5 hours ago
4
MPs and peers face a looming choice: stay put or move out to allow billions of pounds of urgent repairs to the crumbling Palace of Westminster. That was the conclusion of a report from MPs, peers and lay members on the restoration and renewal client board this month. The palace, rebuilt after a fire destroyed it in 1834, is falling apart. There have been 36 “fire incidents” since 2016. Water leaks, heating failures and sewerage problems plague the heart of this Unesco world heritage site.
Fixing Westminster would save money in the long run. An upgrade is also a matter of safety and legacy. “The building is just waiting for some disaster,” says the Tory peer Michael Dobbs, who advises visitors that if they see someone running, they should run too. Labour’s Peter Hain is blunter still, calling it “a Notre Dame inferno in the making”. Without action, he warns, the Commons could go up in flames.
The question is no longer whether to act, but whether parliament dares to move. There are two choices the board proposes. Both chambers could move out of the palace for the main works, which could last two decades, at a cost, including inflation, of £16bn. The alternative is for the Lords to move out for up to 13 years, allowing the Commons to decant into the upper house. But that option would prolong the overall works programme to as much as 61 years and cost £40bn. Given those numbers, it is hard to see MPs choosing the latter.
MPs took a decision in 2018 that Britain’s problem is a crumbling Westminster, not an overcentralised state. That seems mistaken. In an era when Britain is one of the most regionally unequal countries in Europe, public services are under strain and wages are stagnant, the public may view MPs voting to spend £16bn on a new building for themselves as self-indulgent. If MPs say Britain cannot afford a high-speed rail line to the north because it would cost billions and take years, yet sign off on refurbishing its own gothic workplace on a similar budget and timetable, many will vote with their feet. Populists would not need to invent a grievance.
Westminster is symbolic. But symbols matter. The refurbishment of the palace could be an opportunity for Britain to begin a serious conversation about how to spread power to other parts of the UK. If MPs were to move to Manchester, York, Leeds or Birmingham for a decade, would that not send a powerful signal to the public? If the temporary chamber, offices and security were to be built elsewhere, that means jobs and investment outside the capital. Engage with the nation’s diversity and communities, and you may find belonging, opportunity and loyalty reflected back.
A centralised Britain feeds the resentments that now define its politics. Moving parliament out of London – an option not even considered in the board’s report – would be historic. But a change of postcode is not a change of power. What’s required is a clear commitment from the national government to sustain higher net investment in poorer regions, ensuring that they are not left to fall further behind.
MPs and peers should conjure up a moment that aligns symbolism and substance. A temporary exodus from Westminster could signal that the state understands its own imbalance. But unless authority and resources follow rhetoric, shifting chambers will amount to little more than a change of scenery.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
