Speaker Lord Lindsay Hoyle has opened a fresh chapter of criticism over the stalled refurbishment of London’s iconic Palace of Westminster, arguing that every year of postponement costs taxpayers an estimated £420 million and that the multi‑billion‑pound project could last as long as 61 years. Speaking in the House of Commons on Saturday, Hoyle accused the process for approving essential renovations of being “poured in handcuffs,” and urged urgent action amid concerns that the ancient building could fall victim to a devastating fire.
Hoyle’s remarks come on the eve of a Public Accounts Committee report that calls for accelerated work on the Victorian-era structure, which the committee estimates could cost as much as 40 billion pounds ($53 billion) and take more than six decades to complete. The committee’s chair warned that the ongoing delays were eroding the safety of the historic building, noting that the Palace had no comprehensive fire‑suppression mist system – a safeguard that Hoyle has championed for years.
"It’s very frustrating when the Act of Parliament prevents you carrying out the major repairs that you need to," Hoyle said, echoing the committee’s frustration. He also questioned why the mist system hadn’t yet been installed, describing it as a crucial safety upgrade that was still pending.
According to Xinhua, the speaker’s comments reflect mounting pressure from MPs who argue that a legislative approach, rather than a more streamlined administrative process, is hindering progress. The refurbishment, which began in 2023, requires approvals from multiple stakeholders, and has been delayed by a lack of clarity on funding and design approvals.
The Public Accounts Committee, warning that “crunch time” is already looming, cited the cost of failure: each additional year of delay is estimated to add £420 million to the overall expense, rising to over 5 billion pounds if the project completes after the 61‑year horizon. The committee also noted that the cost of a potential fire‑related disaster “could be catastrophic, with the loss of expensive and irreplaceable historic artifacts.”
Currency replacement: a fire that struck Notre‑Dame Cathedral in Paris in 2019 underscored how vulnerable historic buildings are to uncontrolled flames. Hoyle highlighted the similarity, warning that “the Palace could be left vulnerable to a devastating fire if the mist system is not installed.” The National Fire and Rescue Service has urged that the building meet the 2021 fire safety regulations, a standard that the Palace still does not fully meet.
In response, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that the renovation scheme was under review but remained “on track to be a multi‑phase project that will be delivered over the coming decade.” The minister emphasized a “balanced approach” that maintains the integrity of the historic structure while securing adequate funding. However, the House of Commons has yet to officially approve the staged timetable released by the firms involved.
There is also confusion over the legal framework guiding the refurbishment. While the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 grant Parliament the authority to legislate for its own affairs, the new legislation requiring a public inquiry and independent assessment of the repairs has been criticised for prolonging the approval timeline. Hoyle’s statement reflects a broader debate about whether the existing Acts of Parliament create an impasse or simply a safeguard against hurried decisions that could compromise safety.
With £40 billion at stake, the pace of the work is under scrutiny. Behind the political rhetoric lies a factual question: when will the building be upgraded to meet present-day safety standards and how will the long‑term cost be managed? The Committee’s latest report calls for a “clearing of red tape” that would open the way for accelerated pace, with a target of completing the most urgent fire‑suppression work within 12 months. If the government fails to meet the critical timelines, the Committee warns that the parliament will ultimately inherit an expensive legacy of delayed investment and increased fiscal burden.
