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.

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.