In brief
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle expressed frustration at the delays in restoring the Palace of Westminster, citing that each year of postponement costs taxpayers £420 million and that the project could take up to 61 years. The Public Accounts Committee warned that the multi‑billion‑pound works could cost £40 billion and that a lack of fire‑suppression systems leaves the building vulnerable. The speaker called the current approval process "handcuffs" and demanded swift action to protect Parliament’s historic site.
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle of Britain’s House of Commons today voiced intense frustration over the slow progress of the multi‑billion‑pound refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster, the body that houses Parliament, according to a Xinhua report released on November 7, 2026.
On the Thames‑bank where the historic building stands, Hoyle warned that each additional year of delay costs taxpayers £420 million and that the restoration could take as long as 61 years, a figure he said would dangerously extend the building’s vulnerability to fire and other hazards.
He also criticised the existing approval routine, describing it as a process that “puts ourselves in handcuffs” and spends more time on surveys than on action, a sentiment echoed by the Speaker’s own words.
It’s very frustrating when the Act of Parliament prevents you carrying out the major repairs that you need to. Talk about putting ourselves in handcuffs.
Speaker Hoyle said the biggest frustration was the lack of progress: "We’re not getting on with the work," he noted, urging the relevant authorities to expedite the necessary approvals and construction.
Public Accounts Committee Urges Urgent Action
The Commons Public Accounts Committee, led by its chairman, called the situation a period of "crunch time" for the ailing building and warned that the full restoration could cost up to £40 billion, or roughly $53 billion, and could extend for more than six decades if current delays persist.
According to the committee’s findings, each year of postponement not only incurs an estimated £420 million cost to taxpayers but also leaves the historic structure exposed to potentially devastating fire risks. The chairman compared the Palace’s vulnerability to the Notre‑Dame fire in 2019, stressing that a similar disaster could repeat itself if preventive measures are not taken.
Every additional year of delay costs taxpayers £420 million. The house could be put in danger of a fire like the one at the Notre‑Dame when we neglect to install a fire‑suppression mist system.
Despite repeated calls from Speaker Hoyle for the installation of a fire‑suppression mist system throughout the building, the system remains absent, a fact that the committee highlighted as a glaring safety lapse.
Both the Speaker and the committee expressed concern that the “Act of Parliament” itself, which governs the authorization of building works, has become a bureaucratic barrier that must be navigated before any significant repairs can begin. They called for reforms to streamline the approval process in order to protect democracy’s architectural heritage and safeguard the public.
For ordinary citizens, the implications are both tangible and symbolic. The extra £420 million per annum is money that could be redirected toward public services, while the delayed repairs mean that Parliament’s historic chambers, narrative and civic functions remain at risk. The outcome of this stalemate does not only concern the parliamentary system but also affects all citizens who rely on a safe, functional venue for the exercise of democratic governance.
As the debates continue, Stone‑by‑stone, the Speaker’s call for swift action, the committee’s warnings, and the barbed reference to France’s cathedral fire serve as a stern reminder that the physical integrity of Parliament is inseparable from the very functioning and accountability of the democratic process in the United Kingdom.
Source: Xinhua
