Wednesday, January 01, 2025
A disaster waiting to happen
This is an issue I have blogged about before, here, here, here and here, and it gets more urgent as time passes. The Guardian reports that proposals for a multibillion-pound restoration will not now be published until the end of 2025, even though the issue has been on the table for over a decade.
The Canadians sorted this out some time ago. managing a major revamp of their much younger Parliament building while both houses were still meeting, and Peter Hain believes that what happened in Paris provides a model for what can be achieved when politicians bite the bullet and act quickly:
He said that confirmation by John Gardiner, the senior deputy speaker in the Lords, that the new plans would only be available later in the year were “another kick of the can further down the road”.
“The mother of parliaments, a world heritage site, is ripe for becoming a Notre Dame inferno unless MPs and peers act immediately,” he told the Guardian.
“Both houses made their decision to decant, repair and modernise many years ago. Yet the procrastination goes on despite the assessment that decanting is the cheaper option. It would save billions. President Macron acted decisively to rebuild and restore Notre Dame. We should do the same with Westminster.”
The proposals will include plans for three options: a full decant of the Palace of Westminster; a continued presence in the building for some parliamentarians, or a rolling programme of enhanced maintenance and improvement.
A vote is expected in both houses on the plans when they are finally delivered. MPs, peers and senior parliamentary officials are bitterly divided on the best way to proceed with the extensive necessary works to the Victorian building. There have been dire warnings about the risks of falling masonry, potentially devastating floods and the danger of fire because of decades-old electrical wiring.
Peers and MPs have raised concerns about the potential for mass deaths if a fire were to sweep the building, especially if it coincided with demonstrations or events in Parliament Square, which could impede access for emergency vehicles.
The committee overseeing the project had said the decision should be put off until after the general election, with new cost estimates and timescales due this year. The committee was first established in 2013 by both houses.
Lord Gardiner, who is on the restoration and renewal board, said in a written answer to peers that the restoration and renewal client board’s detailed work would come at the end of the year and would set out “costs and timescales as well as risks and mitigations for all three options”. There have been warnings that delays will exacerbate costs and dangers for parliamentarians and staff.
Options to be considered by MPs are all likely to cost billions. The fastest – which could still take more than a decade – would be for both houses to leave the palace and relocate nearby on a temporary basis while most of the works are completed.
The second option would mean a continued presence of the House of Commons chamber and temporary relocation of the House of Lords and other functions. The third would be a rolling programme of works likely to take many decades.
Reports over the past decades have said the building is facing multiple crises. Asbestos is hidden throughout the palace, which complicates and prolongs any remedial works. There is a lack of effective fire compartmentalisation, meaning a far greater risk of fire spreading.
The complex is the size of more than 1,000 houses, all sharing the same water, electric, sewage and gas system, all well beyond their natural lifespans.
Under the building, there are approximately 250 miles of cabling, mainly electrical but also telephone, digital and broadcasting, over 11 hectares (28 acres). The building has up to seven floors in parts, more than 1,100 rooms and approximately 4,000 windows.
The cheapest plan involving a full decant of the Palace of Westminster was estimated to cost between £7bn and £13bn. The longest was for the project to be done on a continuous basis, which the last report warned could take 76 years.
There of course major differences with Notre Dame and that is not just because the French cathedral cost a fraction of that estimated to restore Westminster. There was leadership from President Macron, it is true, but the cost of the Paris restoration was met by private subscription. Nearly a billion Euros were raised from the public for the work. In London it will be the taxpayers who are picking up the bill.
Raising the money to restore Notre Dame privately was possible because of the affection felt for that building across France. You cannot say the same about the Palace of Westminster. Most people are indifferent to its fate and consider it to be the home of scoundrels and charlatans. Putting £15bn to £20bn aside to restore the building at a time of fiscal restraint, low growth and individual financial hardship will be a tough sell.
However, it is an historic building that needs to be saved and replacing it with a new one would most probably cost huge amounts as well, assuming consensus could be found on where to place a such a project.
It is imperative that decisive action is taken soon to minimise cost, save lives (not just politicians but civil servants and other staff as well) and demonstrate our commitment to the democratic process.
