Alexandra Meakin

@ameakin.bsky.social

600 Followers 545 Following

Lecturer in British Politics & Programme Director BA Politics and Parliamentary Studies, @polisatleeds.bsky.social @universityofleeds.bsky.social Wrote PhD on the Restoration & Renewal of Palace of Westminster. Reposts ≠ endorsements

HOYLE-D AGAIN PARLIAMENT'S restoration and renewal bods increasingly think they can bypass the opposition of Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who thinks the costs - as much as £39bn - are outrageous. Labour whips tried to stitch up a pre-recess meeting of the Commons Commission to ensure MPs should soon have a chance to approve phase one of the project (£3bn, kerching kerching). Officials may be underestimating Hoyle. One of the project team, pressed by Hoyle to explain a knotty architectural problem, breezily assured the old boy that everything was under control and simultaneously winked across the table at the parliamentary clerk. Hoyle saw the wink and exploded, roaring that he would not tolerate cosy backroom deals between his clerks and civil servants. Such was Hoyle's anger the meeting adjourned in disarray.
9 July 2026 - Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Costing and governance Oral evidence Committee Public Accounts Committee Inquiry Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Costing and governance Thursday 9 July 2026 Start times: 9:30am (private) 10:00am (public) Watch Location Add to calendar Watch the meeting The Grimond Room. Portcullis House How to attend Meeting details At 9:30am: Private discussion Inquiry Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Costing and governanc At 10:00am: Oral evidence Inquiry : Costing and governance Charlotte Simmonds Managing Director at Client Team Russ MacMillan Chief Executive Renewal Delivery Authority
Key findings Progressing the Programme 9 There are risks to value-for-money in delaying a decision on the Programme. Successive reports have made clear that the Palace is in urgent need of work, and further delay increases the risk of catastrophic failure. The Client Team and the Delivery Authority estimate that each year of delay corresponds to an additional £320 million to £420 million on top of the overall cost of delivering the Programme. Parliament currently spends around £1.5 million a week on maintenance of the Palace, including major refurbishment projects. This is forecast to increase to around £2 million a week between 2026 and 2030. The Programme is estimated to reduce the cost of major refurbishment projects by £0.7 million a week, though it is hard to provide a realistic baseline for what would happen if the Programme did not go ahead. Delay may also reduce supplier confidence and competition, which could increase costs (paragraphs 1.2 to 1.6).
With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.
Chair: My first question is to the Clerks. In this Commission's comments following last year's main estimate, we said that it was "imperative" that a decision on the way forward was made during 2025-26. That has not happened. What information can you tell us about when the debate on the costed proposals will be held? Can you make clear the financial and operational impact of delaying it? Shall I go to Ms Mawson first or Mr Goldsmith? Chloe Mawson: Do you want to talk about debates, Tom, and then I talk about impact? Tom Goldsmith: Perfect. In terms of when the debates happen, unfortunately that is not in our gift; it is up to the Government. Leader of the House of Commons has certainly talked about the need for debates-I know it is very much on his radar. We would very much to have them sooner rather than later, and especially before summer recess, because if we have a delay beyond the summer recess, that is when we really start having an impact on the programme. At that point, I will pass over to Chloe. Chloe Mawson: The schedule set out in the costed proposals report remains deliverable if the debates are before the summer recess, but if they slip to the September sitting or after the conference recess, that will impacts on the programme schedule. Obviously, the later debates, the higher that impact will be. In terms of House of Lords temporary accommodation, if the debates do not take place until after the conference recess, that really does have quite a significant impact on our temporary accommodation schedule. We plan to start the initial procurement in the autumn, but we cannot do that if the debates have not taken place, so there is a real material impact there. I know that the DA is planning its procurement launch, but Russ can speak more about that.
We are concerned that there appears to be a distinct lack of accountability for the costs arising from delay in Parliament taking decisions on the programme and in enabling the works to get underway. There also needs to be accountability for the additional costs associated with continuing to develop several delivery options in parallel. While we recognise the complex political environment in which decisions must be taken, the continued deferral of decisions from one Parliament to the next risks creating a pattern where delay is becoming self-perpetuating. 15. The annual cost of delaying a decision is estimated to be around £70 million per year at current prices in respect to the development of nugatory options and the resulting additional reactive maintenance costs being incurred. £1.5 million is spent each week on maintaining and repairing the Palace of Westminster. It is also estimated that there is a further £250 million to £350 million of costs due to the inflationary impact on construction costs across the whole of the programme for each year of delay
There is no denying that "Killer" is a magnificent physical specimen, all the more so now that he has grown a white beard to disguise his Buzz Lightyear chin. He is known for visiting the Commons gym, where he recently became so carried away doing pull-ups that his head beat a hole in the ceiling. But as an advocate of arguments, as an expositor of legal policy, in short as a parliamentarian the committee seemed less sure. 'Gavel Basher'
Me - a ginger woman in her 40s running up a big hill, while her 3yo daughter, with ginger bunches, holds up a "go mummy go" sign
Rachel Reeves in front of a large black and white photo of Alice Bacon campaigning in Leeds
A screenshot of a google results page for the search query "cabinet office ministers". It states that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is Baron True, a completely false answer.
THANK POD IT’S FRIDAY Westminster Insider: POLITICO’s Patrick Baker takes a tour of parliament’s crumbling infrastructure and discusses what to do next with restoration expert Alexandra Meakin, Liberal Democrat MP Marie Goldman, Conservative MP and Father of the House Edward Leigh and former minister Ed Vaizey.
The second edition of the Exploring Parliament textbook, sitting on a yellow spotty tablecloth.
The R&R report delivered last month promises a parliamentary building fit for the future. Glossy architectural renderings imagine a sunken modern visitors’ centre, similar to the Louvre’s entrance hall. There’s an emphasis on accessibility and sustainability: as it stands, only 12 per cent of the Palace is step-free and the heating is so knackered that portable heaters are everywhere. Heat pumps and discreet solar panels are in discussion. ‘It needs to be a building that everyone in the UK would feel welcome in,’ says Meakin. ‘A building that belongs to the nation, rather than the temporary occupants of the current legislature.’ How likely is that vision to be realised? To move forward, a debate is due to take place this year on the R&R report. After that, both Houses will vote on whether to proceed with ‘Phase One’ stabilisation works – the necessary first steps before either ‘full decant’ or ‘EMI+’ can take place. These initial repairs are expected to take seven years and cost £3 billion. Then, in the early 2030s – and, crucially, after the next election – members will approve one of the two options and full-scale works might finally begin. ‘Punting the vote to 2030 means this parliament has, in effect, abdicated its responsibility,’ says Meakin. ‘What are the chances that, in five years’ time, a new intake of MPs will commission their own review and the whole saga will drag on while this symbol of democracy and iconic national building continues to crumble?’ For now, the fate of the Palace of Westminster is in members’ hands – if it doesn’t burn down around their ears first.
the Clerk remained the Accounting Officer, accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for taxpayers’ money spent maintaining the building. The Clerk also has legal responsibility safety of people on the parliamentary estate, as the Corporate Officer. Lord Lisvane has discussed how the “penalties prescribed by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act” caused him “sleepless hours” when he held this role (HL Deb, 6 Feb 2018, c 1972-3). He discussed this further in an interview, noting that it was a responsibility borne by an official, not a parliamentarian: “I felt that there was an extremely high level of risk which we collectively, and I as Corporate Officer, were not in a position to mitigate […] one of the things that one is very conscious of as a corporate officer, is that you carry—no member carries it—not even the Speaker, you carry the legal responsibility if something goes wrong” (interview, Lisvane, June 2018) This is a critical point. Unlike government ministers, the Speaker or backbench MPs, officials had a specific responsibility for protecting the building. The parliamentary scholar and peer, Lord Norton of Louth, noted how officials had this responsibility but not the power to act: “They are restricted […] they have legal responsibilities but of course they don't have the political position which is necessary for leadership; they might prompt, they can advise those in leadership positions, but they are reliant on the political leadership to act” (Interview, Norton, September 2018)
22 NOOKS and CORNERS LIKE many custodians of complicated historical buildings, parliamentarians have long dithered over do ered over doing the repair and restoration work to the Palace of Westminster, baulking at the cost to taxpayers and inconvenience to themselves (Eyes passim). But the longer they wait, the worse the cost and inconvenience become The latest report from the Restoration and Renewal client board (R&R). comprising members of both Houses plus some lay members, finally tries to get things moving with costed proposals to crack on with "Phase 1" works: restoring the medieval cloister court, to prevent prev irretrievable loss of stonework in one of the palace's hidden gems; and refurbishing Victoria Tower, without having to commit just yet to shifting MPs out of the complex. It would also see spending on removing art and other treasures to temporary homes and sprucing up other buildings, including the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre and parliament's "northern estate", ready to house decanted peers and MPs. Even the £3bn for Phase 1 sounds eye-wateringly expensive, making it easy political capital for Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch to call for the work to be "paused and refocused" to addressescalating costs. But delaying and doing nothing also costs a fortune, and the last thing the on-again- off-again restoration of parliament needs is another pause. Inflation combined with further deterioration means the project costs go up every time it is written about, while the parliamentary estate is throwing away £70m a a year on maintenance to keep the doors open, and £45m on operating costs, including heating the draughty buildings. Despite Badenoch's sneering at the R&R board's energy efficiency ambitions as wanting the palace to become a "Net Zero Dubai Hotel", tackling the huge operating costs is one element that might actually pay for itself in time.
Palace of Westminster: Repairs and Maintenance Show full question Question for Restoration and Renewal Client Board UIN 114853, tabled on 23 February 2026 Question Wendy Morton Conservative Aldridge-Brownhills Commons To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what assessment it has made of the cumulative cost impact of scope additions relating to visitor experience, public engagement and new-build interventions; whether these elements materially increase the risk of programme delay; and whether removal or deferral of such elements could materially reduce the headline cost range and decant duration.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what recent progress the Client Board has made in its work. (
6Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) To ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, what its planned timetable is for starting major works on the Palace of Westminster. (907875)
CRUMBLE CONFIRMATION: A final decision (no laughing at the back) on how to repair our tinderbox parliament has been kicked into the distant future and after the next election, as my POLITICO colleagues Esther Webber and Dan Bloom revealed in November. A report published this afternoon from the Restoration and Renewal Client Board also said MPs and peers moving out of parliament for restoration to take place would still be cheaper than fixing it up as we go along — which was also the case back in 2018, when MPs first voted to move out. Don’t expect this to happen. Ever. We can review whether putting this off forever was a good decision after the inevitable fire.
Box 1: Key decisions by parliamentarians The Houses agreed there was a need to do an R&R Programme in: • 2012 when the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee published a pre-feasibility study on restoration and renewal and concluded that “doing nothing is not an option” and that a decision on the long-term future of the Palace of Westminster needed to be made soon; • the 2016 Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster report, which concluded in its report that there is “… a clear and pressing need to tackle the work required to the Palace of Westminster”;23 • 2018 during debates on the report from the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, the Houses supported full decant as a preferred delivery option;24 • 2019 when the Houses passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019; • 2022 when the Houses agreed a new mandate for the Programme; and • 2024, when the Client Board published its Strategic Case for the Programme.25
Services in the Palace of Westminster are vast: there are over 14 miles of pipework and roughly 250 miles of cabling which support parliamentary business and other functions and activities across the Palace. • On average each month sees around 2,900 reactive maintenance jobs raised, approximately 87% of which are repairs completed on an initial visit, together with around 380 minor works. Between 2021/22 and 2023/24 reactive maintenance tasks increased by 70%. In the month this report has been drafted, issues in the Palace have included: – failure of heating to a significant area of the House of Lords; – significant problems with the sewerage system; – ongoing loss of toilets in the areas that have reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as well as four sets of toilets out of action; and – water leaks into the Colonnade. • Since 2016, there have been: – 36 fire incidents; – 12 asbestos incidents; and – 19 stonemasonry incidents. • Only 12% of the Palace of Westminster’s total floor area currently has step-free access. • £1.5m is spent per week maintaining and repairing the Palace of Westminster. • It is estimated that the cost of delaying starting the delivery phase of the Programme is around £70m per year at current prices in nugatory options development and additional reactive maintenance costs; • It is estimated that there would be a further £250m to £350m in the inflationary impact on construction costs across the whole of the Programme for each year of delay. • Between 1,500 and 4,000 full time equivalent roles will be needed each year over the lifetime of construction to deliver the Restoration and Renewal Programme for the Palace of Westminster
A timeline for R&R from pages 21-22 of this link: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/51442/documents/285576/default/
Our recommendations We recommend that Members of both Houses should be invited to approve a package of phase one works and the next steps for the Programme. This could include: • restating their commitment to maintain the Palace of Westminster for future generations; • re-confirming the need for a programme on the scale of R&R; • endorsing the vision for and scope of the works (including the agreed outcome level and Programme priorities set out in the Strategic Case and the 2019 Act (as amended)); • acknowledging the need to continue to bear down on costs, including exploring opportunities to deliver in more efficient ways, to ensure the Programme delivers value for money; • supporting expenditure over a seven year period to deliver a package of phase one works, in
Recommended Options Discounted Options Full decant EMI + Continued Presence EMI Health, safety and fire risk Lowest level of risk Highest level of risk in the Palace of the three options; management of risk feasible with more complex mitigations Higher level of risk than full decant, but lower than EMI Highest level of risk in the Palace of the three options; management of risk feasible with more complex mitigations Security risk Lowest level of risk in the Palace Higher level of risk than full decant in the Palace, but lower than EMI Accessibility Overall, during the works, considered to have a minor impact across protected characteristics during main works and its cumulative impact is lower due to its shorter duration. A number of negative impacts during the works across protected characteristics, with a higher number of negative impacts on accessibility compared to full decant.
Recommended Options Discounted Options Full decant EMI + Continued Presence EMI Total Programme duration 19–24 years 38–61 years 33–45 years 52–84 years Total Programme cost (including optimism bias and risk but excluding inflation and opportunities) £8.4–11.5bn £11.8–18.7bn £9.7–13.7bn £12.0–19.4bn Average annual cost (excluding opportunities) £440–490m £310–310m £290–300m £230–230m Highest annual cost (including opportunities) £600–760m £430–530m £460–620m £360–410m Total Programme cost (including optimism bias and risk and inflation but excluding opportunities) £11.1–15.6bn £19.5–39.2bn £14.4–22bn £23.3–56.3bn Net present cost £4.2–5.7bn £5.1–6.6bn £4.6–6.4bn £4.5–5.5bn House of Commons Chamber decant period 8–10 years For up to two years to the House of Lords Chamber 11–15 years to the House of Lords Chamber The Chambers are not expected to be decanted. House of Lords Chamber decant period 12–15 years 8–13 years 24–33 years Parliamentary business Delivered with changes in the location and proximity of spaces and services which will require consideration of new ways of working. Delivered with changes in the location and proximity of spaces and services which will require consideration of new ways of working. For areas of continued occupancy there is a risk of later need for an unplanned decant, including for core parliamentary business functions (such as the Chambers or services directly supporting them) if disruption becomes intolerable.
Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.
Restoration and Renewal Client Board (Joint) Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals HC 1576 Time of publication: 2.00pm
THE OTHER COLLAPSING STRUCTURE: While it may feel like the government is burning down, Westminster’s biggest literal tinderbox remains the Palace of Westminster itself. At 2 p.m., the long‑delayed menu of restoration options will finally be published. Not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning: Your Playbook author is old enough to remember parliament has been debating what to do with the crumbling estate since at least 2012, when a study declared the make‑do‑and‑mend era over. Fourteen years on, there is still “a complete absence of leadership,” one person close to the project says. Neither the government, nor the commissions, nor the speakers can say “this is what we want to happen,” they added. Crumblewatch: POLITICO has been reporting since December that a full decant (which would see MPs and peers moving out for years while asbestos is stripped out and wiring replaced) is expected to cost £15 billion after Lord Speaker Michael Forsyth let the cat out of the bag during his leadership race. If you’re looking for a neat metaphor about a nation paralysed by constant rounds of infighting and scandal, this isn’t a bad place to start.
DON'T FORGET THE THERMALS: The heating is bust in parliament, in both the Commons and the Lords. The building is open for people to work in, but maybe bring a hot water bottle. And an extra jumper.
A 6yo in yellow coat, waterproof trousers and wellies walks across a snow covered field.
When the Bill that became the Act was being debated at second reading, on 21 May 2019, Andrea Leadsom, then the Leader of the House of Commons, expected the two Houses would be asked to approve the Outline Business Case “during 2021”.18 Now, a decision on the preferred way forward is expected in 2025.19
As a senior minister between 2019 and 2022, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was partly involved in the decision to order a rethink of the options. He is sceptical both about the estimated cost of MPs staying in Parliament while the work is completed and suggestions the building is on the brink of a destructive conflagration. "I was on the committee that looked into it in the 2010-2015 Parliament, when we were told that the whole place would be ruined if we didn't act immediately," he says. "And here we are 10 years or more later - we haven't acted immediately and the place still seems to be standing." He defends blocking the previous plans calling the scheme "crazy, over-elaborate and too expensive".
The building is "just waiting for some disaster", says House of Cards writer and peer Lord Dobbs. He says his advice to visitors is: "If they see somebody running please don't stop to find out why they're running, just follow them." Former Labour minister Lord Hain agrees something needs to change. "This is a Notre Dame inferno in the making," he says in a reference to the Parisian cathedral which caught fire in 2019. "The Commons could burn down at any time."
Sports personality of the year voting screen with the vote highlighted for Chloe Kelly
Costed proposals for the three options are expected to be presented to both Houses of Parliament for decision in 2025. All options will seek to deliver a reasonably ambitious scope and achieve improvements in the following areas: Health and safety, including fire safety and addressing the risks posed by asbestos. Renewal and expansion of mechanical, electrical and other services. Building fabric conservation. Air ventilation and heating and cooling to rooms and offices. Security protection measures. Accessibility-including to improve audibility and increase step-free access, with the greatest improvements in the most visited and used areas of the Palace and an average enhancement from the current 12% step free access to circa 60% across the Palace and greater coverage in public areas. Further work on the enhanced maintenance and improvement option this year will examine what scope it could achieve compared with the full decant and continued presence options.
Charlie and I with giant grins as we discussed the respective states of our country's parli renovation projects...
The calf statue in the courtyard at King's Manor, University of York.
The utterly beautiful red white and blue Parliamentary Christmas jumper with Santa's sleigh flying above the Palace of Westminster
Ruth Fox: Yeah and just going back to that question of the state of the public finances, I'm gonna speculate that one decision that will not be made probably by Parliament, before Christmas, but really ought to be is the future of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Again, another theme that we keep revisiting. We have been told in statement after statement that a vote will be held on the future of the restoration and renewal program, and whether or not MPs and peers are going to leave the Palace of Westminster to enable the refurbishment work to take place over a number of years or not, or whether there'll be a partial decant, the Lords will move out and the Commons will move into the Lords. So a number of different scenarios are in play. We are promised that there will be a report and a vote by the end of this year. But given that the leader of the House of [00:37:00] Commons and a key figure on the restoration and renewal governance side has recently changed, of course, once Lucy Powell was removed from cabinet and replaced by the then Chief Whip Officer Alan Campbell. I do rather think that, that again could be kicked into the long grass a bit further. Mark D'Arcy: It's one of these things where they keep promising there'll be a debate in due course and a report in due course, and then it doesn't appear and it's just kicked, as you say, further and further into the long grass. And in the meantime, the Palace of Westminster is essentially being held together with spit and sawdust and running repairs. And there's a risk of fire or some structural collapse and bits of gargoyle falling on people, sewers, whatever it might be, breaking, the sewers bubbling up. I would say that that turns the place into a living metaphor and all sorts of disasters could befall it. And of course, when you have the state opening of Parliament, just imagine what would happen if the lights went out in the middle of that, leaving His Majesty stranded in darkness as …
A majestic heron stands on a grassy platform in the middle of the Roger Stevens pond. The Roger Stevens building is in the background, with lots of students trooping up the building ramp. The sky is blue with a few floaty white clouds.
A notification appearing on a garmin watch, which states: "11 September! Today over the years See what made this day special over time"
SUNDAE WORKING THIS summer, Reform UK MP Lee Anderson isn't just his party's chief whip - he's also its chief Mr Whippy. With most MPs away from Parliament for recess, Strangers, the politicians' bar, is closed for the summer. So instead of dispensing booze, the space has been temporarily transformed into an ice cream parlour for miscellaneous staff who have remained in Westminster - including political staff, cleaners, caterers and hacks. Any MPs who are still around can use it too. And last Tuesday, that included Anderson, MP for Ashfield, who walked insouciantly past the queue, ordered himself an ice cream sundae with chocolate sauce, and plonked himself in the corner of the bar to eat it. One parliamentary worker approached the politician to tell him he had pushed in. In response, Anderson glowered back, and said: "I'm an MP so I can go first, and there's only one MP in here and it's me." The man was apologetic and went back to the queue - whereupon Anderson was heard to mutter Something which sounded very much like "twat" under his breath. Truly a man of the people
Others would involve a phased restoration during which the Commons would continue to meet at Westminster but the Lords might be moved out and a rolling programme of “enhanced maintenance” likely to span decades. However, people briefed on the plan believe MPs could also be asked to consider a fourth option: a programme of “no regret” works to improve the fabric of the building, short of backing a full restoration scheme. “It would be kicking the can down the road,” said one person briefed on the talks.
The back of a ginger-haired toddler, wearing a grobag because it was way past her bedtime, sitting on a rug, watching the Lionesses lift the Euro 2025 trophy on television.
The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a complete reset of the R and R programme. The books need to be open to the public, and we need to bring the public into the debate about how we balance the needs of a world heritage site with modern security, accessibility —for example, for those with a disability—and value for money. Updated costs need to be presented. Currently, millions of pounds are being spent working up multiple options, despite our now being in the fifth year of this work. Indeed, those options are gold-plated, often based on decisions taken by Members who are no longer in the House. There is remarkably little visibility of this issue.
Hiding in plain sight, but not discussed in this Chamber since the general election, is the spending of millions of pounds on the repair of this building, with Members expected to commit later this year to spending billions of pounds into the future. The lack of debate or any meaningful transparency comes despite the majority of Members of this House being newly elected last July. Instead, the detailed costs and any vote on options are being delayed until later this year—ironically, they will probably come at around the same time that the House is expected to vote on a Budget, which many people expect to include tax rises. Members of the House, and Toggle showing location ofColumn 765members of the public, might reasonably ask why the Leader of the House has not held any such debate since coming into office. This issue speaks to a wider principle. Are decisions best formulated in private when some of the numbers remain uncertain, with reliance placed on internal controls and external advisers giving assurances, or is it better to have transparency—not least on an issue of great public interest? A lesson that, as a Minister, I learned from covid is that it is better to have transparency and an open debate about the trade-offs early than to hold discussions in secret and allow the benefit of hindsight after the event. Supporting greater transparency has been a theme of my time in the House, whether in my initial four years on the Public Accounts Committee or when as a Minister I overruled official advice to disclose information to the National Audit Office during covid. Since being elected as Chair of the House’s Finance Committee, I have repeatedly raised concerns in private about the financial management of the House and the multibillion-pound restoration and renewal programme, but I feel it is necessary to raise these issues on the Floor of the House today.
James Barwick, Freya Barr, Catherine Stigwood, Cristina Leston Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin, Louis Raimes, Manuela Marcondes, Josh King, and William Ghebremichael - all in graduation gowns outside The Great Hall entrance at the University of Leeds. The students are holding their graduation certificates and everyone is proud and happy.
Cristina Leston Bandeira and Alexandra Meakin all dressed up in fancy academic gowns and hats for graduation.
PoliticsHome understands that Baroness Smith, Leader of the House of Lords, is in favour of a full decant, and expressed this view at the meeting. While Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has been pushing for parliamentarians to stay on the estate while work continued, the board member claimed his authority is waning. "Mr Speaker has exercised a very, very strong malign influence, and in the Commons, nobody has wanted to stand up to him, and it's difficult to stand up to him from the Lords," they said. "I got a sense on Monday that his position isn't quite as strong as it was, because it's a new group of MPs on the House of Commons commission, and his arguments were frankly ridiculous."
The Select Car Leasing Stadium at full time. Barnsley players in pink celebrate, while Reading players wearing blue and white hoops sit despondent on the pitch.
A train table with a open book, a Reading FC Member Card, and a paper train ticket from Sheffield to Reading Green Park.
Cristina Leston-Bandeira and me, holding our PSA certificates and looking proud
A certificate with the PSA logo and the text Sir Bernard Crick Prize 2025 for outstanding contributions to advancing teaching and learning in political studies by an early career academic is awarded to Dr Alexandra Meakin
Platform 6 at Sheffield train station, with a clock showing 7.50 and a departure board showing the 7.53 train to Plymouth. There are several people waiting on the platform.
3. Consideration of costed proposal options: delivery approaches The Board noted that none of the options could start immediately following a decision and that the levels of occupancy determined how temporary services were provided. Board members advocated for EMI to be subject to the same rigorous challenge as the full decant and continued presence options. Board members queried the duration of enabling works being shorter under EMI and requested that the differences between the schedule of enabling works for the different options be set out clearly in the paper on schedule. The Board discussed disruption and noted that EMI would still feel like a construction site as well as the increased levels of disruption caused by regular ongoing change and continuous flux rather than one big change. Mitigations, such as hoarding, would be put in place to minimise these risks and would follow procedures currently followed. The Board noted that there may be a difference between a decision on what stakeholders are willing to tolerate and the reality during construction. The Board discussed the importance of properly understanding disruption. The Board discussed the need for clear information on the timeline for benefits realisation and risk for both the building and building users. The Board pressed for an increased level of exchange of information and constructive challenge between the Strategic Estates and Delivery Authority teams, and noted that there was more that could be done to maximise the expertise in the two teams to develop work on the options. The Board noted that there were issues relating to sharing information between the two teams and that there was an upcoming meeting between officials to discuss parliamentary controls on information.
A red and white certificate with the University of Leeds logo is held up against as backdrop of daffodils, bluebells, and green grass
Jack Sheldon, Farrah Bhatti, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Louise Thompson, Sarah Childs and Simon Burton sitting at the front of a classroom. #ExploringParliament is written on the blackboard behind Jack.
The cover of Exploring Parliament Second Edition, showing the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Bridge from across the Thames, at twilight.
Part I Introducing the UK Parliament 1 Introduction 3 Paul Silk, Aileen Walker, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin, and Louise Thompson 2 Parliament in Context 9 Philip Norton 3 Westminster in the UK Context 17 Sean Haughey, Mark Shephard, and Diana Stirbu Part II People and Places in Parliament 4 The Political Organization of Parliament 31 Case study: The Liz Truss premiership 37 Richard Kelly and Louise Thompson 5 The Governance of Parliament 41 Case study: Sexual misconduct and bullying 48 Sarah Petit and Ben Yong 6 Supporting Members and Peers 52 Case study: The Speaker’s Conference on the employment conditions of members’ staff 59 Matthew Congreve and Rebecca McKee 7 The Significance of Rituals in Parliament 63 Case study: The State Opening of Parliament 69 Emma Crewe and Paul Evans
At the time of writing, fears of the cost and length of the necessary repairs have stalled the R&R programme, with little sign that progress will be made in the near future. The ‘shame’ felt by MPs when escorting disabled constituents round their parliament building will therefore continue. This case study has highlighted the challenge of focusing on the Palace purely as a ‘space’, given the broader meanings ascribed to the space, and in doing so has sought to explain why, despite widespread recognition of the poor facilities for disabled people working within or visiting parliament, the building remains hugely inaccessible.