House of Commons may lie empty for 20 years because of building's hidden problem
MPs vacating the Houses of Parliament for up to 20 years would be the best option to fulfil a multi-billion refurbishment project, a Commons committee heard today.
The Clerk of the House of Commons, who is responsible for the health and safety of people on the estate, said his professional opinion would be that a “full decant would be better” than trying to do the work in and around people. Tom Goldsmith said the estate may need to be completely emptied at some point anyway, even if the option of "continued presence" - people remaining while repairs are done - is chosen.
Speaking about the "continued presence" option taking longer, he said: “On any big project, if it takes longer, you entail more risks, that’s just the nature of things. It will cost more. The health and safety risks are greater. Security risks are probably greater.”
He said he worries that halfway through the project, disruption could become “intolerable” and MPs, aides and journalists would have to vacate the estate anyway. “And then we’re scrambling around to look at an alternative rather than have a planned decant,” he told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee.
In a two-hour session, MPs discussed a raft of urgent issues the estate faces, including crumbling reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac), asbestos, holes in the floor and leaking ceilings. Mr Goldsmith explained that the "continued presence" option was “worth thinking about”, as it could get more support from MPs and get the process of repairs kickstarted at an earlier stage, which “is still better than nothing”.
Teachers, civil servants and train drivers walk out in biggest strike in decade
But he added: “Is my professional opinion at the moment that that would be better than a full decant? No. My professional opinion at this stage is a full decant would be better.” He added that he would like to allow the project’s delivery authority to be able to set out the work.
Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, noted that the duration of vacating the estate was still “yet to be determined”, but a report by the House of Lords last year (2022) suggested the palace would need to be vacated for 12 to 20 years. In total, the complete decant option would take between 19 and 28 years, at a cost of £7billion and £13bn, while the option of keeping people in the palace while repairs happen could take up to 76 years and cost £22bn, her committee noted earlier this year.
Updated cost estimates will be published in November ahead of a debate expected on the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) project in December. Asked if MPs would also receive information on where the chamber and offices would be moved if the estate is vacated, Mr Goldsmith said “not in a huge amount of detail”.
He said they will be told the “preferred assumptions”, which remain for the House of Lords to move to the QEII Centre and for the House of Commons to go to the Northern Estate, so either Richmond House or Portcullis House.
Successive governments have spent years dodging deciding how and when to authorise the refurbishment, fearing a huge public backlash. Experts fear a devastating fire could break out or falling masonry could kill a visitor, MP or aide. It could even be replaced with a “patch and mend” process to fix the most serious problems over the course of 50 years.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
