Committee backs ‘full decant’ of MPs and peers

MPs on the public accounts committee have urged Parliament to “get on with” the £4bn revamp of the Grade I-listed Palace of Westminster and warned that any delay will only add to the cost and risks.

In a report weighing up the different options, the committee has thrown its weight behind the “full decant” option: “ It is crystal clear to us that further delay and indecision will inevitably result in costs to the public purse whichever option is finally settled on. It is also clear to us that the option of a full decant is the most economic choice.

It continued: “The Palace of Westminster is the home of the two Houses of Parliament. This internationally recognised building is in a state of extreme disrepair. The risk of a catastrophic failure is high and growing with every month that passes: fire, water penetration, sewage inundation, comprehensive electrical failure or some other mechanical breakdown are among the most likely causes. It must be repaired. For a World Heritage site that is the home of the ‘mother of parliaments’, doing nothing is not an option.”

Last year a joint committee of MPs and peers representing both Houses recommended a full move-out of MPs and peers lasting six years to make way for £4bn of essential repair and renovation works to the palace, one of three main options put forward by consultants Deloitte, Aecom and HOK.

Again backing the original proposals, the PAC said: “We recommend the two-tier delivery authority approach. The restoration and renewal programme can build on the examples of Crossrail and the 2012 Olympics: both government major projects delivered by a two-tier delivery model.

“We consider that a successful sponsor body should have a clearly-defined relationship with the delivery authority, as it will be based on a high level of trust.

“The Cabinet Office reports that five out of eight common causes of failure in major projects like this come down to weak governance. It is essential that throughout the programme its delivery is subject to independent assurance and evaluation at appropriate stages.”