Written questions by Morton.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the projected programme durations and decant periods set out in the report, what assessment the Client Board has made of the risk that the 19–24 year Full Decant duration could extend beyond current projections; what modelling has been undertaken of the institutional impact of prolonged Chamber decant on parliamentary procedure and Member effectiveness; what assessment has been made of staff retention and operational efficiency during extended displacement; and what consideration has been given to the democratic and reputational costs associated with relocation over multiple Parliaments.

Chapter 4 of the recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) provides information about the full decant option. This is one of two options which the R&R Client Board recommends for further development.The 19 to 24 year duration for full decant reflects a P50–P80 range and therefore incorporates provision for schedule risks. The Commons Chamber would be decanted to Richmond House for 8 to 10 years under full decant.Pages 50 to 52 of the Client Board’s report sets out some examples of how parliamentary business would look and feel different under full decant (during the course of the Programme, not in the end-state Palace). These impacts have been considered by both the Member-led R&R Client Board and the R&R Programme Board.As referenced in the report, decant provision needs to be comparable—as a minimum—to the current provision. For the House of Commons, that means that not only will the Northern Estate need to be refurbished to ensure it is resilient and fit for purpose for increased use over the life of the R&R Programme, but a creative and purposeful approach will need to be taken to identify other opportunities for decant, given that the space available on the Northern Estate is not adequate to recreate many of the Commons’ existing facilities. This will need to be a priority focus of work before a final decision is taken on an R&R delivery approach by mid-2030.Several Commons committees and the Commission have been engaged about the high-level proposals for temporary accommodation on the Northern Estate. Engagement with Members will continue as designs continue to develop.A number of other parliaments internationally are undergoing or have completed restoration projects for their parliamentary buildings, for example Canada, Austria, Hungary and the Netherlands, and several of these have had to decant from Chambers for some period of time. The R&R Programme is learning about how these moves operated in practice and were managed as well as the various impacts, including on Members and staff.Substantial staff decants have already been successfully managed by the House in recent years to a range of buildings with no loss of business service levels and good staff satisfaction, aided by appropriate business change support.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the proposed phase one works package estimated at up to £3 billion, what assessment the Client Board has made of the level of the risk that Parliament will have committed substantial irreversible expenditure prior to selecting a final delivery option; what proportion of phase one expenditure would constitute sunk costs if the preferred option were subsequently amended; whether the phase one works materially prejudice the choice between Full Decant and EMI+; and how this phased commitment aligns with the requirement in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 for upfront approval of a funding envelope.

Chapter 7 of the recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) sets out the Board’s recommendation for a package of phase one works, in line with emerging best practice. The phase one works would include up to seven years of expenditure as well as financial commitment for some work started in this period, such as underground construction, which would be completed after seven years.The phase one works are not an alternative to the full R&R Programme; they are foundational to it, however it is delivered. This means the phase one works do not prejudice a choice between the R&R Client Board’s two recommended options of full decant or enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+). In developing the phase one proposals, the R&R Programme Board considered a range of down‑selection scenarios and the associated impacts on cost and schedule, ensuring that the proposed package remains flexible and does not commit the Programme to a particular delivery option.A decision by the Houses on a preferred delivery option would be required no later than mid-2030 to ensure that the Programme has a clear trajectory on the final delivery option that Parliament wishes to take. During the period when the phase one works are being delivered, the Programme will develop more robust estimates and detailed designs with its strategic partners, to help inform the Houses to take a decision on a preferred option in the next Parliament.The sum for the phase one works is included in the overall costs for the options set out in the R&R Client Board’s report. Normal contractual clauses will be used for the work to ensure that any additional expenditure is minimised should a decision be made by the Houses to change the Programme in future.The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, divides the Programme into two phases:Phase one includes preparatory works for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of WestminsterPhase two covers the period between when Parliamentary approval is obtained for the main works and when it ends with completion of the Parliamentary buildings works.Under section 7 of the 2019 Act, the two Houses are required to approve both the Delivery Authority’s proposals for the Palace restoration and a total funding envelope before the Programme can move to phase two.The scope of the phase one works is considered to fall within the definition of preparatory works.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the stated annual cost of delay of £70 million and the estimated additional £250–350 million annual inflationary impact, what methodology was used to calculate those figures; what assumptions were made regarding construction market conditions; whether independent validation of those delay cost estimates was commissioned; what sensitivity analysis was undertaken to model lower inflation scenarios; and whether those delay figures include all ongoing maintenance expenditure irrespective of the R&R Programme.

It is estimated that the cost of delaying starting the delivery phase of the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme is around £70m per year at current prices. It is estimated that 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.The methodology underpinning the cost of delay is set out on page 124 in Annex 2 of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576). This consists of: the compound impact of inflation over the Programme’s life (the £250m-£350m figure above); nugatory options development costs from this point; and additional reactive maintenance costs (above the current baseline).The cost of delay was considered as part of the Independent Advice and Assurance Panel’s (IAAP) review, which was published alongside the report. The IAAP has advised that the calculation of the costs of delay is likely to be an underestimate because it is based on accepted figures where robust estimates are available – most notably for the inflationary increase in construction costs that arise from delayed implementation, which the IAAP considered to be reasonable, and realistic. While those specific figures were reasonable the IAAP advised that, in major asset management, it is well established that remediation costs often grow in real terms relative to avoided maintenance costs (when essential investments are postponed): they also advised that the likelihood of extreme events rises when complicated, interconnected systems are operated beyond their intended design life or usage parameters.Separately to the cost of delay calculations, sensitivity analysis looking at the impact of construction inflation outstripping Bank of England forecasts was considered.The cost of delay figures were estimated with regard specifically to the R&R Programme and do not include all ongoing maintenance within the Palace of Westminster, only the growth in reactive maintenance costs above the current annual baseline.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the cost ranges set out in Table 1 of the costed proposals report, what assessment the Client Board has made of the historical accuracy of P50 and P80 estimates in comparable UK major projects; whether the inflation-adjusted cost ranges for Full Decant and EMI+ adequately reflect recent construction inflation volatility; whether the optimism bias applied sufficiently accounts for heritage, asbestos and live-estate risks; and what estimate it has made of the potential fiscal exposure to the taxpayer should cost escalation exceed the upper P80 range.

The recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), provides costs and schedules as ranges at different confidence levels (P50 and P80). This is in line with major programme best practice and guidance from the National Audit Office (NAO).In addition, the R&R Programme carries out benchmarking against UK and international comparators.The R&R works and construction costs have been benchmarked against 14 international Parliamentary projects and 18 heritage building projects, including Kings Cross Station regeneration, Manchester Town Hall, London Olympics, Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line) and others.Benchmarking of cost estimates has also included benchmarking against other comparable types of work, for example asbestos removal (including in heritage sites), hospital mechanical and electrical work, or Salisbury cathedral stonework where appropriate; the types of cost and levels of risk allowed for in estimates against the Canadian Parliament and other comparable Parliamentary projects (including UK Parliament projects) and complex restoration projects; and management costs against other major programmes. Risk has been calculated and incorporated into estimates in line with Infrastructure and Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority) and NAO guidance for programmes.The inflation profile follows the Bank of England Monetary Report (November 2024) which remains constant at 2% from 2028/29 onwards in line with Bank of England targets. Sensitivity analysis looking at the impact of construction inflation outstripping Bank of England targets was also considered.The R&R Programme has recognised the heritage, asbestos and live‑estate challenges inherent in the Palace, and elements of these risks have been incorporated into its contingency planning. However, the independent assurance findings indicate that some of these factors are not yet fully reflected in the quantitative modelling, and a portion of the remaining exposure is currently covered through Optimism Bias. As the design matures and further survey data becomes available in the proposed next stage of the works, the Programme will refine these allowances to ensure they are fully and accurately captured.Under section 7 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, the two Houses are required to approve both the Delivery Authority’s proposals for the Palace restoration and a total funding envelope before the Programme can move to phase two. Furthermore, under section 7(4), once that approval has been obtained, any significant subsequent changes to the design, timing or funding of the works would require further approval from the Houses.Costs will be monitored closely throughout the delivery of the R&R Programme. Wider funding for the R&R Programme is subject to formal scrutiny from the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission with input from HM Treasury, and audits by the NAO. The Public Accounts Committee can and has scrutinised R&R including its current inquiry announced in December 2025. The R&R Client Board, R&R Programme Board and R&R Delivery Authority Board also scrutinise costs to ensure value for money. Reports relating to R&R delivery and costs will continue to be publicly available, and there will be regular ongoing scrutiny by Members and Member-led Boards.

Communities and Local Government, what oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure that funding allocated to mayoral combined authorities is delivering value for money; how often such authorities are subject to independent audit or review; and whether he will publish all recent evaluations of programme delivery, including those relating to skills, infrastructure and housing investment.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol, which sets out how Mayors will be held to account by central government, at local level and by the public. This includes a duty to ensure value for money. All relevant local bodies defined by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 are required to have their accounts independently audited.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mayoral combined authorities in delivering regional growth plans; what metrics his Department uses to evaluate performance against investment commitments, job creation and housing delivery; and whether he will publish comparative performance data across combined authorities, including the West Midlands Combined Authority.

Local Growth Plans are a key pillar of our regional growth agenda, and government continues to work with Mayoral Strategic Authorities to co-agree regional growth priorities.Mayoral Strategic Authority delivery, including on investment commitments and job creation, is monitored through relevant programme governance arrangements. For areas with an Integrated Settlement, delivery will be overseen via a single Outcomes Framework agreed with all relevant departments, HMT, and the Mayoral Strategic Authority. The outcome and targets that the Mayoral Strategic Authorities agree with central government may be different to reflect their priorities for local growth.Progress on housing will also be measured through the number of net additional dwellings (published on an England-wide, regional and local authority basis) and we will update Parliament in the usual manner.

Communities and Local Government, whether affordable housing starts that remain uncompleted for multiple years are included in published figures cited as evidence of housing delivery; and whether official publications distinguish starts from completed homes when reporting delivery outcomes.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what powers his Department has to recover, suspend, or reallocate affordable housing grant funding where homes recorded as started under the Greater London Authority’s 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme are not progressed to completion.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what the total value of affordable housing grant funding allocated to homes recorded as started by the Greater London Authority under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme but not yet completed is; and how much of that funding has been (a) drawn down and (b) remains unspent.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the proposals relating to temporary accommodation within Richmond House, what assessment the Client Board has made of the necessity of constructing a new purpose-built Chamber facility within Richmond House in circumstances where the House of Commons may ultimately decide not to utilise it; what proportion of the projected costs of phase one works relate to Chamber-capable infrastructure in Richmond House; whether alternative lower-cost temporary arrangements were formally assessed; and what estimate has been made of the sunk cost risk should that facility not be required.

Under full decant a temporary Chamber would be provided in Richmond House, which Members would decant to and which would enable the House to operate much the same as it does now. Under other delivery options the provision in Richmond House would be to provide space for a resilience Chamber, a place that could be used, for example, as a consequence of any intolerable or unplanned disruption during the R&R works (and could be used for other purposes when not needed as a resilience chamber). It was therefore deemed necessary under all approaches.The costs that are driven by the need for a temporary (or resilience) chamber as part of the R&R Programme accounts for 13% of phase one works costs. This is set out in chapter 7 of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576).The use of the Northern Estate as a decant location for the House of Commons was re-confirmed in the R&R Client Board’s Strategic Case in March 2024. This location has been consistently identified in numerous reviews and studies as the most suitable location given it is part of the Parliamentary Estate and close to Whitehall, offers value for money, retains the Commons in the secure perimeter and is capable of meeting the House’s security requirements. Other relevant studies include the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, First Report of Session 2016–17, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster (HC 659) and the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Restoration and Renewal Programme Strategic Review, March 2021.Regardless of the R&R Programme, the Northern Estate requires refurbishment to ensure it meets modern parliamentary standards, which is being carried out under the Commons Buildings Infrastructure Portfolio. There will therefore be a legacy value to Parliament from the refurbishment of these buildings.

Communities and Local Government, whether there is a maximum period for which an affordable housing start may remain uncompleted while continuing to be treated as a valid start for statistical purposes; and if there is no such limit, how the integrity of the affordable housing starts series is maintained.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, under what circumstances affordable homes recorded by the Greater London Authority as started under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme may be reclassified, adjusted, or removed from official affordable housing starts statistics; and whether any such cases have occurred to date.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, how many affordable homes recorded as started by the Greater London Authority under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme remained uncompleted at the end of the most recent reporting period; and of those, how many had recorded no further construction activity in that period.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes in instances where increases in council tax are accompanied by reductions in discretionary services and increases in fees and charges; and if he will require councils to publish a standardised breakdown of the household-level financial impact of such combined measures.

The Department has not made an assessment of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes. It is for individual councils to decide their level of council tax, the discretionary services they deliver, and their fees and charges. In doing this they should take into consideration a range of factors including the impact on taxpayers. Councils are required to publicise their decisions with their residents in accordance with legislation.

What statutory role combined authorities will have under the Railways Bill in relation to service levels, timetabling and rolling stock deployment; what mechanisms will exist for regional leaders to challenge or appeal operational decisions made by Great British Railways; whether she expects the creation of a nationally managed rail body to increase central control over decisions previously taken at operator level; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact of nationalisation on rail devolution in mayoral combined authority areas.

GBR will be required to consult Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) where decisions on passenger services or rail infrastructure could have a significant impact on their areas. GBR will also have regard to the Local Transport Plans of MSAs to ensure local priorities are considered. The Bill enables cooperation between GBR and MSAs, allowing for information sharing and the ability to enter into arrangements regarding railway functions. This will enable close partnership working, providing opportunities for MSAs to shape local services and integrate rail with other modes. In addition, the Bill establishes the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) as a robust and independent appeals body, providing a clear route for appeal of GBR’s access and charging decisions. GBR will offer single-point local accountability for Mayors, with empowered local management as part of Business Units responsible for track and train. Local influence and control will need to be balanced with GBR taking decisions in the interest of the wider regional and national network.

What empirical evidence her Department relied upon in concluding that public ownership of train operations would improve punctuality and reliability; what modelling has been undertaken on the expected impact of public ownership on cancellation rates and passenger satisfaction over the next five years; what international comparators were used in developing the Government’s policy; and what measurable performance targets have been set for Great British Railways during its first three years of operation.

Great British Railways (GBR) will be a directing mind for Britain’s railway. The Impact Assessments for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill and the Railways Bill set out the rationale for reform. We continue to look at international best practice and work with industry on targets.

What assessment she has made of the likely impact of public ownership on fare levels in the West Midlands over the next five years; whether fare-setting powers will change substantively under Great British Railways compared with the previous franchising model; what analysis has been undertaken of the relationship between ownership model and passenger satisfaction; and what steps she is taking to ensure that passengers in the West Midlands will not experience a reduction in service frequency or capacity as a result of asset reallocation decisions.

Passenger affordability is a top priority for this government when setting rail fares. That is why this year we have taken the historic step of freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, putting money back in hard working people’s pockets and delivering savings for passengers across billions of journeys. It is important that we strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and reducing the burden on taxpayers. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on the Railways Bill, future fares policy under Great British Railway (GBR) will be guided by strategic parameters and guardrails, set by the Secretary of State and aligned to GBR’s financial settlement, providing GBR with greater autonomy and flexibility compared to today. These will reassure passengers that their fares will remain affordable, while ensuring sustainable use of taxpayer money on the network.

What safeguards are in place to help ensure that rolling stock currently allocated to services operated by West Midlands Trains remains allocated to those routes following transfer into public ownership; and what criteria will be used by Great British Railways when determining the geographic allocation or reallocation of rolling stock.

The Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department’s Rail Operator (DFTO) currently have no plans to reallocate rolling stock in use by West Midlands Trains and, as part of the recent transfer into public ownership, all leases have been extended until at least 2028.Under Great British Railways (GBR) we expect it to be easier to move rolling stock in response to changed circumstances than it is today. The criteria for such decisions will be developed in due course ahead of GBR’s establishment.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the cumulative infrastructure impact of developments approved on appeal on former green belt land, including pressures on local roads, GP provision, school places and drainage; whether inspectors are required to quantify those impacts against existing local capacity; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local objections, including those submitted through statutory consultation processes, are given material weight in appeal decisions.

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answers given to Questions UIN 26508 on 05 February 2025 and UIN 90834 on 21 November 2025.

Whether any minimum allocation guarantees have been provided to regional authorities; whether combined authorities or mayors will have any formal consent or veto role in decisions relating to the permanent reassignment of trains; and what assessment she has made of the potential economic impact on the West Midlands should rolling stock procured for that region be reassigned elsewhere.

There are no minimum allocation guarantees in place. Mayors currently have varying roles in rail matters affecting their areas, and the detail of future arrangements has not yet been decided.No assessment of the potential economic impact of moving trains away from the West Midlands has been made because the Department for Transport, and the Department’s Rail Operator (DFTO Ltd), currently have no plans to reallocate rolling stock in use by West Midlands Trains and, as part of the recent transfer into public ownership, all leases have been extended until at least 2028.