Thread by @RuthFox01

1/ The paper detailing the assessment of costs & the schedule for the Restoration & Renewal of @UKParliament has been published. A summary thread 🧵#WestminsterRR #Parliament ⬇️ assets.ctfassets.net/vuylkhqhtihf/1…

2/ This is the paper that led the Commissions of both Houses to conclude earlier this month that the work should not proceed as originally envisaged.

3/ The cost of the Essential Scheme (original plan, requiring full decant from the Palace) is estimated at between £7bn (at P50 risk level risk so 50% chance of outcome being achieved) & £13bn (at P80 or 80% chance of outcome being achieved). This doesn’t account for inflation.

4/ 88% of these costs are for ‘works required to save the Palace and renew the building services’; 9% is for improvements for staff and the public; and just 3% is for improvements to MPs’ working environment.

5/ Potential timescale for these works are 19-28 years with the Palace needing to decant for 12-20 years. The lower end of the range is the P50 level of risk; the upper end is the P80 level of risk.

6/ In March 2021 the R&R Strategic Review concluded that if there wasn’t full decant from the Palace, the works would take longer, cost billions more and create ‘extraordinary’ risks.

7/ But the Commons Commission asked for a study of ‘continued presence’ - what it would take for MPs to stay in the Palace for as much of the duration of the works as possible, & possibly all of it. 2 ‘continued presence’ scenarios were explored to enable MPs to stay on site.

8/ Scenario 1: all Commons Chamber business stays until an agreed point at which it transfers to another Palace location (the House of Lords Chamber?)
Scenario 2: all Commons Chamber business stays in place and there’s no transfer to any other location for the duration of works

9/ Continued presence Scenario 1 extends time needed by 7-15 years. Scenario 2 extends time needed by 27-48 years (on P50 - P80 risk range)

10/ Scenario 1 would increase costs by around 40% to £9.5bn-£18.5bn. Scenario 2 would increase costs by around 60% to £11bn-£22bn. Both in the P50-P80 risk ranges and not accounting for inflation.

11/ If MPs stay in the Palace there are key risks to health and safety given the ‘complexity of operating parliamentary business surrounded by a live construction site’

12/ Noise and vibration levels could ‘increase to unacceptable levels’. Should the work have to stop due to disturbance of parliamentary business that will mean delays and additional costs.

13/ Removal of embedded asbestos is a key risk. The report finds the greatest above- ground concentration is in the House of Commons Chamber itself.

14/ The report states ‘having explored lessons learned from other refurbishment projects, it is known that users of operational areas adjacent to a construction site with asbestos removal activity have a very low tolerance of dust’.

15/ Fire and security risk increase if the Palace is not fully decanted of Members and staff. The study has not found a secure means of access from Portcullis House (MPs’ offices/Committee rooms) into the Palace for some of the work proposed.

16/ If MPs insist on staying in the Chamber while the work goes on around them, then ‘the setup of an operational island within the construction site’ will require procedural changes, not least to voting arrangements

17/ If MPs stay on site, the House of Lords decant (to the QEII Centre) will be significantly prolonged compared to the original Essential Scheme plan (full decant). So the design and security costs will all need to be re-costed.

18/ This report has been produced by the R&R Sponsor Body which the Commissions of both Houses have now decided they want to abolish. So the governance structure for the programme is also now in limbo.

19/ The cost and length of time for the works is eye-watering under all scenarios. But current indecision is itself wasting time and money and putting the safety of Members, staff and visitors at risk. ENDS