‘Patently absurd’ plan to spend £39.2bn refurbishing Parliament under fire | Politics | News
Proposals to spend up to £39.2bn on the restoration of the Houses of Parliament will face fierce attacks this week. Fears are growing that the country is heading towards another public spending debacle that will continue for decades at a cost to taxpayers of tens of billions of pounds.
MPs will discuss options put forward for the “restoration and renewal” project, which could see them leave the House of Commons for up to 10 years and their colleagues from the House of Lords for fifteen years. The restoration process is expected to take at least 19 years, but could continue for more than 60 years under different proposals presented to Parliament. Total program cost estimates range from £11.1 billion to £39.2 billion.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said: “The long-running saga of how to restore the dilapidated Palace of Westminster, which will be debated once again in the House of Commons on Thursday, is typical of everything you fear about Public Sector waste.”
Mr Tice said the proposals were “obviously ridiculous”, adding that “the project is full of bureaucratic nonsense of the kind I witnessed as an MP in Brussels”.
He argues that “there is no need for MPs to leave altogether” and that Parliament “could simply amend Parliament’s calendar to allow housekeepers to complete their work on the two Houses being debated in the summer recess”.
He said there is no need to make Parliament “fully accessible”, stating: “I’ve heard no complaints about the current layout.”
House of Commons Shadow Leader Jesse Norman also stated that he was against the proposals and said: “Westminster Palace is one of our greatest national treasures. It must be secured and protected for future generations.”
“But the current Restoration and Renewal process is drifting into a massive decades-long project with costs running into the tens of billions, inadequate review and unclear accountability. What started as basic maintenance has become an open-ended undertaking with no ceiling on costs and no serious examination of alternatives.”
“Phased, targeted works that will keep the building safe and functional should be properly considered before Parliament is asked to sign a blank cheque.”
William Yarwood of the Taxpayers’ Alliance said: “The figures announced for this restoration are nothing more than a financial fantasy that will leave taxpayers footing the bill for generations. Current plans have turned a necessary safety project into an exercise in vanity.”
He called for the project to be “reduced to the essentials” and completed “as efficiently and quickly as possible.”
A spokesman for the UK Parliament said: “The Cost Proposals report, published earlier this year, sets out options for securing the future of the historic Palace of Westminster. It sets out recommendations from the Member-led R&D Client Board, supported by independent external experts, with recommendations for an initial seven years of phase one works at limited costs. The plans focus on priorities such as replacing and upgrading systems including electricity, water and 1950s heating, critical improvements to fire safety, controlled management of asbestos and repair of damaged stonework. The restoration proposals are expected to be examined, considered and debated by all members of both Houses to determine a path forward.
