The Burning of the Houses of Parliament is one of JMW Turner’s most dramatic paintings. It bursts with light, the flames seeming to lick out of the frame as they engulf the Palace of Westminster, whose majestic but doomed structure is barely visible in the inferno. It’s on display at the Tate Britain, a short walk along the river from its subject matter, hastily rebuilt by the Victorians after the catastrophic fire of 1834. MPs and peers can easily drop by on their lunch breaks.
I wonder if many do. Since 2012 a debate has raged (then subsided, then raged again) over what to do about the crumbling parliamentary estate. Reports have been written, consultations launched, plans drawn up, options costed, proposals voted on – and decisions delayed. During that time, the Notre Dame Cathedral – a monument of similar scale, age and historic significance – was burnt down and restored. For a week or so after the fire in Paris, the British newspapers were full of dire warnings about how close Westminster was to a similar disaster. And then everyone forgot about it.
Well, not everyone. The Restoration and Renewal Programme is the body tasked with managing the renovations to parliament that everyone agrees are so badly needed. For the past half-decade, work has been underway to determine exactly how to repair and “modernise” a building complex that includes medieval cloisters and a Victorian sewage system, which is the workplace of several thousand people and is open to the public as a symbol of British democracy.
The answer, it transpires, is “with difficulty”, Or rather, “with more time and money than you would think possible”.
On Thursday, we got the long-awaited report entitled “Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals”. Those costs are £19.5-39.2bn over 38-61 years for an option that allows MPs and peers continued access to Chambers throughout, with work taking place around them and during recesses. This falls to a bargain £11.1-15.6bn over a mere 19-24 years if parliamentarians agree to a “full decant” – that is, relinquishing the seat of government for a few years so the builders can get to work.
These figures (which are estimated to rise by around £320m for every year of the project is delayed) have sparked fury: £39bn is an insane amount of money to spend of a building. It’s more than half the schools budget (though less than the projected cost of HS2). The Notre Dame restoration came in at €850 million. Even if the public weren’t already up-in-arms about the cost of living crisis and perceived return to austerity, justifying such sums on a mere eight acres requires more political capital than any government would want to expend, historic significance be damned.
That said, the public do not have to work in it. Those who do (this writer included) may have a different perspective. The report casually notes that since 2016 there have been “36 fire incidents; 12 asbestos incidents; 19 stonemasonry incidents”, that “only 12 per cent of the Palace of Westminster’s total floor area currently has step-free access, and that “£1.5m is spent per week maintaining and repairing the Palace of Westminster”.
Some of those repairs are to confront safety hazards such as water leaking into electrical sockets, disintegrating stonework or ceilings on the brink of collapse. Some are for more prosaic purposes. The heating in the parts of the estate (including the corridor where journalists work) frequently breaks down, resulting in a crop of portable heaters materialising to combat the sub-zero conditions, which inevitably trip the electrics. Loos and washroom facilities go out of use for months at a time. Cables snake across uneven floors, plaster falls down, sewage issues abound. And that’s to say nothing of the pest problem, which Kemi Badenoch inadvertently highlighted recently when a mouse could be seen in her office as she was filming a video. (Her former colleague Penny Mordaunt, now in the House of Lords, brought her own cat to Westminster to try to sort out the problem herself. She was rebuked – mouse droppings and chewed wires are apparently more acceptable in the workplace than a roaming feline.)
Yet stalemate persists. MPs and peers don’t want to face the public’s ire over the price tag, but nor will they countenance moving out to save money, even if, according to YouGov polling, 74 per cent of voters think keeping costs down should be the main priority. New MPs are particularly averse to the thought that their illustrious political careers might play out in a modern conference centre rather than the hallowed halls of Westminster. Some argue the proposals are overscoped, going far beyond the immediate safety issues and focusing too much on sustainability and unrealistic modernisation goals. Others wonder why other ideas weren’t considered – like the suggestion of building a temporary floating parliament on the Thames instead.
They may have a point. The “Project Poseidon” barge idea by the design firm Gensler certainly looks more exciting than decanting to somewhere else, if more daunting. And some recent renovation work, such as the £9.6m spent on a new House of Lords front door which failed to work properly, does suggest there may be potential for efficiencies and value for money.
But none of that changes the fact that while parliamentarians argue and dither and kick the problem further down the 3km of passageways set over the seven levels of the estate, serious health and safety hazards remain. Those hazards aren’t just an issue for them: they’re skirted around by the teams of underpaid researchers and catering staff and security guards who keep parliament functioning, even as those with the actual power dodge their responsibilities.
A few years ago, an MP (now no longer in the House) told me they reckoned it would take a serious accident – a death, caused by falling stonemasonry or electrocution – for parliament to finally agree on a restoration plan. Turner’s painting foreshadows an even more extreme alternative. In eight years we’ll be commemorating the 200-year anniversary of the fire that burned down parliament. And MPs will probably still be arguing about how to prevent it burning down again.
[Further reading: Tracker: Labour MPs who have criticised Starmer over the Mandelson affair]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment