I call Marsha De Cordova.
The Church Commissioner gets another rest.
In February, the Restoration and Renewal Client Board reported costed proposals for the programme and a recommended way forward. The key recommendations are a phase 1 works package and the preparation of temporary accommodation, including a long-term resilience Commons Chamber, and reducing the number of delivery options from four to two, with a decision on a preferred option required by 2030. Also, the R and R team has engaged with Members of both Houses in party group meetings, Committees and briefings, and has had stands in Portcullis House and the Royal Gallery; the team has had almost 400 interactions with fellow parliamentarians. The next step is for parliamentary debates on the subject, in which Members of both Houses can consider the Client Board’s recommendations and decide how to make progress.
What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the so-called waterside option, which would see a floating pontoon with temporary Chambers built on the Thames? That would allow Parliament to access the rest of the estate during the refurbishment of this Palace. Why has that not been included in the options, and why instead are we being left to choose between two lengthier and more costly options?
I, too, read the waterside options. The issue is that there is a preferred option, which is that the Commons moves to the northern estate and the House of Lords moves to the QEII centre. That has been proposed for safety and value-for-money reasons.