Written questions by Morton.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the concept proposals for the creation of a new visitor plaza and underground space beneath Central Lobby, whether those proposals are necessary for delivering the core safety and resilience objectives of the Programme; what the estimated capital cost of the proposed underground plaza and associated works is; what risk assessment has been undertaken in relation to archaeological disturbance; and whether this element was included in earlier scope levels.

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after the completion of the Parliamentary building works.As set out in the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), the preferred scope for the R&R works will deliver a fit-for-purpose and accessible visitor arrival space, including higher capacity security search and screen areas that will reduce the likelihood of queuing outside. The current proposal is to use the area in the basement directly below Central Lobby for visitors as an access point into the public areas of the remainder of the Palace.The majority of the construction costs for the Palace relate to the priority areas which both Houses agreed for the R&R Programme in 2022—namely, fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option relate to these priority areas.The new visitor arrival space is not defined as a ‘priority area’ for the R&R Programme as agreed by the Houses. However, its delivery does contribute to safety and security objectives, for example by improving the search and screen capacity at the visitor entrance, improving secure routes through the Palace for the public and members, and supporting new accessible visitor routes. These improvements could not be delivered through enhancements to the existing entrance in Cromwell Green (largely due to inadequate space requirements).The proposed visitor arrival space and route account for 0.5% of Palace construction costs under the full decant option and 1.1% under the EMI+ option. This is based on the base construction costs for the Palace project set out in Annex 2, table 2 of the report, which exclude risk and inflation.The proposed location for the visitor arrival space in the basement of the Palace was selected in part because it aligns with the footprint of existing plantroom which was constructed in the 20th century. These areas are expected to require extension regardless of the visitor search and screening facility, as they will need to accommodate increased plant capacity in future. As a result, any archaeological impact is likely to be primarily driven by the final below‑ground plant requirements, rather than by the co‑location of search and screening functions. The visitor arrival space therefore does not independently introduce a new or additional archaeological impact beyond what would already be required for plant expansion.In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money. The selected scope including provision for improved visitor services is set out in the R&R costed proposals report. Earlier scope levels at previous stages in the Programme also included improvements to visitor and educational facilities.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the extent to which housing delivery shortfalls are being used to justify development on protected land; how many homes approved on appeal in the last 12 months were on land previously designated as green belt; and what proportion of those approvals were opposed by the relevant local planning authority and ward councillors.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out clear safeguards for land which is designated for its environmental or amenity value. While a poor score on the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is a strong indicator of housing need in an area not being met sufficiently, HDT failure does not mean that planning permission for housing will be automatically granted. In 2025, the Planning Inspectorate approved approximately 3,000 homes on Green Belt land, of which 88% had been originally refused by the relevant Local Planning Authority. My Department does not hold information in relation to opposition to specific applications by individual ward councillors.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the consistency of Planning Inspectorate decisions where local plans are absent, emerging or under review; how often inspectors have cited housing land supply shortfalls to justify approving development on protected land; and whether he will review the weighting given to local democratic decisions versus national housing targets in such cases.

My Department has made no such assessment. The Planning Inspectorate does not compile data on the number of instances Inspectors have cited Housing Land Supply shortfalls to allow an appeal on designated land, such as a protected site.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether the Government intends to provisionally apply any provisions of the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar from 10 April 2026 in connection with the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES).

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when the UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar will be laid before Parliament under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; and whether the Government intends to allow a scrutiny period longer than the statutory 21 sitting days.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether the Government has obtained legal advice on the implications of the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar for (a) sovereignty, (b) jurisdiction and (c) the exercise of enforcement powers on Gibraltar territory; and whether that advice, or a summary of it, will be published.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what documents relating to the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar the Government intends to publish alongside the treaty text, including (a) explanatory memoranda, (b) impact assessments, (c) draft implementing legislation and (d) any administrative arrangements referenced in the Agreement.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what support her Department is providing to British Nationals affected by travel disruption and flight cancellations in the Middle East, including those transiting through Qatar; and what guidance her Department has issued to affected travellers.

The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority. On 3 March, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the House about the consular support available to individuals in the Middle East, and assisted departures have now taken place from both Oman and Dubai. We will provide further updates on a regular basis, including details of our ongoing evacuation flights, as well as our efforts to secure an end to Iran's attacks on countries in the region, and the full resumption of normal commercial flights.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the financial sustainability of local authorities that are implementing the maximum permitted council tax increase while also delivering more than £25 million of in-year service reductions; what information his Department holds on the number of councils that have both increased council tax by 4.99% and reduced services in excess of £25 million in the same financial year; and what monitoring his Department undertakes of council tax increases, reserves usage and projected future budget gaps.

It is for individual local authorities to decide their level of council tax, including whether to use their full flexibility and balancing the extra spending with the impact on taxpayers. Local authorities are expected to manage their financial position prudently, and the department does not monitor their day-to-day business. The department does not proscriptively set a level of expected reserves for local authorities to hold and is clear that that this should be a locally managed decision. We rely on local authorities to accurately reflect their reserve positions in the Revenue Outturn forms to ensure we have good quality data in the department to understand the reserves the sector hold. The recent Local Government Finance Settlement is our most significant step yet to make English local government more sustainable. We are delivering fairer funding, targeting money where it is needed most through the first multi-year Settlement in a decade. The department will continue to have a framework in place to support those in the most difficult positions. Any council that has concerns about its ability to set or maintain a balanced budget should approach the department in the first instance.

Communities and Local Government, what the total value of affordable housing grant funding allocated to homes recorded as started by the Greater London Authority under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme but not yet completed is; and how much of that funding has been (a) drawn down and (b) remains unspent.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, under what circumstances affordable homes recorded by the Greater London Authority as started under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme may be reclassified, adjusted, or removed from official affordable housing starts statistics; and whether any such cases have occurred to date.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mayoral combined authorities in delivering regional growth plans; what metrics his Department uses to evaluate performance against investment commitments, job creation and housing delivery; and whether he will publish comparative performance data across combined authorities, including the West Midlands Combined Authority.

Local Growth Plans are a key pillar of our regional growth agenda, and government continues to work with Mayoral Strategic Authorities to co-agree regional growth priorities.Mayoral Strategic Authority delivery, including on investment commitments and job creation, is monitored through relevant programme governance arrangements. For areas with an Integrated Settlement, delivery will be overseen via a single Outcomes Framework agreed with all relevant departments, HMT, and the Mayoral Strategic Authority. The outcome and targets that the Mayoral Strategic Authorities agree with central government may be different to reflect their priorities for local growth.Progress on housing will also be measured through the number of net additional dwellings (published on an England-wide, regional and local authority basis) and we will update Parliament in the usual manner.

Communities and Local Government, whether affordable housing starts that remain uncompleted for multiple years are included in published figures cited as evidence of housing delivery; and whether official publications distinguish starts from completed homes when reporting delivery outcomes.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the cost ranges set out in Table 1 of the costed proposals report, what assessment the Client Board has made of the historical accuracy of P50 and P80 estimates in comparable UK major projects; whether the inflation-adjusted cost ranges for Full Decant and EMI+ adequately reflect recent construction inflation volatility; whether the optimism bias applied sufficiently accounts for heritage, asbestos and live-estate risks; and what estimate it has made of the potential fiscal exposure to the taxpayer should cost escalation exceed the upper P80 range.

The recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), provides costs and schedules as ranges at different confidence levels (P50 and P80). This is in line with major programme best practice and guidance from the National Audit Office (NAO).In addition, the R&R Programme carries out benchmarking against UK and international comparators.The R&R works and construction costs have been benchmarked against 14 international Parliamentary projects and 18 heritage building projects, including Kings Cross Station regeneration, Manchester Town Hall, London Olympics, Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line) and others.Benchmarking of cost estimates has also included benchmarking against other comparable types of work, for example asbestos removal (including in heritage sites), hospital mechanical and electrical work, or Salisbury cathedral stonework where appropriate; the types of cost and levels of risk allowed for in estimates against the Canadian Parliament and other comparable Parliamentary projects (including UK Parliament projects) and complex restoration projects; and management costs against other major programmes. Risk has been calculated and incorporated into estimates in line with Infrastructure and Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority) and NAO guidance for programmes.The inflation profile follows the Bank of England Monetary Report (November 2024) which remains constant at 2% from 2028/29 onwards in line with Bank of England targets. Sensitivity analysis looking at the impact of construction inflation outstripping Bank of England targets was also considered.The R&R Programme has recognised the heritage, asbestos and live‑estate challenges inherent in the Palace, and elements of these risks have been incorporated into its contingency planning. However, the independent assurance findings indicate that some of these factors are not yet fully reflected in the quantitative modelling, and a portion of the remaining exposure is currently covered through Optimism Bias. As the design matures and further survey data becomes available in the proposed next stage of the works, the Programme will refine these allowances to ensure they are fully and accurately captured.Under section 7 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, the two Houses are required to approve both the Delivery Authority’s proposals for the Palace restoration and a total funding envelope before the Programme can move to phase two. Furthermore, under section 7(4), once that approval has been obtained, any significant subsequent changes to the design, timing or funding of the works would require further approval from the Houses.Costs will be monitored closely throughout the delivery of the R&R Programme. Wider funding for the R&R Programme is subject to formal scrutiny from the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission with input from HM Treasury, and audits by the NAO. The Public Accounts Committee can and has scrutinised R&R including its current inquiry announced in December 2025. The R&R Client Board, R&R Programme Board and R&R Delivery Authority Board also scrutinise costs to ensure value for money. Reports relating to R&R delivery and costs will continue to be publicly available, and there will be regular ongoing scrutiny by Members and Member-led Boards.

Communities and Local Government, what powers his Department has to recover, suspend, or reallocate affordable housing grant funding where homes recorded as started under the Greater London Authority’s 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme are not progressed to completion.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the stated annual cost of delay of £70 million and the estimated additional £250–350 million annual inflationary impact, what methodology was used to calculate those figures; what assumptions were made regarding construction market conditions; whether independent validation of those delay cost estimates was commissioned; what sensitivity analysis was undertaken to model lower inflation scenarios; and whether those delay figures include all ongoing maintenance expenditure irrespective of the R&R Programme.

It is estimated that the cost of delaying starting the delivery phase of the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme is around £70m per year at current prices. 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, based on current information.The methodology underpinning the cost of delay is set out on page 124 in Annex 2 of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576). This consists of: the compound impact of inflation over the Programme’s life (the £250m-£350m figure above); nugatory options development costs from this point; and additional reactive maintenance costs (above the current baseline).The cost of delay was considered as part of the Independent Advice and Assurance Panel’s (IAAP) review, which was published alongside the report. The IAAP has advised that the calculation of the costs of delay is likely to be an underestimate because it is based on accepted figures where robust estimates are available – most notably for the inflationary increase in construction costs that arise from delayed implementation, which the IAAP considered to be reasonable, and realistic. While those specific figures were reasonable the IAAP advised that, in major asset management, it is well established that remediation costs often grow in real terms relative to avoided maintenance costs (when essential investments are postponed): they also advised that the likelihood of extreme events rises when complicated, interconnected systems are operated beyond their intended design life or usage parameters.Separately to the cost of delay calculations, sensitivity analysis looking at the impact of construction inflation outstripping Bank of England forecasts was considered.The cost of delay figures were estimated with regard specifically to the R&R Programme and do not include all ongoing maintenance within the Palace of Westminster, only the growth in reactive maintenance costs above the current annual baseline.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes in instances where increases in council tax are accompanied by reductions in discretionary services and increases in fees and charges; and if he will require councils to publish a standardised breakdown of the household-level financial impact of such combined measures.

The Department has not made an assessment of the adequacy of the transparency of local authority budget-setting processes. It is for individual councils to decide their level of council tax, the discretionary services they deliver, and their fees and charges. In doing this they should take into consideration a range of factors including the impact on taxpayers. Councils are required to publicise their decisions with their residents in accordance with legislation.

Communities and Local Government, how many affordable homes recorded as started by the Greater London Authority under the 2016 to 2023 Affordable Homes Programme remained uncompleted at the end of the most recent reporting period; and of those, how many had recorded no further construction activity in that period.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, whether there is a maximum period for which an affordable housing start may remain uncompleted while continuing to be treated as a valid start for statistical purposes; and if there is no such limit, how the integrity of the affordable housing starts series is maintained.

Published statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, which can be found on gov.uk here, are broken down into starts and completions. Individual units are not tracked from start-on-site to completion. This is because the data provided directly by local planning authorities is collected on an aggregate basis to reduce burden while providing sufficient detail for use. The integrity of the data is maintained through thorough quality assurance checks, including cross checking with other data sources, while consistency and comparability are ensured through the detailed published guidance for each question. The affordable housing supply statistics have been assessed by the Office for Statistics Regulation and at the last assessment their continued Accredited Official Statistics status was confirmed.

Communities and Local Government, what oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure that funding allocated to mayoral combined authorities is delivering value for money; how often such authorities are subject to independent audit or review; and whether he will publish all recent evaluations of programme delivery, including those relating to skills, infrastructure and housing investment.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol, which sets out how Mayors will be held to account by central government, at local level and by the public. This includes a duty to ensure value for money. All relevant local bodies defined by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 are required to have their accounts independently audited.