Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

1. What recent progress the Client Board has made in its work.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board has recently published a report providing costed proposals for the R&R programme and a recommended way forward. The key recommendation is to commence a phase 1 works package, including enabling works and the preparation of temporary accommodation, which includes a long-term resilience Chamber. It has reduced the number of delivery options from four to two, with a final decision on a preferred option required by 2030. The next step is for parliamentary debates to be held so that Members of both Houses can consider the client board’s recommendations and decide how to progress. The R&R team holds regular briefings, tours and detailed Q&A sessions, which the hon. Gentleman may find of interest.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

The London 2012 Olympics took seven years to organise and cost £7 billion. The World Trade Centre rebuild in New York took seven years and cost $3.9 billion. The restoration of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris took less than five years and cost less than €1 billion, yet here we are, with the cheapest option available to us to spend £16 billion and move out for 24 years. I am sorry, but that really does stink. We need to look again at the entire proposals for the restoration and renewal of this place. Restoration is fine, and we should all operate in a safe workplace, but I ask the hon. Member to go back to the board and look again at this entire proposal.

[Nick Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should make much faster progress on this project. However, he talks about Notre Dame, which has a much smaller footprint than our Palace of Westminster. The bulk of the construction costs relate to the replacement and upgrade of mechanical power, water and heating infrastructure, improvements to fire safety, and the controlled management of asbestos and repaired stonework. Not enough has been invested in our palace over the years, and much more needs to be done. This needs to be done at a good speed, but I accept his point. Let us try to take Members of both Houses with us.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Commission is taking to help improve Members’ productivity through technology.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

Members and their teams should be supported to manage and address the increasing volume and complexity of work being placed on us all. Managing email inboxes is a huge task, as we all know. The Parliamentary Digital Service has been working with Members to understand how we can harness technology to help us filter, prioritise and manage our correspondence and casework. I know that the Parliamentary Digital Service is happy to further support the hon. Lady in that work.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Member for that answer. I believe that Parliament can—indeed must—use AI to improve our productivity, but it must be used securely, ethically, effectively and in the public interest. A poll by Brunel University has said that 80% of the public reject the idea of AI assisting parliamentarians or replacing our judgment. What progress has been made on shaping Copilot—the only AI that we are allowed to use—to reflect Parliament’s priorities, rather than Microsoft’s? I am thinking specifically about inbox management, which I have raised and the hon. Member has mentioned.

[Nick Smith]

The hon. Member is right to keep on raising this issue. The foundation of the guidance to Members on the use of AI is that there needs to be a human in the loop. The Parliamentary Digital Service is in ongoing discussions with Microsoft to shape the use of Copilot to meet Members’ needs. Our digital service must continue looking at the potential applications of AI to support all our work, so that either Copilot or another solution from elsewhere can be tested for all our benefit.

If the hon. Member wishes, she can join our committee the next time we meet the PDS management team to look at how we can better support Members.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, was asked—

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What its planned timetable is for starting major works on the Palace of Westminster.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

The Client Board’s recent report recommends a way forward for restoration and renewal. It contains phase 1 works, including seven years’ foundational works for the full programme. These preparatory works can begin once we have approval from both Houses. A final decision on the preferred delivery option is required from both Houses no later than 2030. The main R&R works could begin in 2032.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

In modern times, this issue has been discussed since 2016; we are on our 10th anniversary of discussing what has actually been an issue for 40 years. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) about going back to the drawing board again. Does my hon. Friend have any idea of when the vote will be? If it is in 2030, that will be after the next election. I can see the same old arguments about having to revisit this being rehashed again and again, while the building remains riddled with asbestos and at risk of fire. Frankly, once the works begin, my staff and I will no longer be in the building because of safety issues.

[Nick Smith]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to say that we must make progress, and we now have the costed proposals in front of us. The work is necessary. The home of our Parliament is not only an iconic building, but a UNESCO world heritage site. We currently spend £1.5 million a week on maintaining and repairing the Palace, and every year of delaying delivery has a considerable cost. We must move forward. I hope that the Leader of the House will let us know when we can discuss and debate this important matter.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What assessment the Commission has made of the potential merits of prioritising schools that are furthest from Westminster for education visits to Parliament.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

Given my hon. Friend’s journey time from Cornwall, I can understand why she asks that question. The Commission recently endorsed recommendations from our participation team to improve the school visit booking process and the use of our travel subsidy. Schools from her area will have extra time to apply. We want to encourage greater participation from schools furthest away from Westminster by increasing capacity through our education service.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I am so pleased that schools furthest from Westminster are going to be prioritised and given time to apply for parliamentary trips. It takes at least six hours to get here from Cornish schools, which means they have to take a number of days in London. That is why their visits are rare and often in the summer term, when they interfere less with formal exams. Could my hon. Friend confirm that children from remote and deprived areas will be helped to surmount the barriers they face in getting here?

[Nick Smith]

The new booking process, which will be launched in September, will ensure that regions are allocated visit opportunities to ensure that no region accesses more than its fair share. Consideration has been given to the circumstances of band C schools—those furthest from Westminster—which have a clear preference for summer-term access due to the long distances they must travel. The education team will weight band C visit opportunities to favour the summer term, so that the booking opportunities best meet those schools’ needs.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—