Restoring Parliament: Getting the Balance Right
One of the biggest long-term decisions facing Parliament is what to do about the restoration of the Palace of Westminster. No one disputes that the building needs major work. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a symbol of our democracy, and the place where our laws are debated and passed.
But how we carry out those works matters enormously, especially to taxpayers.
In 2018, Parliament voted in principle for a “full decant”, meaning MPs and peers would move out completely for several years while the building was restored. At the time, this was presented as the most efficient and cost-effective option at around £4 billion with a six-year timetable.
Fast forward to today and the picture looks very different. The latest proposals suggest works could stretch for up to 60 years with costs approaching £40 billion if Parliament remains on site throughout. Even a full decant would still take decades and cost many billions of pounds.
Such dramatic changes inevitably raise serious questions. I am concerned that Parliament is not being offered a genuine spectrum of workable alternatives, but instead a fairly narrow choice between two highly problematic options. When costs rise by this magnitude and timeframes expand so significantly, it is only right that we pause and re-examine the assumptions behind them.
History shows that Parliament has continued to function through major engineering works. When Portcullis House was built opposite the Palace in the 1990s, parliamentary business continued. During the restoration of the Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben), work went on around us. Even during the Second World War, after the Commons Chamber was destroyed in the Blitz, Parliament adapted and carried on sitting.
That record shows that large, complex projects can be delivered while maintaining democratic continuity.
Of course, safety - including fire risk and asbestos removal - must come first. But these are challenges faced by historic buildings across the country and are routinely managed through phased works. The question should not be whether restoration happens, but how it happens in a way that is proportionate, competent and responsible.
At a time when families in South Leicestershire are carefully managing household budgets, it is right that Parliament does the same. We must ensure any plan is rooted in realistic costings, proper oversight and respect for the taxpayer.
The Palace of Westminster is the working home of our democracy. We owe it, and the public, a restoration plan that reflects both its importance and our duty to spend public money wisely.
