Delaying decisions on the restoration of the Palace of Westminster could add up to £420 million to the programme’s potential lifetime cost for each year lost, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have warned.
The committee published its findings on 4 November and said Parliament faces a choice over how to repair its historic home while keeping both Houses working. It warned that, without action, the building could face managed decline or, in the worst case, a catastrophic event that endangers lives and interrupts parliamentary business.
The £420 million figure is an estimate of the possible extra cost over the life of the restoration programme for each year of delay. It is not an annual maintenance bill. The committee said the estimates for the different approaches were wide and needed closer examination.
The committee said maintaining the Palace currently costs around £1.5 million a week, and that this is expected to rise to £2 million a week. The building has deteriorating mechanical and electrical systems, fire safety problems and asbestos among the issues that need to be addressed.
A decision on the first stage
MPs and peers are being asked to consider an initial seven-year package of works with a proposed £3 billion spending cap. This would cover activities including preparing temporary accommodation, setting up work sites, early work in parts of the Palace, and planning and design.
The programme’s client board has also recommended narrowing four long-term delivery options to two for further development. A final decision on the main approach is envisaged by 2030. Neither the first-stage package nor the recommended shortlist should be treated as approved before Parliament has made its decisions.
One recommended option would see both Houses leave the Palace for much of the work. The committee put the estimated cost of this full move at £11.1 billion to £15.6 billion, with a duration of 19 to 24 years.
The other recommended option would involve more of Parliament remaining in the building during a staged programme. The Lords would move out for an estimated eight to 13 years and the Commons could use the Lords chamber for up to two years. Its estimated cost is £19.5 billion to £39.2 billion, over 38 to 61 years.
Those figures are estimates rather than fixed prices or completion dates. The committee said the staged options were less developed and more uncertain, and that further design, planning and discussions with contractors were needed to give parliamentarians greater confidence in the eventual decision.
The committee did not endorse a particular delivery option. It said there was enough information for a debate and a vote on the proposals, but called for clearer governance, better cost information and more public scrutiny.
Temporary homes and outstanding costs
Finding temporary accommodation is a critical part of the plan. The Commons would move to Parliament’s Northern Estate and the Lords to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, but the committee said both arrangements faced problems.
It was told that the Northern Estate accommodation would not be available until 2034 at the earliest, although the full move had initially been planned for 2032 if Parliament chose that option. The committee also expressed concern about the time being taken to acquire the conference centre for the Lords.
Within the proposed £3 billion first-stage cap, about £500 million remained unallocated for projects not yet costed and for contingency. The committee identified riverside security, the relocation of essential services and restoration of the medieval cloister court as areas still needing cost estimates.
It asked for a detailed delivery schedule showing how the first-stage projects depend on one another, and an integrated plan covering the restoration programme and temporary accommodation. It also recommended that the government propose a dedicated select committee to scrutinise spending, progress and risks in public.
Parliamentary authorities say work is already taking place across the estate to help keep people who work there and visit safe. The committee’s warning is about the risks of allowing the wider restoration decision to drift, not a claim that a catastrophic event has already occurred.
Featured image: AI-generated illustration.
