Recommendation 32

In March 2022, the Delivery Authority explained to us that initial analysis showed that, although technically possible, continued presence would lead to higher costs and 74 C&AG’s Report, para 3.24 75 C&AG’s Report, Figure 12 and para 3.27 76 C&AG’s Report, para 3.25 77 HC1100 Qq 141–142, HC49 Q59 78 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 79 HC1100 Q 139 80 HC1100 Q 143 81 C&AG’s Report, para 7 82 C&AG’s Report, para 8 83 HC1100 Q 126; C&AG’s Report, Figure 5 18 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament take an enormously longer time (an extra 15 to 48 years). It would create extraordinary health and safety and fire safety risks, with a large array of temporary services required to maintain a continued presence. Parliament would also need to change how it operated although continued presence could still lead to potentially unacceptable disruption and noise for those working in the Palace and increase the potential for exposure to airborne asbestos which would take significant work to remove.84 The Delivery Authority told us that it is in the process of letting the contracts for intrusive surveys, having undertaken initial investigations into where asbestos might be located.85 The House of Commons Trade Union told us in written evidence that “the ongoing viability of the Palace of Westminster as a safe workplace is at stake and…anything less than the full decant envisaged under the Act would put that at risk”.86