey, but if you take £1.5 million a week, by the crude maths that I employ, that is £75 million. What did it cost, Geoffrey—£46 million? There is a large slug if that is included.

The figure of £1.5 million is a live figure and changes depending on the portfolio of works undertaken.

But it includes the wretched gates to keep the public out.

As far as I understand, it includes all works in the Palace, which we would include—

All of that, I am afraid, is arbitrary spend. It is not necessary, is it?

Those particular works came under the security programme that was designed to make sure that Members of both Houses can continue to be safe and secure operating on this site.

But when I talk to Members of both Houses, they tell me that nobody was consulted about it. This Committee made the decision to do it, but most MPs and Lords had no idea it was happening.

Treasury-compliant business cases are produced for all parliamentary programmes and would include the Restoration and Renewal one. The one you are talking about is the security programme. That went through the normal business case process. It was approved by the accounting officers and the corporate officers—the two Clerks, depending on which part of the building it was in. As part of that, those projects have engagement with the domestic Committees—the Administration Committee and the Finance Committee—as normal. Restoration and Renewal has a separate governance structure, but I think, Chair, you probably want to cover that in different questions.

But you are saying it is in that £1.5 million a week.

As far as I understand it, those costs are included in the £1.5 million a week.

On a point of clarification, the gates cost £64 million; I got a parliamentary answer to that effect. Rupert, to be absolutely clear: this Committee has nothing to do with the individual decisions on what is to be done with Parliament, least of all those gates, which would have been approved, as Charlotte has explained, through that process. Clive Betts wants to come in with a brief intervention.

I am trying to get my head round where we’re going to get to in 2030. We will have a new Parliament again with probably lots of new Members who will come at this afresh. What information that Members do not have now will they have to make a decision on how we go forward?

Over the first five years of the programme, running to 2030, we will have worked to significantly reduce some of the risks that exist within the programme. For example, we have talked about retiring planning risk. Clearly, that is not fully retired until we get your planning permission, but by developing detailed designs and engaging with the planning authorities in the run-up to 2030, we would aim to bear down on some of those risks and narrow our ranges, so there will be greater cost and schedule certainty once we have got to higher-maturity design and done further work, so the numbers will come down. In terms of the specific choice between the two options of, if you like, full decant and EMI+, you will have more certain numbers, but in reality the parameters of that choice will be as they have always been: it is a choice.

You have answered my question there: there is not going to be much more available.

On that particular decision, but in terms of setting the cost decision—

But we are deferring now—we are putting it on one side—and isn’t that symptomatic of this whole programme? If a decision is difficult, then we defer it.

It is difficult for me to comment on that directly, I think.

The reality seems to be that there may be marginal bits of further information to help to advise on precise costs, but in the end, the big decision between those two options is not going to be much different if we make it in 2030 than if we make it now.

What you would understand more, particularly from the House of Commons side, is what temporary accommodation would look like, whether you choose to have a full decant or not. You would have a greater understanding of what that would look like and what services you would get. You would also have started to experience much more construction activity in the Palace, through the ongoing programme of works from in-house teams, but also the start of the physical elements of the phase 1 work. You will start to see the river jetty—

That is going to happen, full stop. How does that help people in 2030 to make a better and more informed decision than they could now?

Because they will be better informed about what they are getting and also what they will experience under any way forward.

So disrupting people for the next four years will give them a better idea of what disruption looks like.

No, I think it is more that one of the big challenges of EMI is what Parliament will tolerate by way of disruption. That is quite a qualitative judgement. We think we have made a qualitative judgment that the way in which that programme is constructed will be tolerable, but I think what Charlotte is saying is that you need to live a little bit of that to either agree or disagree with our qualitative judgment.

So basically, the aim is to get MPs to vote for a full decant, but you do not think they are necessarily up to it now, so we will give them a bit of disruption for a few years and they may change their minds.

No, that is not correct. What is in here is two options—two recommended ways forward that Members can legitimately choose between. At that next decision point—and yes, accepting that we would have to engage a probably significant new intake—there would be further detailed design information on the Palace side of things. Russ’s team will have done a significant amount on opportunities, to see if we can bear down on the costs and provide some more innovative ways to develop and deliver parts of that scope, and Members will understand more about what they will get in temporary accommodation. We think that is quite important for Members to understand, because you or your future cohort are going to have to live with whichever way forward the Houses decide. There is no drive, certainly from officials’ point of view, one way or another for these options, because it is for Members to decide; our job is to try to provide you with that information. Some of it needs to be illustrative. If this programme was easy, we would have finished it by now, so there is something that we are missing and that we need to be able to provide, and we think that some of that is actually experiencing some of the works.

The problem, of course, is that many Members in 2030 will not have experienced it because they will be new. But anyway.

Actually, isn’t it the reverse of what Clive is saying? If Parliament votes for this phase 1 package, it is then absolutely cast-iron that the full package is, one way or another, decant or part-decant. It is an inevitability, so this decision that we are about to take effectively puts us on a path of doing the whole thing, doesn’t it?

This is undeniably about a phase 1 package of works, as part of the whole programme. Under the Act, we are required to restore the Palace as a whole. The decision that remains on the table is how you do those works, and that is completely open and up to Members to decide. The two recommendations from the Client Board are full decant and EMI+. The motions will be amendable. The really important thing is that we get to have debates on this and Members get to have their say. We need direction and decision to move forward.

I could not agree more. We all need direction and decision.

Hear, hear. I am looking at the timeline, and we have been on this for 26 years. I have a supplementary question on table 10, which is a list of other parliamentary projects that “support R&R”. It includes Victoria Tower and various electrical and health and safety works, totalling some £3.3 billion. Are those costs additional to the costed options we are considering, which range from £8.4 billion to £18.7 billion, or included in them? Where does the scrutiny and governance for that £3.3 billion sit?

It is additional. Those are in-house programmes that go through the process I just described in relation to the security programme: through Domestic Committees and up to the Commissions. The Commissions are effectively at the top of the R&R programme, but acting jointly as the Client Board.

As they are supporting projects, there are presumably interdependencies and overlapping dates between those projects and at least phase 1 works. Given all the governance concerns that have been expressed, would it not be better to simplify things and make them part of the R&R programme?

It is up to Members to decide to give us that direction. At the moment, under the Act, we operate under a framework where the Delivery Authority will provide restoration works to the Palace and the in-house teams will provide restoration works to the rest of the parliamentary estate as it exists. Any works by in-house teams in the Palace to date are repair and maintenance.

Okay, but a lot of what is in the R&R programme deals with maintenance issues that have failed to be dealt with for many years and bring health and safety up to date. I cannot imagine external works to Victoria Tower as anything other than repair and renewal to a historic part of the main Palace. You seemed to suggest that we could decide to bring those projects under R&R. The distinction between internal and R&R in this case does not seem to be very consistent.

It is important to be clear that the reason some of these programmes spun out of R&R is that a judgment was made that they could not wait. For example, with the Victoria Tower external works, there was a significant risk of falling stonework. A decision was made that it would not be appropriate to wait until R&R was ready to do that work, so it was accelerated ahead of R&R. There are some overlapping areas in the Palace in the list in table 10. We work very closely with the in-house teams to manage those interfaces. However, quite a lot of those works are elsewhere on the estate, particularly on the Northern Estate—the Commons building infrastructure portfolio is predominately a Northern Estate programme—so we do not have the geographical interface that you described. What we do have is a clear dependency on the need for the space that it creates in order to decant the Palace into the Northern Estate. It is a different type of interface.

I understand the urgency to get things going given the historical delays in decisions on R&R. You talked about the Northern Estate, but is Richmond House not part of the Northern Estate? These projects are going to overlap and they are interdependent. If a decision is now to be made to proceed with an R&R programme, it seems to me that they should be reintegrated into the R&R governance to make sure that this is managed in the most effective way, but I don’t think there is anything more to add to that.

Your report cites some things, such as the cloisters, as early gains. They could be included in phase 1. Is any of that £3.347 billion included in the £3 billion phase 1 works?

Yes. Cloister Court and the internal works to Victoria Tower are included in that £3 billion cap.

Isn’t there a bit of fuzziness, under the Act, as to what works can count as R&R and what can’t?

As I said, the Act sets out the areas to which we have to have regard. It did not set out the priority areas; we have resolved that through the Houses. We know what the works will deliver. The framework under which we work, which established the Delivery Authority to develop and deliver the works for the restoration of the Palace and, alongside that, the works for House of Lords temporary accommodation, which will be over in the QEII Centre, has effectively reserved construction activity on the rest of the estate to the in-house teams. That is the framework that we operate under the Act, and they have separate estimates, to be clear.

This, again, worries me. When we get into the R&R, there will be a Delivery Authority. I don’t want to get into Sarah’s question on governance, but how will the interface between the House of Commons normal maintenance team and the R&R delivery team work? I can see that if, for example, the roof is not done in Portcullis House before we start the major works, there is going to be—if we go for this option—awful difficulty getting Members into the Richmond House decant centre. How are all these things going to be phased and worked out properly between the House of Commons maintenance and the R&R teams?

As Russ said, we work very closely with the in-house teams. I am a member of staff of both Houses, and we work very closely to make sure that we can understand the phasing for full decant in particular and to make sure that we understand the phasing on the Northern Estate. The works to Portcullis House are part of the Commons building infrastructure portfolio as a whole. All the works on the Northern Estate are corralled in that portfolio, being delivered by the in-house team, Strategic Estates.

That was delivered quite fast—

Sorry.

But the roof of Portcullis House is a major project and I do not see much sign of anybody planning how it is to be done. The roof supports the walls, so it is a major and difficult project. Where has it got to?

That project is currently being developed through the Commons building infrastructure portfolio by Strategic Estates. That is one of the programmes—

We do not want to get into a situation in which that starts to delay, yet again, the R&R programme.

To reassure you, there is an integrated schedule, shared effectively across R&R and all the other interfaces that we have discussed. We meet on a monthly basis. We go through the integrated schedule together. We think about exactly those sorts of risks. They respond to our requirements; we respond to their requirements. There is a management mechanism, and actually we are in the midst of discussions about how we can make the governance in that area even more effective.

This is critical path stuff. We on this Committee and the NAO are going to need to see this integrated planning, so that we can be satisfied that it is going to work. Before we go to Sarah on governance, I have an important practical question. Can you update us on RAAC and, in particular, asbestos in the Palace? How much work are we going to need to do on asbestos, and how much asbestos is going to remain, if it is safe because it is not disturbed?

I will update you on where we are internally. In 2023, 16 areas of RAAC were found, predominantly in the Upper Committee Corridor and T block areas. They have been propped and mitigations put in place. In 2025, as the surveys continued, we found six additional areas, again in the Upper Committee Corridor, but in the north block; they have been mitigated as well. An in-house project is in place to rectify those areas, but the main structural works will come through the R&R programme. We provided you, as we normally do, with an annual report with updates on both RAAC and asbestos. We continue to report on those, but Russ is probably better placed to talk about the future predictions around asbestos.

As I mentioned earlier, we have done a set of sampling surveys, which are designed to be extrapolated from for the purposes of costing and scheduling the programme. We have estimated quantities of asbestos on that basis. I think you have seen some of the figures before. The figures themselves do not necessarily mean much in this context, but we are talking about 90,000 square metres of coatings. The important point about asbestos is that sometimes it is best left. The thing that requires us to effectively deal with the asbestos is, broadly speaking, the machinery and electrical programme, where we need to remove services. Often, the asbestos is around those services, so the whole thing needs to be removed as an asbestos-contaminated material, or an asbestos-containing material, if you like. That is why you get these very large quantities: because it comes out together. Clearly, it is a highly regulated industry, and we have planned on the basis that we will remove it in accordance with all those regulations.

Just to be clear, that is one of the reasons why you need the riverside facility: so you can get that stuff out without getting it too near anybody else.

I think the river jetty is just about the general access constraints of this site and the quantities, full stop, that we will need to be moving in and out of it, be that earth, asbestos or anything else.

Charlotte, I want to ask quickly about the revised governance arrangements. The Sponsor Body has been abolished, and now you have the Programme Board and the Client Board. Has that been effective in improving decision making?

Yes, I think it has.

Can you give some examples of the improvement you have seen?

Absolutely. Part of the design for the Sponsor Body was to insulate the programme from political cycles, and Members felt that that was too distant from them. Under the Act, Members are required, as I say, to debate and vote on the way forward. We are at the definition and policy stage, so Members need to be involved. Bringing the governance in house and closer to the existing governance means that we are closer to Members and much more able to engage with them, and the engagement rates with Members are much higher. It is, I think, widely accepted that the governance is better—

Can I ask a sub-question related to Anna Dixon’s question? Do you find that the decision making in the R&R programme is better aligned to decision making in some of the other programmes that are ongoing alongside it as a result?

Yes, I would say so. There is much more we can do. As we move forward into the delivery stage—although it will be slightly hybrid in the next stage—there is much more that we can do, but yes, it is much better. One of the other elements of the design that is better is that we are closer to Government colleagues. A good example of that is that we have the Leaders of both Houses on the Client Board itself. It is a much more effective approach. We also have the ability for MPs and Lords to ask questions in the Chamber, and they will be answered by a spokesperson from the Client Board and the two Commissions. It is a much better, Member-facing governance.

I suppose that the Sponsor Body was trying to mitigate against the risk that you get too many new faces in each Parliament, and that is obviously the case more than ever in this Parliament compared with the last Parliament. Is that now becoming an issue?

It is an operational reality of this programme. We are a parliamentary programme, and we will have to deal with parliamentary cycles through the life of this programme. The governance that we have currently is much better than it was, but I will not shy away from saying that we need to consider changes as we move forward into a slightly more construction phase. The Client Board is starting to think about that, but no changes will be made until we understand which direction the Houses want to take this programme in.

It is important to reflect on the fact that the programme is going through quite a significant inflection point, assuming that Parliament agrees this report, and we will need to adapt the governance to reflect that we are moving into delivery. The really important thing from our perspective is stability of decisions. Once we get some decisions, we will, as described earlier, be moving into planning permission and constructing things. We need a very stable delivery requirement and set of customer requirements in order for that to be successful. We need to recognise that in the governance for the next phase of the programme.

Do you think that changing the governance structure is going to enhance the stability of decision making? Is bringing Members closer to the decision making enhancing or detracting from that stability?

I think it is enhancing the stability. You cannot get away from the potential change of faces that we have discussed, but that is just the nature of the beast of a Parliament, I guess.

Would it be possible to change the governance arrangements? After all, with the greatest respect, the governance arrangements have not produced the most speedy results so far. I am concerned about those arrangements going forward. Can the amendment, whenever it comes before Parliament, be amended, to amend the governance arrangements?

The motion will be amendable. As I said, the Client Board is currently considering what the governance for this next phase of the programme looks like. The Client Board is already considering it, and the motion is amendable in any way that Members decide to put forward amendments.

May I go back to asbestos, because I have been asked to clarify one or two things? Is there a very clear view on how much asbestos there is, how much needs to be removed, and how much is safe to leave if it is not disturbed? I have seen the excellent computer programme for asbestos, but how much total knowledge do you think you have of this problem?

I can talk from the in-house perspective. My colleagues inform me that we have 3,999 spaces in the Palace in total, and 620 of those are confirmed or presumed to contain asbestos, with a third of those in the basement. That is the current knowledge, but it is being built on over time, because the system is live, as you have talked about. We keep that updated and share the information with the Delivery Authority.

I would characterise a lot of the surveying that has been done so far as sampling surveys. We have been into particular areas that we judge to be risky, we have had a look, and then we have extrapolated that out. What will happen later in the programme is a more discovery-orientated survey—we move into a zone and take all the fabric off the wall, and that is the point at which we can answer the question definitively. We think we have done the best we can to make those sorts of estimates at this stage of the programme, and that is reflected in the numbers and the contingency. Ultimately, that risk will get progressively retired as the programme progresses, and we think we have sufficient budget to do that.

I need to clarify that. Virtually every Committee Room in the main bit of the Palace has a ventilation shaft in it, and I assume that most of those ventilation shafts have asbestos either side of them. I was not aware that it was proposed to strip all that wallpaper, plaster and everything else off to reveal the ventilation shafts. I thought the view was that they could remain as they are.

We are only doing invasive work where we need to do it to replace particular mechanical or electrical systems. I am agreeing with you that we will not strip absolutely everything off, but when a contractor has a particular job of work to do, the first phase will be to get into the area to look underneath the panels and the floors. That will give us much better cost and schedule certainty, and on that basis we will price the work, and on that basis they then do the work.

I want to think about that quite carefully. That is a very important answer.

To close the session, I have a few questions on engagement with MPs, but first may I ask some clarification questions about some of the planning risks, which the Chair was talking about earlier? Earlier in the session, you described a cost of between £95 million and £160 million by not going down to one option, and then you talked about planning risks. Will you confirm whether those planning risks, first, have been costed and whether they are inclusive or exclusive of that £95 million to £160 million?

No, they have not been costed. What is included in the £95 million to £160 million is the additional activity that we know will be required to keep two options on the table—for example, two environmental impact assessments. The effect that having two options on the table will have on the planning process is a very qualitative judgment. That is something we are doing an awful lot of work on, and it is an assumption that we can revisit if it proves to generate too much risk. As I said, the decision on down-selection is no later than 2030. We can delay the planning or bring the decision forward, ultimately, if that becomes problematic.

I think we all know how difficult planning is in this country. If it were easier, we would get infrastructure over the line much quicker. Do you have a sense of how much that could cost, in addition to this £95 million to £160 million? What is the dollar value? I have also got judicial review in my mind. I don’t know the extent to which any of this planning can be judicially reviewed, but I think everybody is going to have an opinion on this planning. What are the downstream risks that could cause further delay and further cost to the public purse?

At the moment, we are planning to use the normal town and country planning process. The Programme Board has asked us to look at some alternate approaches, which we are doing at the moment, but under that normal process, the two significant things that could happen are that the planning application could be called in by the Secretary of State, or you could be judicially reviewed at a number of different points in the process. In terms of quantifying the cost of a particular planning concern, as I think the Chair mentioned earlier, things like this can add a year or two years into the programme. The best way I can answer your question is to observe that we have priced the cost of a year’s delay into the programme. That is, broadly speaking, £70 million of direct costs, and between £150 million and £250 million of inflationary costs.[1] That gives you a sense of what a year’s delay in the programme costs.

Thank you. Moving on to engagement with MPs, right at the start you talked about your statutory duty. Would you just confirm what that is? I think you have been using “consult” and “engage” interchangeably, and those things are quite different.

Under the Act itself, the duty is to consult with Members.

Okay. So thus far, from the numbers you provided earlier, you have consulted with and/or had feedback from 41% of Members and 38% of newly elected Members. Is that right?

That’s right.

With those numbers in mind, do you take the view as a programme management team that you have satisfied your statutory duty?

We have published a consultation strategy, and we feel that the activity we have undertaken fulfils that duty to consult with Members. As part of that, we obviously have Member-led boards as well. We are a very Member-centric programme since the reset.

Sorry, I haven’t been on one of your tours either, although I have seen the pictures and it looks quite interesting. I should probably do that.

You are very welcome to come.

Would you be able to describe the consultation process for this Committee? I am particularly interested to know whether it is genuinely two-way, or whether people are going on a tour, being told stuff, and then disappearing.

We have a number of mechanisms. The tour also comes with a briefing. It is genuinely two-way. We receive feedback on that, we record the feedback, and we present that back to the Programme Board and up to the Client Board. We also offer more focused one-to-one briefings at various points. They are available at any point, but we really focus on them when we have something—

Can I just pause you? You used the word “briefing”. For me, if I am being briefed, I am being told rather than being asked for an opinion. The nub of my question is to what extent this whole process is geared towards getting feedback. Obviously, you need to inform.

It is entirely focused on getting feedback. I use the term “briefing” because Members are very busy, and so when we go and see Members, we make sure that we provide the information to get some feedback back. It is all genuinely around trying to get feedback from Members, and we record feedback from every single activity.

From the briefings I have had, the expected costs of these options have not been briefed to MPs and you haven’t had engagement from us. Between now and these motions coming before the House, what work are you intending to do with MPs so that they understand the costings, rather than just providing this great document, so that they can then feedback to you?

Obviously, it was a great step forward to get this document published and get this information out in the public domain, so that we can engage with Members and consult with Members around this. We will, again, continue to be available for one-to-one sessions—I won’t call them briefings—with Members, to talk through this. Further information on the cost is available in annex two. We have heard from some Members—this was reflected at the Client Board—that some Members would prefer a greater breakdown, and so we are providing that up to the Client Board. It is up to the Client Board to determine whether it wishes to publish that, and it would need to consider the commercial risk in doing so. But we are available as a team to engage with Members in whichever way we like. I think it was Rupert Lowe who said he hadn’t seen the tours; I will use this as an opportunity to say that tours and briefings are available for all Members and we welcome that interaction.

Only 38% of newly elected Members have been engaged, consulted or briefed, and 41% in total. I don’t want to be controversial, but clearly your outreach to MPs has not worked as well as it might have done. Had it done, you may have had higher take-up. Are you thinking creatively about how you may get out to MPs and engage with them more proactively? I do not want to be controversial—I know you are working very hard—but I think it is a fair question to ask how successful your outreach has actually been.

It is absolutely a fair question. The amount of engagement we have is actually fantastic. Members, as you know, are incredibly busy and have lots of other priorities, so trying to break through and make sure that we can get your time is incredibly difficult. If you have any ideas for how we can be more creative in doing so, we are all ears. Of course, we are thinking as creatively as we possibly can, but those figures are pretty amazing.

I guess my advice would be to focus on the money, because we all care about value for money. With some of the upper estimates, we could build 50 hospitals for that. Focusing on what we care about as constituents, there are some trade-offs. Do we spend £50 billion on restoring and renewing a palace, or do we have 50 hospitals? That question will focus people’s minds. That would be my suggestion.

That is exactly right, Blake; that is one of the concerns. Following that question, Members of Parliament will be quite wary about voting for this because of the potential criticism from constituents about how much we are voting to this R&R programme. Bearing that in mind, I know why you have done it, but these pictures on page 35 of an underground visitor centre and so on have given rise to some Members of Parliament saying this looks like a Rolls-Royce scheme. How do you answer that question?

I would encourage Members to come on the R&R tour and see these spaces as they currently exist today. They are unloved spaces within the Palace that have been crammed full with services. We have provided concept designs only for bits of the Palace that will change. Your high-heritage spaces will look your high-heritage spaces on return. The top area, image 13, is what we call the bandstand, and it is underneath Central Lobby. It is repurposed to provide a visitor route; it is not providing a visitor centre. There has been quite a lot of misrepresentation of the scope; we are providing a new visitor entrance. It is an area to which we have to have regard—

Hang on. If there has been misrepresentation—in the photo on that page, image 13, it says “Early concept design for proposed visitor space”.

Visitor space, yes. It is a visitor route through the Palace to enable visitors to access those parts of the Palace that they absolutely should be able to access—to see proceedings in the Chamber and the Committees, attend events, and make sure that Members can efficiently move around the building elsewhere, particularly on Division routes. The current proposals are to provide a new visitor entrance, search and screen, and visitor routes. That area around Central Lobby is the space that we would use to direct visitors up into the rest of the Palace.

To be clear, the three areas that people tend to talk about—carbon and net zero, accessibility, and visitors and education—are not big cost drivers. As we mentioned earlier, 85% of the cost of the programme is around the priority areas. We can go into that in more detail if helpful, but they are relatively modest.

It would be helpful, Russ, if we could have a note on that. You say they are not significant costs, but they must be a cost. I have two further questions. The first concerns car parking. You make it quite clear on page 51 that the car park will be closed. You then say on page 77 that there is currently provision for two disabled car parking spaces in Richmond House, and no other parking areas exist, as the existing car park would not be in use. What consideration have you given in these decant locations for parking for disabled people?

Obviously, it was one of the things that we thought about in terms of temporary provision during the works. The assumption is that Abingdon Green car park will be open to use for Members during the Palace works.

At no cost?

Parliament owns that property already.

Fair enough. Can you give an assurance that at the end of all this R&R, the car park will be open with the exact same number—or more—parking spaces than there are at the moment?

At the moment, the assumption is that the car park in New Palace Yard will be partially converted for other uses—for example, some of the energy centre work. As Charlotte mentioned, though, we recognise the need to provide parking in the end state. There are other opportunities to do that, including Abingdon Green. Parliament owns that. As I understand it, it is a life-expired asset, so something would need to be done to it, but it is a big underground car park.

I am not quite understanding the answer to that question. Clearly, it is desirable for Members and senior staff to have car parking within the estate, because of the security implications and everything else. I repeat the question: at the end of the R&R process, will the existing underground car park be restored with exactly the same number of spaces as there are the moment?

The underground car park will be returned. The number of spaces is to be determined. It is not at full capacity presently.

Right. Who will determine the number of spaces, and how?

As we go through the more detailed work on the temporary accommodation, and we take that through our governance, which at the moment would be the Programme Board and the Client Board, they would be helping to ensure that those decisions can be made. We would again look to consult with Members on the temporary accommodation.

I would gently challenge you on the idea that it is not being fully used. The trouble with it is that, at certain times of the day and certain days of the week, it is absolutely crammed, particularly when you are taking bits out of the car park for other works at the moment. I have had great difficulty parking in there at certain times, and I think you need to look at that quite carefully. It would be useful, at some stage, to have an estimate of exactly how many car parking spaces will remain at the end of the project.

Absolutely, and we recognised that that would be required anyway.

Thank you very much. I want to go back to my earlier question. I want this hearing to be absolutely clear. At the end of these seven years, we are on a treadmill, are we not? This thing will have to continue. You are very near the beginning of your report. You say: “The works would include up to seven years expenditure as well as financial commitment for completion of significant works, such as underground works, that cannot be stopped immediately at the end of the seven year period.” If our successor Parliament decides that they do not want to go ahead with this, it is going to involve considerable disruption and expense to stop it, is it not? This is just a fact of life. I want to be very clear about it.

Under the Act, we have an obligation to restore the Palace. This gets us on the way to restoring the Palace. The phase 1 works are foundational to the whole programme of works.

Again, that is not the answer to my question. No Parliament can bind its successors. If it wished—I do not recommend this in any way—it could cancel the whole thing. If it wished to do that, it has to be aware that there will be considerable cost and disruption in doing so, will there not?

Absolutely.

Absolutely. Unless any other Members have questions, I thank you both very much. I understand that it has been a difficult hearing. It was bound to be, because there are highly divergent views as to how this thing should be done. Nevertheless, you have been very comprehensive with your evidence and supporting your various committees, and we thank you for that. I have one final request. It may be that, from what we have heard this morning, Committee members would like to come on a Committee tour. If that were the wish, would you accommodate that?

We would more than welcome you coming on a tour.

That is very helpful. I thank you both very much. If you can do anything to encourage the vote to be delayed rather than be made earlier, it will enable us and the NAO to do a better job on behalf of Parliament to produce some external assurance that these numbers, timescales, and methods of working are the right way forward. I leave with you that thought and thank you very much for coming today. We will consider the evidence very carefully and consider a report or how we are going to deal with this in due course. The uncorrected version of the transcript will be available in the coming days. [1] Mr MacMillan intended to say “In fact, the report by the R&R Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), states that the annual cost of delaying starting the delivery phase of the R&R Programme is around £70m per year at current prices and there would be a further £250m to £350m in the inflationary impact on construction costs across the whole of the Programme for each year of delay, based on current information (p 124)”.