#WestminsterRR

A timeline for R&R from pages 21-22 of this link: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/51442/documents/285576/default/

There's a very helpful timeline, which shows that if MPs and Peers refuse to decant, the Palace of Westminster will be a building site until 2086 (and that would be without any further delays). Glad to know that I'll be able to continue my research until I'm 102... #WestminsterRR

Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.

To update, no date announced but the Leader did bring up R&R and said "in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision". May be worth remembering that it took 16 months for the Joint Cttee on Palace of Westminster's report to be debated in the chamber... #WestminsterRR

Over the weekend we passed the 8th anniversary of the Commons voting for Restoration and Renewal with full decant btw (31st January 2018). 2,921 days later and we've arguably gone backwards, with the same discussions about decant taking place #WestminsterRR

*some confusion will remain, nonetheless. A @samcoatessky.bsky.social quote from 2018 remains evergreen: "“if you’re not confused about what’s going on with the Restoration and Renewal debate then you haven’t been listening closely enough, because it is hellishly confusing” #WestminsterRR

A far, far better understanding of R&R is shown by the brilliant Richard Kelly of the Commons Library, in a new (and exhaustive) research briefing "Restoration and Renewal: Developing the strategic case and costed proposals" researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CB... #WestminsterRR

The building is "just waiting for some disaster", says House of Cards writer and peer Lord Dobbs. He says his advice to visitors is: "If they see somebody running please don't stop to find out why they're running, just follow them." Former Labour minister Lord Hain agrees something needs to change. "This is a Notre Dame inferno in the making," he says in a reference to the Parisian cathedral which caught fire in 2019. "The Commons could burn down at any time."

Back at my desk and catching up on the R&R news. Here's a classic QTWAIN (or if yes, they'll change their minds again later). Here for Lord Dobbs' sage advice though: Will 2026 be the year MPs and peers agree on how to repair Parliament?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article... #WestminsterRR

Ruth Fox: Yeah and just going back to that question of the state of the public finances, I'm gonna speculate that one decision that will not be made probably by Parliament, before Christmas, but really ought to be is the future of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Again, another theme that we keep revisiting. We have been told in statement after statement that a vote will be held on the future of the restoration and renewal program, and whether or not MPs and peers are going to leave the Palace of Westminster to enable the refurbishment work to take place over a number of years or not, or whether there'll be a partial decant, the Lords will move out and the Commons will move into the Lords. So a number of different scenarios are in play. We are promised that there will be a report and a vote by the end of this year. But given that the leader of the House of [00:37:00] Commons and a key figure on the restoration and renewal governance side has recently changed, of course, once Lucy Powell was removed from cabinet and replaced by the then Chief Whip Officer Alan Campbell. I do rather think that, that again could be kicked into the long grass a bit further. Mark D'Arcy: It's one of these things where they keep promising there'll be a debate in due course and a report in due course, and then it doesn't appear and it's just kicked, as you say, further and further into the long grass. And in the meantime, the Palace of Westminster is essentially being held together with spit and sawdust and running repairs. And there's a risk of fire or some structural collapse and bits of gargoyle falling on people, sewers, whatever it might be, breaking, the sewers bubbling up. I would say that that turns the place into a living metaphor and all sorts of disasters could befall it. And of course, when you have the state opening of Parliament, just imagine what would happen if the lights went out in the middle of that, leaving His Majesty stranded in darkness as …

Love an R&R shout out on the @hansardsociety.bsky.social Parliament Matters pod - and completely agree with @ruthfox.bsky.social & @darcyxtip.bsky.social about the prospect of getting the promised vote before the end of 2025. Listen/transcript www.hansardsociety.org.uk/news/parliam... #WestminsterRR

Sir Alan Campbell moves from Chief Whip to Leader of the Commons (the reverse of Sir George Young's move in 2012). Will be super interesting to see what this means for the Modernisation Committee and wider Commons reform agenda. On R&R, worth noting he voted for full decant in 2018 #WestminsterRR

Departure of Powell means we'll be onto the 11th Leader of the Commons since the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster programme programme started (Oct 2012) and with no actual decision on when the work will start and how it should be done #WestminsterRR

(what the FT failed to mention is that R&R would be managed separately to the in-house projects discussed - and that an entirely independent governance structure had been established before MPs and Peers decided to bring it back in house #WestminsterRR)

Others would involve a phased restoration during which the Commons would continue to meet at Westminster but the Lords might be moved out and a rolling programme of “enhanced maintenance” likely to span decades. However, people briefed on the plan believe MPs could also be asked to consider a fourth option: a programme of “no regret” works to improve the fabric of the building, short of backing a full restoration scheme. “It would be kicking the can down the road,” said one person briefed on the talks.

The FT weekend story on Restoration and Renewal identified a new fourth option (after full decant partial decant, and enhanced maintenance) of "no regret" works. Bizarre naming besides, it is entirely fitting for any R&R debate to have a can-kicking option🤦 #WestminsterRR www.ft.com/content/9e4b...

It is, of course, a shame that MPs and Peers (albeit in the last Parliament) abolished the independent R&R governance structure which depoliticised these decisions and actually went out to ask members of the public what *they* want from the Palace, a building which belongs to them... #WestminsterRR

The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a complete reset of the R and R programme. The books need to be open to the public, and we need to bring the public into the debate about how we balance the needs of a world heritage site with modern security, accessibility —for example, for those with a disability—and value for money. Updated costs need to be presented. Currently, millions of pounds are being spent working up multiple options, despite our now being in the fifth year of this work. Indeed, those options are gold-plated, often based on decisions taken by Members who are no longer in the House. There is remarkably little visibility of this issue.

Yes yes yes to getting the R&R debate into the public and highlighting how the sometimes unreasonable demands of MPs have continued to determine how the programme is run - despite these same MPs then losing their seats #WestminsterRR

Hiding in plain sight, but not discussed in this Chamber since the general election, is the spending of millions of pounds on the repair of this building, with Members expected to commit later this year to spending billions of pounds into the future. The lack of debate or any meaningful transparency comes despite the majority of Members of this House being newly elected last July. Instead, the detailed costs and any vote on options are being delayed until later this year—ironically, they will probably come at around the same time that the House is expected to vote on a Budget, which many people expect to include tax rises. Members of the House, and Toggle showing location ofColumn 765members of the public, might reasonably ask why the Leader of the House has not held any such debate since coming into office. This issue speaks to a wider principle. Are decisions best formulated in private when some of the numbers remain uncertain, with reliance placed on internal controls and external advisers giving assurances, or is it better to have transparency—not least on an issue of great public interest? A lesson that, as a Minister, I learned from covid is that it is better to have transparency and an open debate about the trade-offs early than to hold discussions in secret and allow the benefit of hindsight after the event. Supporting greater transparency has been a theme of my time in the House, whether in my initial four years on the Public Accounts Committee or when as a Minister I overruled official advice to disclose information to the National Audit Office during covid. Since being elected as Chair of the House’s Finance Committee, I have repeatedly raised concerns in private about the financial management of the House and the multibillion-pound restoration and renewal programme, but I feel it is necessary to raise these issues on the Floor of the House today.

An excellent speech yesterday on the Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, by Steve Barclay, Commons Finance Committee Chair. Flags up the appalling lack of transparency around R&R and the massive ongoing costs of delay and repairs #WestminsterRR hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025...

PoliticsHome understands that Baroness Smith, Leader of the House of Lords, is in favour of a full decant, and expressed this view at the meeting. While Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has been pushing for parliamentarians to stay on the estate while work continued, the board member claimed his authority is waning. "Mr Speaker has exercised a very, very strong malign influence, and in the Commons, nobody has wanted to stand up to him, and it's difficult to stand up to him from the Lords," they said. "I got a sense on Monday that his position isn't quite as strong as it was, because it's a new group of MPs on the House of Commons commission, and his arguments were frankly ridiculous."

Also, come for the QEII scoop, stay for the drive-by on Speaker Hoyle from a member of the Restoration and Renewal Client Board #WestminsterRR

The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster set out the QEII as the preferred decant location for the Lords nearly 9 years ago, but successive ministers sought to block the use of the building (which is owned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Govt) by Parliament #WestminsterRR

House of Lords To Move To QEII Centre While Parliament Restored The House of Lords is set to move to the QEII Centre while Parliament is restored, no matter which option for the estate’s restoration is eventuall...

Brilliant scoop from the always excellent @sophiealichurch.bsky.social at @politicshome.bsky.social: The QEII Centre *finally* agreed as the decant location for the Lords during Restoration and Renewal www.politicshome.com/news/article... #WestminsterRR

3. Consideration of costed proposal options: delivery approaches The Board noted that none of the options could start immediately following a decision and that the levels of occupancy determined how temporary services were provided. Board members advocated for EMI to be subject to the same rigorous challenge as the full decant and continued presence options. Board members queried the duration of enabling works being shorter under EMI and requested that the differences between the schedule of enabling works for the different options be set out clearly in the paper on schedule. The Board discussed disruption and noted that EMI would still feel like a construction site as well as the increased levels of disruption caused by regular ongoing change and continuous flux rather than one big change. Mitigations, such as hoarding, would be put in place to minimise these risks and would follow procedures currently followed. The Board noted that there may be a difference between a decision on what stakeholders are willing to tolerate and the reality during construction. The Board discussed the importance of properly understanding disruption. The Board discussed the need for clear information on the timeline for benefits realisation and risk for both the building and building users. The Board pressed for an increased level of exchange of information and constructive challenge between the Strategic Estates and Delivery Authority teams, and noted that there was more that could be done to maximise the expertise in the two teams to develop work on the options. The Board noted that there were issues relating to sharing information between the two teams and that there was an upcoming meeting between officials to discuss parliamentary controls on information.

Love the tangible frustration of the Restoration & Renewal Programme Board members that the EMI (Enhanced Maintenance & Improvement) option is not being scrutinised as rigorously as full decant & that MPs' willingness in theory to put up with disruption, will be much lower in reality #WestminsterRR

At the time of writing, fears of the cost and length of the necessary repairs have stalled the R&R programme, with little sign that progress will be made in the near future. The ‘shame’ felt by MPs when escorting disabled constituents round their parliament building will therefore continue. This case study has highlighted the challenge of focusing on the Palace purely as a ‘space’, given the broader meanings ascribed to the space, and in doing so has sought to explain why, despite widespread recognition of the poor facilities for disabled people working within or visiting parliament, the building remains hugely inaccessible.

Extra extra thanks to @kateaniconic.bsky.social and @alexprior.bsky.social for being co-authors extraordinaire! Our chapter on Spaces and Places in Parliament includes a case study on how the Restoration and Renewal programme has considered disability access. Spoiler alert... #WestminsterRR

Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall - Committee of Public AccountsUK ParliamentDownload iconShare icon Report by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, with recommendations to government

Reminder that back in 2023 the Public Accounts Committee heard that "Removing asbestos from the Palace could require an estimated 300 people working for two and a half years while the site was not being used" #WestminsterRR publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cm...

Palace of Westminster: Asbestos The Senior Deputy Speaker written question – answered at on 10 March 2025. Alert me about debates like this « Previous answer All Written Answers on 10 Mar 2025 Next answer » Photo of Lord HainLord Hain Labour To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Written Answer by the Senior Deputy Speaker on 17 February (HL4749), what are the specific quantities of asbestos found in the Palace of Westminster, and what assessment has been made of the risks of asbestosis. Tweet Share Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 10 March 2025, cW) Photo of Lord Gardiner of KimbleLord Gardiner of Kimble The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Senior Deputy Speaker, Chair, Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee (Lords), Chair, Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee (Lords), Chair, Committee of Selection (Lords), Chair, Committee of Selection (Lords), Chair, Liaison Committee (Lords), Chair, Liaison Committee (Lords), Chair, Hybrid Instruments Committee (Lords), Chair, Hybrid Instruments Committee (Lords), Chair, Procedure and Privileges Committee, Chair, Procedure and Privileges Committee Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are present across the Palace of Westminster, to date a total of 1057 items have been identified. The assessment of risks is determined by management surveys that identify and where deemed necessary the ongoing monitoring the condition of any ACMs. The purpose of the management survey is to identify the presence, material score (condition) and proximity risk (e.g. how likely the ACMs are to be disturbed). Where management surveys identify a significant risk related to the ACMs they are removed by a licenced asbestos removal contractor. Where more invasive works are planned across the Palace such as for construction projects, refurbishment or demolition, a survey is undertaken and where ACMs are identified and where practicable, planning is made for removal. There is a program…

New answer to Lord Hain PQ reveals that asbestos-containing materials found in 1057 places to date in the Palace of Westminster. Still hard to see how the Palace can be repaired without a decant, if you want to protect staff and visitors from asbestos during the building works... #WestminsterRR

That set of problems is writ large across the whole underground asset register of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether Members have ever been to the torpedo room here in Parliament—everybody is looking blankly at me, so I guess they have not. It contains an enormous spherical metal object that basically takes all the sewage from inside Parliament and spits it every 20 seconds into the main town drain, which is higher than the drain that comes out of Parliament. It is one of our complete vulnerabilities in the Palace of Westminster. If that were to stop working—it has been there since something like 1877—we would be vacating Parliament for a considerable period. I have alerted the shadow Minister, who wants to talk about the torpedo room. Dr Spencer Sharethis specific contribution Is that a cyber-security vulnerability the Minister has just disclosed to the Committee? Chris Bryant Sharethis specific contribution Well, it is certainly a vulnerability. I started the restoration and renewal process when I was Deputy Leader of the House many years ago. Many people told me that one of the problems in Parliament was the danger of fire, which is certainly the case. We have done some work to make sure the risers cannot take fire from one part of the building to another very rapidly. However, I have always said that just as problematic is everything underneath the building, including both the sewers and the pipework that carries the telecommunications networks. Parliament simply could not work if there were any kind of critical breach .

Always a joy to have more of the risks facing the Palace of Westminster spelt out: here's @chrisbryant1962.bsky.social on the Torpedo Room which has been working since 1877 and is one "of the complete vulnerabilities" in the building #WestminsterRR

Growing Frustration Within Team Restoring Parliament Over Slow Progress There is an increasing sense of frustration at the highest levels of the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) programme leadership, as the project faces y...

And finally, the brilliant @sophiealichurch.bsky.social has reported on growing - and understandable - frustration within the R&R Programme Board about the slow pace of the project www.politicshome.com/news/article... #WestminsterRR

The River Thames 171. Some have suggested to us that Parliament could construct one or more temporary buildings on rafts which could sit on the river. There are several problems with these suggestions. First, and most important, is security. While it would not be wise to go into great detail about security threats in this report, those who work in the building will already be aware of the heightened security climate in which Parliament now operates, and there would be significant security challenges to overcome if a temporary building were to be placed in the middle of the river. Secondly is size. Figure 2 gives an indication of the footprint of the Palace, and the sheer size of the building in comparison to the river would be a real problem. To accommodate just the two Chambers and their essential services would require a temporary structure so large that it would need to take up virtually the whole width of the river alongside Parliament, severely impeding the passage of river traffic. 172. Thirdly, there are the issues of noise and nuisance which would be encountered in a temporary structure located right next to the construction site. Fourthly, it is likely that the river may need to be used to some extent in order to deliver materials and remove waste from the construction site, and any temporary Chambers on the river would impede that access. Finally, if the Palace and Victoria Tower Gardens are to become one large construction site, setting up a secure access route through the Palace to reach the river would be very complex and would be likely to disrupt the construction work. For these reasons, we also discounted the possibility of constructing temporary structures on the River Thames.

Another throwback decant option also got into the news and left me banging my head against a wall: www.express.co.uk/news/politic... This idea was ridiculous when first suggested and is still ridiculous. Here's why it was rejected previously. TL:DR It would block the whole river. #WestminsterRR

Tom Collins The three options for delivery works seem to represent various degrees of compromise between shortened timescales, the associated reduced overall costs, and the continued presence and functioning of Parliament within the Palace of Westminster. It is wise to seek ways to negate the need for such a compromise. What possibilities for decantation into Westminster Hall might yet be explored? Would the Minister meet me and members of the project team to discuss those possibilities? Nick Smith My hon. Friend’s professional background offers him insight into the choices that we will have to make. I understand that the possible use of Westminster Hall as a host for the Chamber has been considered, but there were concerns about the impact on the oldest part of the palace. The northern estate is the favoured location. I will ask senior officers of the restoration and renewal team about his idea, which I am happy to discuss further with him.

Westminster Hall 149. One of the first questions we asked was whether it would be possible to locate a Chamber in Westminster Hall. At first glance, Westminster Hall appears to be an ideal space to locate one of the Chambers during the R&R Programme, and there is an attraction in Parliament retaining a foothold in its historic home. However, despite our various attempts to find a way to make this option feasible, the Westminster Hall option also has a number of significant obstacles. 150. First is the structure of the Hall itself. The floor is thought to date from the early 19th Century and consists of large York stone slabs spanned between grids of dwarf brick walls. The walls are supported off a concrete raft that is not reinforced and the York stone slabs are delicate. Throughout our exploratory work, we have been adamant that neither Chamber needs to be replicated exactly and we have been willing to consider various compromises in order to see whether constructing a temporary Chamber in Westminster Hall might be possible. However, there are certain standards that would need to be met in terms of accessibility and security, and any temporary Chamber which could meet these requirements would, in all likelihood, be too heavy to be supported by the floors in Westminster Hall without the risk of causing damage. 151. Furthermore, there are M&E services which run underneath Westminster Hall and the ‘W’ rooms which will need to be replaced as part of the R&R Programme. This will involve the removal of a significant amount of asbestos directly underneath the steps of Westminster Hall, and along the sides, requiring unrestricted access to the Hall for a lengthy period of time. Even if a temporary Chamber could be constructed in Westminster Hall for most of the Programme, it would therefore need to be moved again when the M&E work in and around the Hall needed to be conducted. 152. There is also the medieval hammer-beam roof. The roof was constructed at the end of the 14th…

Also today @tomcollinsworcs.bsky.social asked about decanting into Westminster Hall. Worth noting that this was considered by the Joint Committee back in 2016 and they rejected the idea due to concerns about damaging the floor and roof, plus the asbestos under the Hall steps #WestminsterRR

Olly Glover I thank the hon. Member for his answer. As he says, there are 7,000 staff working here who support 650 Members of this House and 836 in the other place. As he recognises, it is essential that the needs, wisdom and experience of the people who make the estate a success are heard and fully considered. Will he commit to continuing to run that full consultation and maximising efforts to do so in a way that will ensure the strongest attendance and the best engagement? Nick Smith The hon. Member makes an important point: the whole Westminster village needs to be engaged in this important topic, which affects all of our workplace. Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op) The best way that we can support staff in this building is to ensure that their health and safety is paramount. The three options that are being proposed have radically different health and safety implications. When those options come to the House, will my hon. Friend ensure that the health and safety information is categorically laid out, and can he confirm when the House will vote on those options? Nick Smith Our timetable says that we remain on track to bring the proposals forward by the end of 2025. Those proposals will detail costs, timescales, risks and benefits, and of course my hon. Friend’s point about safety will be foremost in our minds.

Lots of R&R stuff this week! Today in the Commons @ollyglover.bsky.social flagged the need for Restoration and Renewal to engage with the 7,000 staff working in Parliament, and Treasury Chair, Meg Hillier, argued that these staff can be best supported by protecting their safety... #WestminsterRR

Also essential for anyone trying to understand the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster! @bymyong.bsky.social is *the* expert on parliamentary governance and this is brilliantly written ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/02/13/b... #WestminsterRR

UK’s crumbling parliament even harder to fix than Notre Dame, MPs told Plans to move MPs out of the famous building while major works are carried out were first approved in the wake of Paris’s 2019 Notre Dame fire.

Fab R&R report from @estwebber.bsky.social "UK’s crumbling parliament even harder to fix than Notre Dame, MPs told" #WestminsterRR www.politico.eu/article/uk-c...

One final thing on R&R: Next week it will be seven years since the Commons last divided on the issue of decant (moving out during repairs). Of the 455 MPs who voted on 31 Jan 2018, only 35% (161) are still in the Commons. Revisiting the issue with the current intake is long overdue #WestminsterRR

I do not mean to criticise those tireless individuals who have dedicated themselves to R&R over the years. I admire the fortitude of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Vaux, whom I know personally, in taking on the challenges inherent in this leviathan of a project, as I admire all those involved. However, the final implications of our dithering are eye-watering: £280.1 million in the last three years alone is a stratospheric and vulgar amount of money to spend on making no progress. Can anyone identify the total cost of Parliament’s lack of decision-making? The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, put it at £450 million, so I thank him for that. That is the actual expenditure on R&R, but what about the increased cost of completing the works, given the passage of time and inflation? Are we really getting value for money and setting a good example as a decision-making body? Are we really appropriate stewards of our nation’s most important heritage?

Finally, the Earl of Devon highlighted the financial cost of inaction and concluded by wishing Peers luck, as he prepares to leave the Lords when the remaining hereditaries are expelled #WestminsterRR