Found: 1 Milestones The R&R Programme is currently in “phase one” , under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: Grant Presented to the House of Commons pursuant to section 9 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: Restoration-and- Renewal-of-the-Palace-of-Westminster-Progress-update.pdf [4] Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: of the issues the Corporate Officers have to have regard to under the the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: of the issues the Corporate Officers have to have regard to under the the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: which both Houses of Parliament will return, as set SuMMARy 11 out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return, as set out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return, as set out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return, as set out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: 25 Page 5 of 21 Frequently used acronyms and terms: Act: references the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: 25 Page 5 of 21 Frequently used acronyms and terms: Act: references the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: 1 Milestones The R&R Programme is currently in “phase one” , under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act

Found: The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 created the legal framework for restoring

Found: The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 created the legal framework for restoring

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the concept proposals for the creation of a new visitor plaza and underground space beneath Central Lobby, whether those proposals are necessary for delivering the core safety and resilience objectives of the Programme; what the estimated capital cost of the proposed underground plaza and associated works is; what risk assessment has been undertaken in relation to archaeological disturbance; and whether this element was included in earlier scope levels.

Answered by Nick Smith

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after the completion of the Parliamentary building works.

As set out in the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), the preferred scope for the R&R works will deliver a fit-for-purpose and accessible visitor arrival space, including higher capacity security search and screen areas that will reduce the likelihood of queuing outside. The current proposal is to use the area in the basement directly below Central Lobby for visitors as an access point into the public areas of the remainder of the Palace.

The majority of the construction costs for the Palace relate to the priority areas which both Houses agreed for the R&R Programme in 2022—namely, fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option relate to these priority areas.

The new visitor arrival space is not defined as a ‘priority area’ for the R&R Programme as agreed by the Houses. However, its delivery does contribute to safety and security objectives, for example by improving the search and screen capacity at the visitor entrance, improving secure routes through the Palace for the public and members, and supporting new accessible visitor routes. These improvements could not be delivered through enhancements to the existing entrance in Cromwell Green (largely due to inadequate space requirements).

The proposed visitor arrival space and route account for 0.5% of Palace construction costs under the full decant option and 1.1% under the EMI+ option. This is based on the base construction costs for the Palace project set out in Annex 2, table 2 of the report, which exclude risk and inflation.

The proposed location for the visitor arrival space in the basement of the Palace was selected in part because it aligns with the footprint of existing plantroom which was constructed in the 20th century. These areas are expected to require extension regardless of the visitor search and screening facility, as they will need to accommodate increased plant capacity in future. As a result, any archaeological impact is likely to be primarily driven by the final below‑ground plant requirements, rather than by the co‑location of search and screening functions. The visitor arrival space therefore does not independently introduce a new or additional archaeological impact beyond what would already be required for plant expansion.

In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money. The selected scope including provision for improved visitor services is set out in the R&R costed proposals report. Earlier scope levels at previous stages in the Programme also included improvements to visitor and educational facilities.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the overall Programme scope set out in Chapter 2, what criteria were used to distinguish between essential works necessary to prevent catastrophic failure and additional enhancement projects intended to improve visitor experience and public engagement; whether a reduced core safety and resilience only scope was fully costed; and what the estimated difference in capital expenditure would be between such a reduced scope and the level 4 reasonably ambitious scope.

Answered by Nick Smith

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need to ensure the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money, the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after completion of the works, and the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace after completion of the works. The Act did not specify whether any of these areas should be prioritised over others.

In 2022 the Houses agreed four priority areas for the R&R Programme—fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option relate to these priority works.

In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.

No other scope options have been fully costed to the maturity presented in the R&R Client Board’s report. The R&R Programme Board considered cost estimates for all scope options in 2023 as part of the work for the R&R Strategic Case. Following the R&R Client Board’s publication of the R&R Strategic Case in 2024 (HC Paper 621), designs were progressed to align with the selected scope and provide fully costed proposals. The costs as set out in the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), will not be comparable with those considered in 2023 because they have been developed in more detail and take into account the four different delivery methods.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what assessment the Client Board has made of the potential impact of government regulations on the projected costs of the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament; and whether it has had discussions with the Building Safety Regulator on Restoration and Renewal.

Answered by Nick Smith

The Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) sets out a recommended way forward for the R&R Programme, including the scope of the works and cost and timing estimates of different delivery options.

Design work for the R&R works was carried out to meet the requirements set out by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 and a range of relevant UK regulations regarding building standards, health and safety, and consents. The outcome level assessment conducted by the R&R Programme Board also made specific reference to regulations and standards. A separate assessment of “the potential impact of government regulations” on the projected costs set out the R&R Client Board’s report has not been undertaken.

Officials from Parliament’s R&R Client Team have engaged recently with the Chair of the Building Safety Regulator. The R&R Delivery Authority plans engagement with the Building Safety Regulator and the Health and Safety Executive at the next stage of design.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, 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.

Answered by Nick Smith

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 Westminster
• Phase 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.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, whether it has undertaken a formal value-for-money assessment of discretionary scope items including new visitor infrastructure, plaza construction, reprovision of the Education Centre and major entrance reconfiguration; whether each of those elements has an individually approved business case; and whether Parliament will be given the opportunity to vote separately on discretionary enhancements distinct from essential fire, safety and structural remediation works.

Answered by Nick Smith

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need to ensure the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money, the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after completion of the works, and the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace after completion of the works.

In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.

While there are no standalone business cases for individual scope elements within the Palace, all such elements will be included within the Programme Business Case, which will follow a decision by the Houses on the preferred way forward. 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) sets out the Client Board’s view on what the Houses should be invited to approve. The exact form and content of any motion put before the Houses is to be decided.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, 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.

Answered by Nick Smith

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.

Question

To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker how Parliament's Restoration and Renewal project will be funded.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The funding framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme is primarily set out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 (“the Act”). The Act sets out how the R&R Programme is funded in both phase 1 and phase 2 of the Programme. The House Commissions set a limit for the overall expenditure for phase 1. Both Houses of Parliament must approve the funding limit for phase 2.

Under the Act, the R&R Delivery Authority receives its funding on an annual basis via a grant administered by the Corporate Officers of the House of Commons and House of Lords. This is laid as an Estimate in the House of Commons. Subject to parliamentary approval of this expenditure, the monies are provided by HM Treasury.

During development of the Estimate, the Delivery Authority’s proposed budget is initially subject to scrutiny by the R&R Client Team and House finance teams, R&R Delivery Authority Board, R&R Programme Board, and the R&R Client Board. Following this process the Estimates is submitted to the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission (PWEC). This was established by the Act with a responsibility to review an Estimate for the Delivery Authority’s expenditure before the Estimate is laid. PWEC is required to consult HM Treasury as part of its review; to date, HM Treasury has concluded that the Estimates have been “taut and realistic”.

The National Audit Office (NAO) examines, certifies and reports on the Delivery Authority’s annual statement of accounts. The NAO has the ability to carry out value for money studies into the delivery of the Programme and has undertaken two reviews of the R&R Programme to date.

Some expenditure related to the R&R Programme is not borne by the Delivery Authority, such as the budgets for the R&R Client Team and the House of Lords R&R team as well as elements of spend by Strategic Estates (who, for example, lead on delivering Commons temporary accommodation on the Northern Estate). These budgets are contained within the wider House Administration Estimates and are formally scrutinised by the House Commissions, as advised by their respective finance committees, and are subject to parliamentary approval.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, whether the Client Board will offer payroll deductions to all its staff to enable them to join a credit union.

Answered by Nick Smith

House of Commons and Joint Department staff, including those working for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Team, already have access to payroll deductions to enable them to join a credit union, operated through London Mutual Credit Union. Full details are available in the staff handbook.

The R&R Delivery Authority is a company limited by guarantee established pursuant to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and under the Act, it may appoint employees on such terms and conditions, including as to remuneration and allowances, as it may determine. The Delivery Authority does not offer the ability to participate in a credit union. The Delivery Authority regularly engages with colleagues to seek their views, and the ability to participate in a credit union is not something in which staff have expressed interest.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what the budget is for the restoration and renewal of the parliamentary estate in the next financial year.

Answered by Nick Smith

The funding for work related to Restoration and Renewal comes from several budgets.

The majority of R&R funding is provided through the R&R Delivery Authority’s Main Estimate which is subject to various stages of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The funding approval process is partly set out in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. The House Commissions are required to set a limit on how much the Delivery Authority can spend in phase one of the programme (the phase before Parliament has approved the scheme and full funding for the works). The Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission is required under the Act to review the Estimate and consult HM Treasury and is responsible for laying the Estimate before the House of Commons. Prior to this, the Estimate is also scrutinised by the R&R Client Team and House finance teams, R&R Delivery Authority Board, R&R Programme Board and the R&R Client Board.

The budget for the R&R Delivery Authority for the next financial year (2026–27) is scheduled to be considered by the Client Board on 2 March 2026 as it progresses through the agreed governance approval stages.

The budgets for the R&R Client Team, Strategic Estates and the House of Lords R&R Team for the next financial year are contained within the wider House Administration Estimates and are formally scrutinised by the House Commissions, as advised by their respective finance committees. These budgets are also progressing through their approval stages.

In the current financial year (2025–26), the agreed budget for the R&R Delivery Authority is £53.2 million, £7.7m for the R&R Client Team, £0.4m for the House of Lords R&R Team, and £13m for Strategic Estates’ costs of developing the enhanced maintenance and improvement (EMI) option.

Found: Examples of the legislative solution in Acts Acts of the UK Parliament • Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act