Proposals to spend up to £39.2billion restoring the Houses of Parliament will come under blazing attack this week. Fears are mounting that the country is drifting towards another public spending fiasco, which will continue for decades at a cost of tens of billions of pounds to the taxpayer.
MPs will debate options put forward for the “restoration and renewal” project, which could see them leave the Commons for up to 10 years, with peers out of the House of Lords for a decade and a half. The restoration process is expected to last a minimum of 19 years, but could continue for more than six decades under different proposals presented to Parliament. Total programme cost estimates range from £11.1billion to £39.2billion.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said: “The long-running saga on how to restore the crumbling Palace of Westminster, which will once again be debated in the House of Commons on Thursday, typifies everything that you fear about Public Sector waste.”
Mr Tice said the proposals are “patently absurd”, adding the “project is riddled with the sort of bureaucratic nonsense I used to witness as an MEP in Brussels”.
He argues there is “no need for MPs to fully move out” and that Parliament “can simply tweak the Parliamentary timetable to enable builders to complete work on the two debating Chambers over summer recess”.
He said there is no need to make Parliament “fully accessible”, stating: “I’ve heard no complaints about the current layout.”
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Jesse Norman also voiced opposition to the proposals, saying: “The Palace of Westminster is one of our greatest national treasures. It must be made safe and preserved for future generations.
“But the current Restoration and Renewal process is drifting towards a vast, decades-long project with costs running into the tens of billions, insufficient scrutiny, and unclear accountability. What began as essential maintenance has become an open-ended commitment with no ceiling on costs and no serious examination of the alternatives.
“Phased, targeted works that keep the building safe and functional must be properly considered before Parliament is asked to sign a blank cheque.”
William Yarwood of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “The figures being floated for this restoration are nothing short of a fiscal fantasy that would leave taxpayers footing the bill for generations. The current plans have transformed a necessary safety project into a vanity exercise.”
He called for the project to be “stripped back to essentials” and completed “as efficiently and as quickly as possible.”
A UK Parliament spokesperson said: “The Costed Proposals report published earlier this year put forward options to secure the future of the historic Palace of Westminster. It sets out the recommendations of the Member-led R&R Client Board, supported by independent external experts, which include proposals for an initial seven years of phase one works with capped costs. The plans focus on priorities such as the replacement and upgrade of systems including power, water, and the 1950s heating, critical improvements to fire safety, the controlled management of asbestos, and repairing damaged stonework. The restoration proposals are expected to be scrutinised, considered and debated by all members of both Houses to decide a way forward.”