Keep

From the 2026 Budget Audit

21 billion Ft a year to renovate Parliament — without a fixed completion date.

The Steindl Imre Programme has been running for years; the Parliament's internal renovation is still in its preparatory phase, with no published end date or fixed scope.

21,369 million Ft in 2026 alone — roughly 5,280 Ft per household — for a capital programme that has yet to publish the scope and deadline that would define when it is finished.

21 Mrd Ft allocation 4 749 Ft / taxpayer / year

What you see — and what you don't

The seen: a gradually restored Parliament building and associated heritage assets around Kossuth Square. The unseen: a programme without a defined horizon accumulating professional staff and contractors whose interest lies in its continuation, not its completion — a cost that grows unless capped.

Objection

"Parliament is a national monument; underfunding its restoration would cause irreversible damage."

Answer

No one proposes underfunding the restoration — the framework holds the allocation at its current nominal level, not cuts it. What a nominal freeze requires is a published completion plan with a defined scope and end date, so every future year's spend is measured against work remaining, not against programme momentum.

Share if you think a restoration programme should have a finish line.

The analyst's verdict

Support for the Steindl Imre Programme

Rationale

The Steindl Imre programme renovates the Parliament building (Országház) and a cluster of government heritage buildings around Kossuth Square; the Parliament's own internal renovation is a multi-year programme still in its pre-design phase, with the detailed budget not yet fixed pending the historical documentation and design tender.[^1] The preservation and structural maintenance of the building that houses the legislature is a legitimate state expenditure — the asset is the physical precondition of the constitutional function. But a renovation programme is a finite, bounded mandate, not a permanent line, and a capital programme of this scale carries the standard public-choice exposure: the longer it runs and the larger its envelope, the more it acquires a professional constituency — programme staff, contractors, consultants — whose interest is in the programme's continuation independent of the renovation work remaining. The framework's honest classification holds the line at its current nominal level rather than letting it expand: hold the allocation, require the programme to publish a fixed-scope, fixed-horizon completion plan against which each year's spend is measured, and let real-terms erosion at typical inflation discipline the envelope while the finite mandate is delivered.

Transition mechanism

Hold the nominal allocation. Require a published completion plan with a defined end date; treat the programme as closing on that date, not as an open-ended line.

Affected groups

Programme staff and contractors, who face a defined rather than open-ended horizon. The renovation of the Parliament building proceeds.

Sources

Szabad Társadalom Intézet

Support Independent Analysis

Our research is free, open, and unsponsored. If you find it valuable, help us keep it that way.