Background
1. The Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission met on 7 and 12 May 2025 to consider the Parliamentary Works Grant Main Estimate (PWG) for 2025/26. As part of our scrutiny, we held a public hearing with Tom Goldsmith and Simon Burton (the Corporate Officers), Charlotte Simmonds (Managing Director of the Restoration and Renewal Client Team), and Russ MacMillian (Chief Executive of the Delivery Authority). The transcript of this hearing is available on our website.1
2. In advance of our meetings, the Corporate Officers wrote to us providing the main estimate, an estimates memorandum and an update on the phase 1 cost assessment. The Corporate Officers informed us that the House Commissions (the Client Board) had revised the phase 1 expenditure limit, covering the period to the end of 2025/26, increasing it to £475 million.
3. The PWG Main Supply Estimate for 2025/26 requests £53.2 million of funding, a 36 per cent. reduction on last year’s estimate.
4. We consulted the Treasury. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury provided comments in a letter dated 14 April 2025, which has been reproduced below.
5. The Delivery Authority is required to provide the phase 1 cost assessment to the House Commissions so that it can be considered alongside the phase 1 expenditure limit. The latest phase 1 cost assessment submitted by the Delivery Authority states that total costs for phase 1 will be £475 million, based on phase 1 concluding by the end of 2025/26. This is a reduction of £40 million on last year’s assessment.
6. For 2025/26 the phase 1 cost assessment (£475 million) is within the phase 1 expenditure limit (also £475 million), therefore, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, as amended by the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022, we are required to lay the estimate.2 We agreed comments on the estimate, which follow.
Estimates Commission comments
7. This is the first occasion that the newly constituted Commission has considered the Delivery Authority’s funding in this Parliament.3 At this point, we recognise the Programme is now at a critical point with Parliament needing to hold a vote on the preferred way forward this year.
8. Over the last year, the Delivery Authority completed its designs for the two options it is responsible for in readiness for Parliament to decide on the way forward later in the year. It has also been progressing plans for temporary accommodation and surveying the Parliamentary Estate. We were reassured that the Delivery Authority is only continuing with surveys this year that will be valuable regardless of which option is selected.
9. In March 2024 the Client Board published the Strategic Case. At this time, the Board agreed that detailed work should be undertaken on a third option of enhanced maintenance and improvement (EMI), where restoration and repairs would be delivered under a rolling, sequenced programme of works. Parliament’s in-house team Strategic Estates were tasked with developing this third option.
10. Despite this late addition, it is encouraging that the Accounting Officers and the Managing Director of the Client Team have said that the programme is on track to provide Parliament with three comparable costed proposals each at the concept design stage in readiness for Parliamentary debates later in the year.
11. The Commission recognises the Delivery Authority’s efforts to consolidate its resources for 2025–26 whilst Parliament decides on the way forward. In late 2024, the Delivery Authority conducted an organisational review to bring it in line with the current programme schedule, as the programme shifts away from the development of designs and estimates towards the process of parliamentary decision-making. As a result, the 2025/26 budget of £53.2 million is £28.5 million (35%) lower than the 2024/25 budget forecast of £81.7 million. The savings and efficiencies found in the budget mean that the Authority’s headcount in 2025/26 will be circa 40% lower than in 2024/25, with a reduction of over 50 directly employed staff.
12. In his advice, the Chief Secretary noted that the reduction made in the Delivery Authority’s budget represented value for money. As such, he supported the proposed estimate and was satisfied that it reflected a “taut and realistic” financial settlement. We agree. We acknowledge the prudent steps taken by the Delivery Authority, in reflecting the current schedule and in helping to ensure the Authority is correctly shaped and resourced for efficiency.
13. As we have noted previously, the longer the phase 1 continues, the greater the likelihood that a catastrophic event could destroy the Palace before it is ever repaired. We recommended last year that it would be in everyone’s interest that a definitive overall expenditure limit for phase 1 be set. In a joint written response The Lord Speaker and Mr Speaker stated that the Client Board, the Programme Board and officials involved with the programme were working hard, and as far as possible within their control, to ensure the Houses could make a decision on the preferred way forward in this financial year. However, they stressed that some elements were beyond the control of the House Commissions, including the timetabling of parliamentary debates and the Houses reaching a decision on a preferred way forward. We note that the Leaders of both Houses sit on the respective Commissions and, along with the other Government Business Managers, they will be responsible for scheduling the debates.
14. The Lord Speaker and Mr Speaker assured us that the R&R Programme was on track to publish costed proposals before the end of 2025. We were told during our evidence by the Clerk of the House of Commons that everything would be done to make sure that costed proposals could be published by the autumn, subject to the agreement of the Client Board.4 When we pressed for clarity on timing, the Clerk said he hoped publication would be in November 2025, but that it was not expected to be before then.5 Publication in November would allow decisions to be taken this year.
15. While we understand that the tabling of motions and debates is beyond the control of the Client Board itself, we believe the Board must be committed to publishing costed proposals by November 2025. This will help ensure there is time for both public and parliamentary consideration of the proposals and it should also bring to bear sufficient impetus on the Government to schedule the debates. Otherwise, in the absence of formal and definitive political decisions on the costed proposals being taken within this financial year, we are concerned that the value for money of the R&R programme’s work to date would be jeopardised, which would be to the detriment of Parliament and taxpayers alike.
16. We were told by the Corporate Officers that the health and safety aspects of R&R programme will be the top priority when the proposals are presented to Parliament. Health and safety of the works will be considered alongside cost, time, disruption and the delivery outcome of the R&R programme. We were reminded that the Clerks of both Houses, as corporate and accounting officers, have a statutory responsibility for health and safety as well as overall responsibility for the delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace. We agree that health and safety must be the top priority and must be key to central decision-making. We welcome the Corporate Officers’ acknowledgement that their ultimate focus is the safety of those working in, and visiting, the Palace.
17. As such, we were encouraged to hear the Client Team is following the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority guidance in subjecting the options to rigorous independent assurance. For example, the Client Team has commissioned independent scrutiny of the three options from Grant Thornton.6 An important aspect of this will be ensuring comparability between options determining whether each one is viable. In addition, the Client Team has established a separate health and safety and fire assurance panel, which has looked at the three options from a safety perspective and the Corporate Officers have commissioned further independent advice, which will report before the summer. The other issue that will need expert advice is in relation to the level of disruption that a working Parliament would be likely to bear. The Corporate Officers will need to determine in what circumstances parliamentary business or the progress of works would be prioritised.
18. As openness will be key in programme such as this, we seek a commitment that, where possible, all assurance advice received will be published save where legitimate security concerns arise to help ensure full transparency and to allow others to judge whether an option is technically, practically and economically feasible to deliver.
19. Our witnesses were all in agreement that there were lessons to be learnt from phase 1 of the programme, for example in relation to the challenges of delivering a large-scale, politically significant project liable to interference from prevailing political and economic circumstances. During the evidence session we asked about a reported loss of almost £680k for survey equipment that had been purchased that was no longer needed and which had been written off.7 As a result of the programme being rescheduled in 2022–23,8 the Delivery Authority descoped the surveys for which the equipment had been purchased as the data collected would have been out of date by the time construction started. The specialist equipment was subsequently sold at a loss as it was nearing the end of its warranty, suggesting to us that there might be a more effective approach to procurement needed. We would expect the Delivery Authority, the Client Board and Client Team to take time to reflect on phase 1 and consider how governance and accountability arrangements may need to change for phase 2.
20. It is imperative now that a decision is taken by Parliament in this financial year. A decision this year will help towards safeguarding the Palace of Westminster for future generations. We emphasise the urgency of taking this decision as soon as possible.
Comments from the Treasury
Letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Chair of the Commission, dated 14 April 2025
PARLIAMENTARY WORKS GRANT: MAINS ESTIMATE 2025/26
Dear Nusrat,
1. I am writing regarding the Main Estimate for the Parliament Works Grant (PWG) for 2025/26. As outlined in Schedule 4 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, the Parliamentary Works Estimate Commission is required to consult the Treasury regarding the annual estimates for PWG, and to have regard to any advice provided. I am grateful to the Estimates Commission for providing a copy of the Estimate in draft to Treasury officials to support this advice.
2. This Estimate provides funding for the operations of the Delivery Authority for 2025/26. The Delivery Authority is responsible for developing proposals to deliver and undertake preparatory work ahead of delivering Parliament’s Restoration and Renewal Programme (R&R) and other related works on behalf of the Houses. The Palace of Westminster serves as the meeting place for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Its functioning and effective operation is vital in upholding democracy in the UK and needs to be repaired.
3. The Main Estimate presented by PWG for 25/26 seeks a total of £53.2m. This reflects a combined £53m RDEL and £0.2m CDEL. Their Net Cash Requirement is £53.2m.
4. I understand the main areas of spending encompass a wide range of activity which supports the objectives of the Delivery Authority. This includes finalising the Palace of Westminster design, cost, schedule and risk estimate to inform the costed proposals and business case (c.£7.9m), progressing plans for temporary accommodation (£11.5m) and surveys to improve the understanding of the Palace to inform onward design and construction planning (£9.6m).
5. I acknowledge that this Estimate is reflective of the programme’s shift away from the development of designs and estimates for the options and towards the process of Parliamentary decision-making on the best way forward. This has led to a 35% reduction in the Delivery Authority annual budget through savings and efficiencies, which implies that the estimate represents value for money. I therefore support the proposed Estimate and am satisfied it reflects a taut and realistic financial settlement for 25/26.
6. Looking beyond this year’s Estimate, I understand the programme is working towards preparing costed proposals to enable a final decision by the Houses on the best way to deliver R&R. I look forward to seeing progress on this and am keen to ensure that plans to deliver the R&R Programme reflects the importance of preserving and safeguarding an integral part of our national heritage, whilst considering the current fiscal and economic circumstances.
7. I would be grateful if this letter could be made available to the members of the Commission as part of their review of the Mains Estimate for the coming financial year.
Yours sincerely
Rt Hon. Darren Jones MP
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Wednesday 7 May 2025
Simon Burton, Clerk of Parliaments, House of Lords; Tom Goldsmith, Clerk of the House, House of Commons; Russ MacMillan, Chief Executive, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority; Charlotte Simmonds, Managing Director, Restoration and Renewal Client TeamQ1–50
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.
Footnotes
1 https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15862/pdf/
2 Under the 2019 Act, if the Delivery Authority’s phase 1 cost assessment is greater than the phase 1 expenditure limit, the Estimates Commission may reject the estimate, otherwise it must be laid.
3 This is the fifth Main Supply Estimate that the Commission has considered since the Delivery Authority was established.
4 Oral evidence, Parliamentary Works Grant Main Estimate 2025–26, HC 887, dated 7 May 2025, Q4
5 Q6
6 Q18
7 Q31
8 In March 2022, the House Commissions published a joint statement in which they shared concerns about the approach being taken by the Restoration and Renewal Programme and set out proposals for a new approach to the works and to the governance structure of the programme. As a result the Sponsor Body was disbanded in December 2022 and subsequently a new schedule was agreed for the programme.