The Palace of Westminster, often cited as the most famous parliament building in the world, is falling apart.
Behind the spectacular facade of Britain’s legislature, roofs are leaking, a tangle of electrical cabling and steam pipes presents a fire risk, plumbing systems are inadequate and dangerous asbestos is all around.
For years, its members have put off a decision about what to do about it, largely because they worry about the consequences of spending large amounts of money on their own building when imposing cuts on other public services.
Experts say a decision cannot be put off any longer, and members of the House of Commons will vote Wednesday on a proposal to move out for up to six years while a full restoration is undertaken.
But at the last minute, the government has given MPs an option to to put off a decision again, until 2022, although some vital “patch and mend” works would continue in the meantime. MPs will be allowed a “free” vote, meaning their party leaders will not tell them what to do. That means the outcome is hard to predict.
Much of the current Palace of Westminster was built after a major fire in 1834, but parts of the site date back to the 11th Century. As a UNESCO World Heritage Site, its renovation represents a hugely complex — and costly — operation.
A report issued in September 2016 by a special joint committee of MPs and members of the House of Lords warned of an “impending crisis” that cannot responsibly be ignored.
“It is impossible to say when this will happen, but there is a substantial and growing risk of either a single, catastrophic event, such as a major fire, or a succession of incremental failures in essential systems which would lead to Parliament no longer being able to occupy the Palace,” the summary said.
The committee recommended a “complete decant” of the Palace for the duration of the works as the “best option,” saying it would allow the works to be completed in the shortest possible time frame, with the least disruption and probably the lowest capital cost, while providing “the greatest scope for meeting the needs of a 21st Century Parliament.”
Members of the House of Commons would move to an unoccupied government building nearby, while members of the House of Lords would relocate to a conference center on the other side of Parliament Square.
The committee also put forward a compromise proposal where members of the House of Commons (the lower house) and House of Lords (the upper house) would be relocated over consecutive periods, with works taking place over a longer time frame and at a higher cost.
It said a third option, carrying out a rolling program of works while Parliament continued its work in the middle of a building site, carried “a particularly high burden of risk” and would likely mean the renovation project was not completed until the 2050s or 2060s.
Speaking to CNN in 2016, Lady Stowell, then leader of the House of Lords, said: “This kind of work is what you might think of as surgery to the major arteries and veins and major organs of this building. What it is not, in any way, shape or form, is a facelift or a makeover. It looks great — but inside it’s damaged.”