After decades of debate, MPs remain sharply split about the cost of the work, whether they must move out of parliament. And where they may temporarily reside if they are required to do so.
The chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee told that she “could weep for the five years” that were wasted as a result of the decision to disband the organization established to carry out the long-term reconstruction of parliament.
Dame Meg Hillier, a member of parliament, states that there is an “unacceptable veil of secrecy”. Surrounding the decision to take the restoration work back to the drawing board after the estimated costs escalated to between £7 billion and £21 billion.
However, every week that the work is not completed costs £2.5 million in maintenance. And former House leader Dame Andrea Leadsom is concerned that the Palace of Westminster could become Britain’s, Notre Dame.
After decades of debate, MPs remain sharply split about the cost of the work. Whether they must move out of parliament. And where they may temporarily reside if they are required to do so.
In 1834, when the Palace of Westminster burned to the ground, the flames could be seen from 20 miles away.
Beforehand, politicians had argued for many years about the necessity of renovating the old parliament.
MP calls Houses of Parliament
Now, over two centuries later, many fear that a similar calamity could befall its successor if extensive restoration efforts are not undertaken.
However, after decades of debate, the organization established by parliament in 2018 to oversee the massive reconstruction project has been dissolved.
Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, adds, “I could cry for the five years we’ve wasted.” “There was a legitimate concern about shooting the messenger in this case.
“It appears that we have returned to square one. Now, we have no sponsor organization, and no plans to carry out the work. And there is still debate over whether or not we should remain in the building while it is being renovated.
This is not about us as legislators. This is about a building that belongs to the country. Certainly, it will be expensive, but there’s no way around it.”
A recent report from the group determined that any probable launch date “has been pushed out by many years due to repeated efforts to reevaluate the program’s foundation.”
It reads, “We do not want it to take another horrific event to galvanize action.”
What work is occurring?
Constant repair work to reinforce the roof and Victorian brickwork is ongoing. And work has recently been done to restore the ceiling of St Stephen’s Hall (on the location of the original Commons Chamber, which burned down), as well as the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben.
The true obstacle, however, is below the massive, labyrinthine basement. Which is filled with gas and dripping water pipes, electric wiring, telephone connections. And even a working steam engine that is part of the Victorian sewerage system.
Dr. Alexandra Meakin, a lecturer in politics at Leeds University, is an authority on the restoration initiative. She believes the basement’s disorder is a calamity waiting to happen.
“With gas and steam lines running beside to other, even a little leak poses a significant fire hazard. It is only permitted to remain open if fire wardens are on duty 24 hours a day.
“The risk is real; this is not a cosmetic procedure. And it’s not only about the MPs and peers; it’s also about the employees. The hundreds of people in catering and cleaning who shouldn’t have to work in a death trap. Not to mention the millions of tourists, including schoolchildren.”
The palace is also infested with asbestos; it was discovered last year that 117 contractors. And employees were potentially exposed due to a leak during construction.
“It will be impossible to work around the palace if extensive renovations are attempted,” says Dr. Meakin. Asbestos is present throughout the entire building.
Concerns over cost, schedule, and governance
In January 2018, parliament voted to move forward with plans to vacate the building – known as a “decant”. And conduct a full renovation, establishing an independent sponsor body (a group of approximately 55 staff and experts in addition to parliamentarians) to lead and manage the project like that of the London Olympics.
In January of last year, preliminary cost and time estimate estimated that the essential works alone would cost between £7 billion and £13 billion and take between 19 and 28 years.
If MPs and peers insisted on sticking put, the project might take as long as 76 years. And cost as much as £22 billion, they said.
For some, this was simply unacceptable.
In March, the Commissions of the House of Commons and Lords (made up of the speakers, clerks, and other senior MPs) announced they had reservations regarding the project’s costs, timeframes, and governance.
They suggested eliminating the sponsor organization and bringing the massive project in-house.
In the summer, both the House of Representatives and the House of Lords voted in favor of this. And the decision became law just before Christmas.
Sir Edward Leigh, a member of the Conservative Party, is skeptical of the “ridiculous” figures made by the sponsoring organization.
“There are alternatives to relocating everyone at astronomical costs,” he asserts.
The public would see parliament spending £20 billion on itself with skepticism.
Simply put, we must get on with it.
Last month, the Shadow Leader of the House, Thangam Debbonaire, accused several Members of Parliament of “undermining” the work of the sponsoring organization and “arguing with the experts.”
Sir Edward opposes this, arguing that it is appropriate for MPs and Lords to regain control of the initiative.
“We must simply move on and ensure safety,” he says.
Dame Meg Hillier by contrast describes the commission’s action as “grubby”.
“There would be outrage if they did this to any other piece of legislation,” she says. “I am quite concerned.
Costs nearly tripled during the Elizabeth Tower’s reconstruction. And the memory of Portcullis House [which was severely over budget. And behind the time when it was constructed in the 1990s to house MPs’ offices] still haunts the local populace.
Where would employees relocate?
Even if an agreement is established on the necessity for the residents of the Palace of Westminster to relocate. There is no consensus on where they should go.
While preparations had been in place for some time to relocate the Lords to the nearby Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. Then-prime minister Boris Johnson later requested that York be considered as an alternative.
In May 2022, Leveling Up Secretary Michael Gove intervened, stating that he favored their relocation to Stoke.
In a previous phase of the project, £70 million was allocated to the preparation of plans for the reconstruction of Richmond House. The former Department of Health building in Westminster.
This proposal, however, has been abandoned since it was deemed too costly, and while some are hopeful that the remote working technology employed during COVID-19 could assist give a solution, obtaining unanimity on this component of the program alone is manifestly difficult.
One of the world’s most renowned structures
As the previous leader of the house, Dame Andrea Leadsom MP oversaw the passage of 2018 legislation through the House of Representatives.
She states that the choice to reverse most of it “appears to be an attempt to push the problem into the long grass – it’s awful.
“I understand that it’s a massive expenditure, and I understand the necessity to gain value for taxpayers’ money. But this is one of the world’s most recognizable structures.
There have been roughly fifty fire occurrences in the past decade, and any one of them could have ended in the destruction of the palace in the manner of Notre Dame.
“Huge amounts of money are already being spent to fix and repair… “Rather than constantly looping around and revising the decisions about how we’re going to accomplish it, we need to just get on with it.”
When will the next election be held?
MPs are anticipated to decide on a new plan before the end of the next year.
Parliament issued the following statement: “In July 2022, members of both Houses agreed to a more coordinated strategy for future restoration, prioritizing safety-critical work. Work is proceeding across the parliamentary estate to protect the safety of those who work and visit here. And to support the continuation of parliamentary operations.
This includes planning for the extensive and intricate restoration of the Palace of Westminster to preserve it for future generations.
This year, more than 2,000 locations of the palace have been studied to gain a better knowledge of the structure’s condition. These polls will inform a variety of choices for delivering the restoration work. Also the level of ambition during these difficult economic times.”
