Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in reference to HCWS1286 made of 26 January 2026 on Resetting the S106 system, what estimate he has made of the number of affordable homes that could be converted to private sale or market rent through the proposed time-limited tenure renegotiations; and what safeguards will be in place to ensure there is no net loss of social and affordable housing at the local authority level.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement made on 28 January 2026 (HCWS1286).

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to HCWS1281 of 28 January 2026 on reform to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, what assessment the Government has made of the potential impact of allowing veterinary nurses and allied veterinary professionals to practise more independently; what safeguards will be introduced to maintain animal welfare and clinical standards; how accountability will be enforced under a licence-to-practise model; and what steps will be taken to ensure public confidence in the regulatory framework.

Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Registered Veterinary Nurses are highly qualified and are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Any work they do will remain within their competencies though some tasks that veterinary nurses regularly do now, may no longer need a veterinary surgeon to be present; this opens up the ability to undertake district nursing. Allied veterinary professionals (AVPs) are currently unregulated and work independently of vets; regulating them will protect animal health and welfare. Like veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, under our proposals, all AVPs will need the correct training, and be licensed and accountable to the regulating body. If they do not meet the required standards, they can be reported, and subject to the fitness to practise procedures (similar to the current RCVS disciplinary framework). Defra is additionally proposing an oversight body to review the actions of the regulator– ensuring further accountability.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to HCWS1286 on Resetting the S106 system, what consultation she will undertake with local authorities prior to implementing the planned Spring 2026 reforms.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department will continue to engage with all relevant parts of the sector as we develop measures designed to ‘reset’ the S106 market and support the effective S106 delivery of social and affordable homes, including local authorities.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in reference to HCWS1286 on Resetting the S106 system, whether financial payments made in lieu of onsite affordable housing will be required to remain within the originating local authority area.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The government expects that wherever financial payments are accepted in lieu of onsite affordable housing, they will remain within the originating local authority area.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what recent assessment the Government-appointed commissioners have made of the potential impact of the waste strike on Birmingham City Council’s financial sustainability.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Commissioners were appointed in October 2023 to provide oversight and support the Council on their wider improvement journey. The Secretary of State receives regular six-monthly reports from Commissioners outlining the progress made by the Council in complying with the Best Value Duty and the Department regularly engages with Commissioners as is normal for all interventions. The Commissioners’ third report was published on gov.uk on 1 December 2025 alongside a Written Ministerial Statement.

Throughout the dispute, this government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the acute phase of the waste dispute in the spring, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city can be safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. The government remains in close contact with Commissioners and the Council as we continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact of the bin strike on local communities. We cannot allow a return to the levels of disruption seen last spring.

The Council are moving towards financial sustainability, and they have recently announced proposals for a balanced revenue budget in 2026/27 without Exceptional Financial Support. This is possible because of the government’s funding reforms – which will increase Birmingham’s Core Spending Power by 45% from 2024-25 to 2028-29.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how frequently Government-appointed commissioners at Birmingham City Council report to Ministers on the impact of the waste dispute on the improvement of that council.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Commissioners were appointed in October 2023 to provide oversight and support the Council on their wider improvement journey. The Secretary of State receives regular six-monthly reports from Commissioners outlining the progress made by the Council in complying with the Best Value Duty and the Department regularly engages with Commissioners as is normal for all interventions. The Commissioners’ third report was published on gov.uk on 1 December 2025 alongside a Written Ministerial Statement.

Throughout the dispute, this government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the acute phase of the waste dispute in the spring, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city can be safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. The government remains in close contact with Commissioners and the Council as we continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact of the bin strike on local communities. We cannot allow a return to the levels of disruption seen last spring.

The Council are moving towards financial sustainability, and they have recently announced proposals for a balanced revenue budget in 2026/27 without Exceptional Financial Support. This is possible because of the government’s funding reforms – which will increase Birmingham’s Core Spending Power by 45% from 2024-25 to 2028-29.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps he has taken in response to commissioners’ concerns over the impact of the waste dispute in Birmingham on council capacity.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Commissioners were appointed in October 2023 to provide oversight and support the Council on their wider improvement journey. The Secretary of State receives regular six-monthly reports from Commissioners outlining the progress made by the Council in complying with the Best Value Duty and the Department regularly engages with Commissioners as is normal for all interventions. The Commissioners’ third report was published on gov.uk on 1 December 2025 alongside a Written Ministerial Statement.

Throughout the dispute, this government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the acute phase of the waste dispute in the spring, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city can be safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. The government remains in close contact with Commissioners and the Council as we continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact of the bin strike on local communities. We cannot allow a return to the levels of disruption seen last spring.

The Council are moving towards financial sustainability, and they have recently announced proposals for a balanced revenue budget in 2026/27 without Exceptional Financial Support. This is possible because of the government’s funding reforms – which will increase Birmingham’s Core Spending Power by 45% from 2024-25 to 2028-29.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of prolonged disruption to waste collection services in Birmingham on public health.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Commissioners were appointed in October 2023 to provide oversight and support the Council on their wider improvement journey. The Secretary of State receives regular six-monthly reports from Commissioners outlining the progress made by the Council in complying with the Best Value Duty and the Department regularly engages with Commissioners as is normal for all interventions. The Commissioners’ third report was published on gov.uk on 1 December 2025 alongside a Written Ministerial Statement.

Throughout the dispute, this government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the acute phase of the waste dispute in the spring, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city can be safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. The government remains in close contact with Commissioners and the Council as we continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact of the bin strike on local communities. We cannot allow a return to the levels of disruption seen last spring.

The Council are moving towards financial sustainability, and they have recently announced proposals for a balanced revenue budget in 2026/27 without Exceptional Financial Support. This is possible because of the government’s funding reforms – which will increase Birmingham’s Core Spending Power by 45% from 2024-25 to 2028-29.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 107689, what the expected split is between inbound and outbound places within the 100,000 places referred to; and over what period those 100,000 places are expected to be delivered.

Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)

We expect that over 100,000 people could benefit from outbound mobility and partnership opportunities from UK participation in 2027. Depending on the Erasmus+ action for which they apply, UK beneficiaries of Erasmus+ funding in the 2027 call year will be able to use their funding for projects lasting between 3 and 36 months.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what discussions he has had with Birmingham City Council on contingency arrangements to mitigate the impact of the waste strike on residents.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The ongoing waste dispute is damaging for the residents and reputation of the great city of Birmingham. We take the progress made across Birmingham City Council extremely seriously. A successful and prospering Birmingham is a high priority for this government, and the department regularly meets both the Council and Commissioners, alongside receiving regular updates on progress, including on the waste dispute and contingency arrangements. During the acute phase of the waste dispute last year, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city was safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. In relation to advice received on the waste dispute, internal government advice will not be published, in line with normal practice and convention.

Any allegation of bullying or harassment is a matter for the employer to deal with in the first instance. Birmingham City Council and their contracted agency are independent employers, and the ongoing disputes are a local issue. The government is not a party in the dispute and does not hold information about the allegations of bullying or harassment.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what written correspondence he has had with Birmingham City Council on proposed settlements to end the waste strike.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The ongoing waste dispute is damaging for the residents and reputation of the great city of Birmingham. We take the progress made across Birmingham City Council extremely seriously. A successful and prospering Birmingham is a high priority for this government, and the department regularly meets both the Council and Commissioners, alongside receiving regular updates on progress, including on the waste dispute and contingency arrangements. During the acute phase of the waste dispute last year, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city was safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. In relation to advice received on the waste dispute, internal government advice will not be published, in line with normal practice and convention.

Any allegation of bullying or harassment is a matter for the employer to deal with in the first instance. Birmingham City Council and their contracted agency are independent employers, and the ongoing disputes are a local issue. The government is not a party in the dispute and does not hold information about the allegations of bullying or harassment.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what information his Department holds on allegations of bullying and harassment made by agency waste workers in Birmingham.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The ongoing waste dispute is damaging for the residents and reputation of the great city of Birmingham. We take the progress made across Birmingham City Council extremely seriously. A successful and prospering Birmingham is a high priority for this government, and the department regularly meets both the Council and Commissioners, alongside receiving regular updates on progress, including on the waste dispute and contingency arrangements. During the acute phase of the waste dispute last year, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city was safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. In relation to advice received on the waste dispute, internal government advice will not be published, in line with normal practice and convention.

Any allegation of bullying or harassment is a matter for the employer to deal with in the first instance. Birmingham City Council and their contracted agency are independent employers, and the ongoing disputes are a local issue. The government is not a party in the dispute and does not hold information about the allegations of bullying or harassment.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if he will publish advice he has received from commissioners and officials on the Birmingham waste dispute.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The ongoing waste dispute is damaging for the residents and reputation of the great city of Birmingham. We take the progress made across Birmingham City Council extremely seriously. A successful and prospering Birmingham is a high priority for this government, and the department regularly meets both the Council and Commissioners, alongside receiving regular updates on progress, including on the waste dispute and contingency arrangements. During the acute phase of the waste dispute last year, the government took decisive action in lock step with the Council to ensure waste in the city was safely and sustainably managed. The result was to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. In relation to advice received on the waste dispute, internal government advice will not be published, in line with normal practice and convention.

Any allegation of bullying or harassment is a matter for the employer to deal with in the first instance. Birmingham City Council and their contracted agency are independent employers, and the ongoing disputes are a local issue. The government is not a party in the dispute and does not hold information about the allegations of bullying or harassment.

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to HCWS1249, how many AI-enabled tools are currently in live use across central government; which policy areas are included in the AI Exemplars Programme; what level of human oversight applies to AI-assisted decision-making; and how compliance with the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard is enforced.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

Government departments are deploying a growing number of AI‑enabled tools, but there is no single mandated reporting mechanism that centrally tallies every operational tool. Work through the AI Opportunities Action Plan is improving visibility and consistent reporting across departments.

The projects in the PM’s AI Exemplars span a wide range of policy areas including health and care, justice and probation, education, planning and local government, and migration and borders. All AI projects across Government are safeguarded by access to DSIT’s suite of responsible AI guidance, tools and expertise which enable rapid innovation whilst ensuring a transparent, trustworthy and responsible approach. The AI Playbook for Government for example provides departments and public sector organisations with accessible technical guidance on the responsible use of AI.

The ATRS is mandatory for all government departments, and for ALBs which deliver public or frontline services, or directly interact with the public. Although it is a policy mandate rather than a legislative requirement, it is enforced through inclusion in processes such the DDaT Spend Controls; meaning that when a budget is requested for tools that fall within the scope of the ATRS, the team in question must commit to publishing an ATRS record before receiving funds.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to Written Ministerial Statement HCWS1278 of 27 January 2026 on commonhold and leasehold reform, what assessment the Department has made of why commonhold has not gained traction since 2004; what targets have been set for commonhold take-up over the next five and ten years; what engagement has taken place with mortgage lenders, developers and conveyancers to ensure market readiness; and what mechanisms will be used to monitor adoption and prevent disruption to housing delivery.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Commonhold White Paper published on 3 March 2025 set out both the legal and market barriers to the widespread adoption of the original commonhold system, as well as the government’s approach to resolving these.

On 27 January 2026, we published the Draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will reinvigorate commonhold through a comprehensive new legal framework, make it easier for leaseholders to convert their homes to commonhold and ensure commonhold becomes the default tenure by banning new leasehold flats. No numerical targets for the take-up of commonhold have been set.

Alongside the publication of the draft Bill, we launched a consultation ‘Moving to Commonhold’ on banning new leasehold flats, where we are seeking views from industry and consumers on key issues including the timing of the ban, any necessary exemptions, and the transitional arrangements needed to minimise disruption to delivery of new housing supply. The consultation also invites specific feedback on questions of market readiness, and we would encourage all of those operating across the housing market to take part. As part of our commitment to ensuring effective monitoring and evaluation of the government’s leasehold and commonhold reforms, we will publish the evaluation findings in due course.

Question

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

Answered by Nick Smith

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.

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, 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.

Answered by Nick Smith

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.

Question

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

Answered by Nick Smith

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.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how many local authorities have forecast a structural budget deficit beyond 2026–27 at the same time as applying the maximum council tax increase; and what assessment he has made of the level of likelihood of further Section 114 notices.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The recent Local Government Finance Settlement is our most significant step yet to make English local government more sustainable. Our reforms are delivering a fairer Settlement which puts funding where it is needed most. Before our reforms, only around a third of councils were given the funding that broadly matched their assessed need. Our reforms bring that up to nine in ten councils by 2028-29.

However, delivering reform will take time, and the government recognises the challenging financial context for local authorities as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous flawed system. That is why the government previously confirmed that there will continue to be a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult financial positions ahead of 2026-27, as councils start the transition to new funding allocations. On 23 February 2026 we wrote to a number of councils to confirm in-principle support through the Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) process. Details of these councils and the support provided have been published on GOV.UK.

Councils are responsible for their own financial management and under the relevant legislation the decision to issue a Section 114 notice is an entirely local one. It would not be appropriate for the government to speculate on these decisions.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to Written Ministerial Statement HCWS1281 of 28 January 2026 on reform to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, what timeline the Government has set for the consultation, response and any subsequent legislation; what engagement is taking place with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, veterinary nurses, allied veterinary professionals and animal welfare organisations; and what interim measures are being considered to address workforce shortages while reforms are developed.

Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The consultation on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 opened on 28 January and is due to close on 25 March. Defra will analyse the responses and aim to reply within 12 weeks of the consultation closing, with subsequent legislation depending on parliamentary time.

Defra has co-designed the consultation with numerous stakeholders including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association and the Vet Schools Council. Key stakeholders for allied veterinary professions, including animal welfare organisations, have also worked with officials on how they would fit into any new legislation.

Defra is working across Government to address the shortfall in vets including the UK Government manifesto commitment to prioritise UK-EU recognition of professional qualifications (RPQ). Defra welcomes the fact that the number of homegrown vet students continues to rise with four new vet schools opening in the last six years.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, 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.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 28 January 2026 on Resetting the S106 system, whether his Department plans to monitor disparities between authorities in renegotiation outcomes; and if he will publish comparative data on affordable housing retained versus lost following S106 variations.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department will closely monitor data relating to the time-limited process in question.

We have no current plans to collate re-negotiated S106 agreements and publish comparative data.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Resetting the S106 system, HCWS1286, published on 28 January 2026, whether additional legal, valuation, and planning resources will be made available to local planning authorities.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Planning and Infrastructure Act includes powers that allow the Secretary of State to delegate planning fee-setting to local planning authorities, enabling them to recover costs and reinvest to provide a more efficient and responsive planning service, including in respect of making timelier decisions.

At the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chanceller announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-2026.

At the Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period.

Of this, £28.8 million has been allocated to MHCLG’s Planning Capacity and Capability Programme, equating to £9.6 million additional per year for the next three years. This allocation will supplement existing budgets.

In total, the Programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase this figure further to approximately 1,400 planners.

The new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by means of expanding the Pathways to Planning Graduate Scheme and establishing a Planning Careers Hub.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 27 January 2026, HCWS1278, how many freehold homeowners are estimated to be affected by estate rent charges; what transitional protections will apply following repeal of enforcement powers; how communal estate maintenance will continue to be funded; what rights homeowners will have to challenge unreasonable charges; and what measures will be introduced to prevent future abuse of estate management arrangements.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement published on 18 December 2025 (HCWS1210).

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 27 January 2026, HCWS1278, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of capping ground rents at £250 per year on the economy; what estimate he has made of the number of affected leaseholders; what assessment has been made of the potential impact of this policy on freeholders, pension funds and investor confidence; and whether any compensation or mitigation measures are under consideration.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement made on 27 January 2026 (HCWS1278) and to the policy statement on ground rents published on the same date which is available on gov.uk here.

An Impact Assessment for the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Bill will be published in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 27 January 2026, HCWS1278, when he plans to bring forward remedial legislation; when enfranchisement provisions will be commenced; what consultation will take place on valuation rates for enfranchisement premiums; and what assessment has been made of the potential financial impact of revised valuation methodology on leaseholders and freeholders.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 103549 on 14 January 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 27 January 2026, HCWS1278, what enforcement framework will replace leasehold forfeiture; how landlords and managing agents will recover legitimate arrears under the new regime; what assessment has been made of the potential risk of increased non-payment or moral hazard; what assessment has been made of the potential impact of these policies on tribunal and court caseloads; and whether he plans to take steps to help ensure building finances remain sustainable.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill includes provisions that abolish the right to forfeit a long residential lease for breach of covenant and introduce a new statutory lease enforcement scheme. An Impact Assessment for the draft Bill will be published in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Written Statement of 27 January 2026 on Commonhold and leasehold reform, HCWS1278, what exemptions his Department is considering to the proposed ban on new leasehold flats; what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the ban on (a) housing supply, (b) development viability and (c) build-to-rent schemes; whether he has had discussions with (i) institutional investors and (ii) SME builders on the proposed ban; and what steps he is planning to take to prevent the policy reducing (A) flat construction and (B) increasing prices.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the ‘Moving to commonhold: banning leasehold for new flats’ consultation launched on 27 January 2026. It is available on gov.uk here and will remain open for responses until 24 April 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2ith reference to the written statement of 27 January 2026 on Commonhold and leasehold reform, HCWS1278, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of reducing the commonhold conversion threshold to 50% of qualifying leaseholders; what steps he is planning to take to help support minority leaseholders who oppose conversion; what steps he is planning to take to protect lenders' security interests; what estimate he has made of the number of blocks that will convert in the first five years; and what guidance his Department will issue to leaseholders on (a) conversion costs and (b) dispute resolution.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

To ensure that commonhold is viable for existing buildings as well as new developments, the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill includes provisions to make conversion to commonhold from leasehold more accessible. An Impact Assessment for the draft Bill will be published in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what advice he has received from departmental officials on whether he has the power to (a) facilitate and (b) require talks between Birmingham City Council and trade unions to resolve the current waste collection dispute.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Secretary of State has powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to direct councils to take specific action he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the Best Value Duty. This is a duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To use such powers, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that the council is failing its Best Value Duty.

These powers were used to establish the ongoing intervention at Birmingham City Council, whereby directions were given to the Council and Commissioners, as set in the Directions published on GOV.UK, to support the Council’s recovery and improvement journey. Commissioners have powers relating to governance, finance and recruitment which they can use according to their expert judgement and discretion.

The department engages regularly with Birmingham City Council and Commissioners, as is normal for all Councils under intervention, and continues to monitor the disruption caused by the bin strikes and the associated impact to the residents of the city. The waste dispute is a local issue and is rightly being dealt with by the Council. The Government has no formal role in negotiations.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether he has sought legal advice on the ability to intervene directly to help resolve the industrial dispute affecting waste services in Birmingham.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Secretary of State has powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to direct councils to take specific action he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the Best Value Duty. This is a duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To use such powers, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that the council is failing its Best Value Duty.

These powers were used to establish the ongoing intervention at Birmingham City Council, whereby directions were given to the Council and Commissioners, as set in the Directions published on GOV.UK, to support the Council’s recovery and improvement journey. Commissioners have powers relating to governance, finance and recruitment which they can use according to their expert judgement and discretion.

The department engages regularly with Birmingham City Council and Commissioners, as is normal for all Councils under intervention, and continues to monitor the disruption caused by the bin strikes and the associated impact to the residents of the city. The waste dispute is a local issue and is rightly being dealt with by the Council. The Government has no formal role in negotiations.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps he is able to take to convene discussions between Birmingham City Council, its commissioners and recognised trade unions during ongoing industrial disputes.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Secretary of State has powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to direct councils to take specific action he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the Best Value Duty. This is a duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To use such powers, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that the council is failing its Best Value Duty.

These powers were used to establish the ongoing intervention at Birmingham City Council, whereby directions were given to the Council and Commissioners, as set in the Directions published on GOV.UK, to support the Council’s recovery and improvement journey. Commissioners have powers relating to governance, finance and recruitment which they can use according to their expert judgement and discretion.

The department engages regularly with Birmingham City Council and Commissioners, as is normal for all Councils under intervention, and continues to monitor the disruption caused by the bin strikes and the associated impact to the residents of the city. The waste dispute is a local issue and is rightly being dealt with by the Council. The Government has no formal role in negotiations.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether she plans to use existing powers to bring the parties involved in the Birmingham waste dispute together for negotiations.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Secretary of State has powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to direct councils to take specific action he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the Best Value Duty. This is a duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To use such powers, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that the council is failing its Best Value Duty.

These powers were used to establish the ongoing intervention at Birmingham City Council, whereby directions were given to the Council and Commissioners, as set in the Directions published on GOV.UK, to support the Council’s recovery and improvement journey. Commissioners have powers relating to governance, finance and recruitment which they can use according to their expert judgement and discretion.

The department engages regularly with Birmingham City Council and Commissioners, as is normal for all Councils under intervention, and continues to monitor the disruption caused by the bin strikes and the associated impact to the residents of the city. The waste dispute is a local issue and is rightly being dealt with by the Council. The Government has no formal role in negotiations.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

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.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

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.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

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.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

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.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, 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.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

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.

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, what assessment it has made of the cumulative cost impact of scope additions relating to visitor experience, public engagement and new-build interventions; whether these elements materially increase the risk of programme delay; and whether removal or deferral of such elements could materially reduce the headline cost range and decant duration.

Answered by Nick Smith

In 2024 the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board (the two House Commissions meeting jointly) 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 R&R Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.

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 EMI+ option relate to these priority works. This is set out in Annex B 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 proposed education centre and works to improve public participation account for less than 1% of Palace construction costs under full decant and less than 3% under EMI+.

These works would largely be delivered through adaptations to existing spaces rather than wholly new construction, repurposing existing office space as an education centre for example. Overall, while these scope elements do introduce some additional complexity and cost, they do not fundamentally change the critical works required for programme or the associated risk. The removal or deferral of these elements is unlikely to deliver a material reduction in the headline cost range or decant duration as the underlying refurbishment and mechanical and electrical works would still be required in the areas being utilised.

Question

To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the costed proposals report and in particular the proposed new main security entrance and enhanced search and screening facilities, what assessment it has made of whether existing security infrastructure could be upgraded without major structural reconfiguration; what proportion of total Programme cost is attributable to the creation of new security entrance infrastructure; whether security services formally requested this as an operational requirement; and whether a staged upgrade to current screening arrangements was evaluated as a lower-cost alternative.

Answered by Nick Smith

The preferred scope for all options under the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme 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, A wide range of potential locations within the Palace were assessed for the search and screening facility, including enhancing the current arrangements. The search and screening facility is proposed within a structure that is already part of the broader programme of works to create new plant space. The location has been selected to improve secure routes through the Palace and support new accessible visitor routes. Because of this it would be difficult to construct in stages or to retain the current search and screening location for now and relocate it in future without significant disruption, inefficiency, or duplicated cost.

Overall security measures account for 3% of Palace construction costs across all options. This is set out in Annex B of 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).

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 the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what operational and financial risks were identified ahead of the transfer of West Midlands Trains into public ownership; what additional costs are expected to arise in the 2025–26 and 2026–27 financial years as a result of that transfer; whether any contingency arrangements have been put in place in the event of performance deterioration following transfer; and whether staffing arrangements, industrial relations frameworks or pension liabilities will change as a consequence of the move.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Department considered all relevant circumstances of West Midlands Trains’ (WMT) position prior to transferring its services into public ownership on 1 February 2026. The Department does not expect WMT’s cost base to rise as a result of the transfer. With any change in operator, private or public, there are always some implementation costs, which will be determined in due course. However, these are expected to be offset by future payments to outgoing private sector operators falling away.

The Department does not expect performance to deteriorate and WMT will be required to meet agreed performance targets included in a Services Agreement. There are no changes to contracted staff terms and conditions including pension arrangements because as part of the transfer into Public Ownership, a full TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) process was undertaken.

Excise

Found: (Liberal Democrat, Chichester) (added 13 Nov 2024; removed 13 Nov 2025) 27 of 36 (75.0%) Wendy Morton

Found: days and involved working directly with successive Conservative Ministers for Europe, including Wendy Morton