Progress in overhauling Parliament is “unacceptably slow”, shrouded in secrecy and could expose MPs to health and safety risks, a powerful committee investigating government spending said.
Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), criticized recent moves by the House of Commons to abolish the project’s sponsor body, thereby “destroying the plan that was going on – even if it is difficult to slow down” .
This comes after a report by the sponsoring body earlier this year showed that the restoration of Westminster’s crumbling Victorian palace without finding a new home for MPs could take up to 76 years, with a £ 22 billion recovery bill.
It is inconceivable that this building in the heart of our nation’s life should be allowed to deteriorate further.
The cheapest option would involve a “full decanting” of the palace for between 12 and 20 years, with the work costing in the region of £ 7 billion to £ 13 billion.
The likely start date for major works has been postponed “by many years” due to efforts to review the basis of the program, the PAC said in a report.
It should not “take another catastrophic incident to finally spark action and focus minds,” the committee said, pointing to 25 fires in the palace and 13 incidents of falling masonry since 2016.
The removal of the sponsor body could exacerbate “nugatory spending”, which has already been seen by the House authorities spending large sums of taxpayers’ money to reduce health risks, “including £ 140 million to install temporary fire safety systems”.
Dame Meg, the Labor MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, said: “The House authorities have unilaterally taken back this massive, critical project of great national, historical, cultural and political significance; reversing decisions by both Houses, with no justification for destroying the plan that was under way – even if it is difficult to slow down – and no assurance that they can truly deliver the works they now envisage.
“It can not be acceptable in anyone’s book.
“The new arrangements must have the transparency and independence to come up with a proper, deliverable, risk-managed plan at acceptable cost.”
She said the project should be taken out of the hands of current MPs as it would exceed their interests.
She added: “It is inconceivable that this building in the heart of our nation’s life should be allowed to deteriorate further – or worse, that those who work or visit the palace be put in physical danger – by the inability of the current generation of residents to come and stick to a decision on how to proceed. ”
The sponsoring body was established in 2019 “precisely to take the oversight of this major project out of the political arena”, reads the PAC report.
Westminster Palace has long been plagued by maintenance issues – from floods to fires and vermin – and needs extensive restoration.
About 120 people may have been exposed after asbestos was released during work on the Speaker’s bedrooms last October, although some were allegedly uninformed for several months.
The PAC report said: “There is an unacceptable cover-up of secrecy surrounding the program.
“The Home Authorities’ failure to manage asbestos incidents transparently or accurately underscores an approach that does not welcome investigation.”
A parliamentary spokesman said the PAC reports findings would be carefully considered.
They said: “The Sponsors’ Body’s recent proposals for the restoration and renewal of Westminster Palace are estimated to cost between £ 7bn and £ 13bn, take up to 28 years to deliver, and will only be delivered in 2027 at the earliest. .
“Following concerns expressed about the costs and time scales offered, the two Commissions agreed to propose a new approach to the works and management of the repair and renewal program.
“The new approach is designed to ensure maximum value for money and will ensure that essential safety critical works start sooner than originally proposed.
“The commissions’ proposals have been published in full. Discussion with the parliamentary community on these proposals is currently underway. Members of both Houses will have the final say, and it is intended that they will have the opportunity to debate and decide on the Commissions’ proposals before the summer recess ”.