Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation 7

7

The Clerk of the House told us that every year the restoration and renewal of...

Conclusion
The Clerk of the House told us that every year the restoration and renewal of the Palace is delayed adds risk and cost such as through nugatory spending.18 In 2014, an independent assessment found delays to the decision may add between £60 million and £85 million per year (in 2014 prices) to the capital costs in additional tender price inflation.19 He explained that the House administrations have undertaken works to mitigate health and safety risks, including spending around £140 million on temporary fire safety improvements and around £8 million on temporary sewerage. They have also started repairs to the outside of the Victoria Tower.20 The Clerk of the Parliaments told 11 Joint statement from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 18 March 2022 12 HC1100 Q 88; HC49 Q 27 13 HC49 Qq 27–28 14 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022 15 C&AG’s Report, paras 7, 9, 3.10 and Figure 4 16 HC1100 Q 135; HC49 Q 45 17 Main Estimate Memorandum: Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, page 2 18 HC1100 Qq 110, 153, 214 19 HC1100Q 162; Deloitte, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Independent Options Appraisal, 8 September 2014, section 1.9 20 HC1100 Qq 110, 153, 214 12 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament us that, even prior to the statement of the Joint Commission, all internal works had been subject to an “R&R test” to determine whether they would become nugatory under the restoration and renewal plans.21