Restoration and Renewal inquiry
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Palace of Westminster is a world heritage site and home to one of the busiest parliaments with more than a million people, including 100,000 school children, passing through its doors each year. The building is now considered to be one of the finest examples of 19th century neo-gothic Victorian architecture in the world. Although designed specifically for Parliament the building remains a Royal Palace. In 1965 the Queen Elizabeth II confirmed that its use should be permanently enjoyed by Parliament. In 1992 responsibility for maintaining the Palace was transferred from the Government to Parliament. In 2000, consulting engineers were commissioned to report on the condition of mechanical, electrical and public health systems in Palace basements. They concluded that a significant amount of services plant and equipment needed replacement within 5–10 years and that repair and maintenance was uneconomic. Between 2000 and 2008, several surveys were undertaken and solutions to the works proposed, including an evaluation exercise on steam vs pressurised hot water, and the formation of the Palace Basement Engineering Project. In 2008, there was a report of works completed so far in expectation of a significant programme of further works. In 2009, house authorities halted all previous plans, adopted a medium-term strategy and began working on a fully integrated long-term strategy. It was intended that the interim programme of work should secure the operation of the Houses in the Palace against risks of interruption owing to failure until 2020. Previous work In 2012, there was a pre-feasibility study on the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme on the condition of the Palace and the case for a major renovation. Further to this, in December 2013, a Deloitte Real Estate-led consortium was commissioned to produce independent appraisal of range of options for a Restoration and Renewal Programme. In June 2015, the Independent Options Appraisal (IOA) report was published and a Joint Select Committee appointed to consider findings of the report. In September 2016, the Joint Committee published its recommendations on a preferred way forward for the restoration and renewal of the building.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
The Palace of Westminster is the home of the two Houses of Parliament. This internationally recognised building is in a state of extreme disrepair. The risk of a catastrophic failure is high and growing with every month that passes: fire, water penetration, sewage inundation, comprehensive electrical failure or some other mechanical breakdown are among the most likely causes. It must be repaired. For a World Heritage site that is the home of the “mother of parliaments”, doing nothing is not an option.
Since this problem was properly acknowledged and confronted there have been two comprehensive examinations of the options for restoration and renewal of the Palace; one by independent consultants and another by a Joint Committee of the two Houses.
The Joint Committee recommended the evacuation of the Palace for a period of around six years while it was comprehensively restored as the option which presented the lowest financial and technical risks. The Public Accounts Committee has not attempted to repeat the work represented in these two thorough exercises. But as the House of Commons’ guardian of the public purse, we believed we should satisfy ourselves, on behalf of the House, that the work was thorough and that the lessons that have been learned from our examinations of other major public works have been applied to this extremely complex, high-value major project.
This report should be regarded as a review of the robustness of the options, indicative costings and project management proposals, rather than an effort to repeat the detailed and prolonged work of technical experts and political stakeholders. In this we draw on our experience of examining how public money is spent and how major projects are set up to succeed or fail. We considered: cost, project management, safety and time. We are clear that there needs to be a detailed business plan before any final decision is made.
Our conclusion is clear: the option favoured by the Joint Committee is most likely to be the most economical, effective and efficient choice. The best value for money will be achieved by getting on with it. The Government should not delay any further in putting the proposal for a decision in principle before both Houses. There are many further details to be hammered out and some difficult further choices will have to be made. The Public Accounts Committee, together with the National Audit Office, will continue to work to ensure that the best value for public money is achieved. The Palace of Westminster belongs to every citizen of the UK, and they deserve nothing less.
What the government said
No government response is linked to this report.
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 30 January 2017 to its close on 4 January 2018.
- Oral evidence 21 Feb 2017
- Report 10 Mar 2017
What it recommended
The committee's recommendations are not listed here yet. Read them in 45th Report - Delivering Restoration and Renewal ↗ on parliament.uk.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 21 Feb 2017No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗