A ticking time bomb? That's the stark reality facing the Houses of Parliament, and the clock is ticking. The crucial question is: will the year 2026 bring a consensus on how to save this iconic landmark?
We're talking about a building that, according to some, is on the brink of disaster. Lord Dobbs, known for his writing on political intrigue, paints a vivid picture, advising visitors to flee at the first sign of trouble. Former Labour minister Lord Hain doesn't mince words either, comparing the situation to the devastating fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. He warns, "The Commons could burn down at any time."
But here's where it gets complicated: a decade-old parliamentary report highlighted an impending crisis, warning that the building could become uninhabitable without urgent, extensive repairs. The problem? Deciding how to carry out these essential works.
Come early 2026, parliamentarians will face three main options:
- Full Decant: Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords move to a temporary location.
- Partial Decant: The House of Lords relocates while the Commons remains.
- Enhanced Maintenance: Improvements are carried out in stages, likely taking the longest time.
Possible temporary locations range from the nearby QEII Conference Centre to a floating barge on the Thames.
The Price of Preservation
Previous estimates suggest a full decant could cost between £7 billion and £13 billion, with the building vacant for 12 to 20 years. Keeping MPs in Parliament during the work, however, could extend the project to 7-15 years and raise costs to £9.5 billion-£18.5 billion. The most disruptive option, allowing the Commons to operate throughout the works, could stretch the project to 27-48 years and balloon costs to £11 billion-£22 billion.
A report from the Renewal and Restoration Client Board will soon provide updated figures, risks, and recommendations, before MPs and peers make the final call.
Divergent Views
Lord Hain strongly advocates for a full decant, citing it as the potentially cheaper option, and pointing out that Parliament already voted in favor of vacating the building in 2018. He expresses frustration at the delays, calling them a "terrible advertisement for parliamentary democracy."
Baroness Smith, the government's senior minister in the House of Lords, also favors a full decant, arguing that the money spent on maintaining the building in its current state would be better invested in its restoration.
However, Conservative peer Lord Dobbs is less enthusiastic about leaving. He fears it could diminish the House of Lords' influence.
A Skeptical Voice
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a senior minister between 2019 and 2022, is skeptical of the estimated costs and questions the urgency of the situation. He prefers phased repairs, believing that a full decant would give builders too much leverage over costs.
The View from the Newcomers
Jayne Kirkham, a newly elected Labour MP, is acutely aware of the need for repairs, particularly given the issues in her own office. She's waiting for the final report before making a decision but believes moving out might be the most sensible option if it ensures safer and more cost-effective work. She also acknowledges the balancing act, weighing the need to preserve the building against other pressing priorities for her constituents.
Another new MP, Edward Morello, has a more radical suggestion: make the building a museum.
The Bottom Line
Regardless of the chosen path, the government faces a multi-billion pound bill.
What do you think? Do you agree with those who advocate for a full decant, or do you believe in a different approach? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
- Listen to the interviews on BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour at 2200 BST on Sunday and then on BBC Sounds.
- Sign up for the Politics Essential newsletter to stay informed.
