Following the general election, an unusually large number of MPs entered parliament for the first time, but the building that they will be working in is in serious need of repair. Alex Meakin outlines how the previous parliament approached the problem of restoring and rebuilding a parliamentary estate that is in increasing need of serious work to make it a safe and effective venue for the UK’s legislators. She concludes that the sheer cost of the project will act as a deterrent to strong action, but that further delay will likely only increase that cost, and could result in the loss of the Palace of Westminster as a working building altogether.

Several months into the post-election parliament, the 335 MPs who were sworn in for the very first time are starting to find their way round their new workplace, navigating a building covering the same area as 16 football pitches, across 65 different levels. Along with their returning colleagues, the 2024 cohort will soon be asked to decide on the future of the Palace of Westminster: a decision which has the potential to shape the culture of the legislature for their successors. 

As the newly-elected MPs are discovering, behind the magnificent mock-Gothic exterior of the palace lies a building in disrepair. Windows that cannot be closed, mice running along the long corridors, and leaking pipes and toilets are all evidence of the major refurbishment the palace requires. Far greater evidence is hidden behind the walls and within the basement of the building, where the essential mechanical and electrical services — which provide the necessary power, ventilation, communications, and heating to the building — are now decades past their expected lifespan. Their condition leaves the building at risk of a catastrophic event, such as a fire or flood, which could risk lives as well as the future of the palace.  

For returning MPs, this is not new information. Concerns about the condition of the palace and the need for major repairs date back to the turn of the century, and it is now more than eight years since the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster cautioned that: 

The Palace of Westminster, a masterpiece of Victorian and medieval architecture and engineering, faces an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore […] Unless an intensive programme of major remedial work is undertaken soon, it is likely that the building will become uninhabitable.

In the years following the 2016 report, parliament made slow and stuttering progress towards this intensive programme of major remedial work, known as the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) of the Palace of Westminster. Huge steps forward were made with the approval of the R&R programme in 2018 and the passing of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. But during the 2019-2024 parliament, this progress stalled, with multiple reviews of the programme, changes to the governance arrangements, and lengthy delays. Decisions made previously — such as the commitment to a full decant, where MPs and peers would move out temporarily to allow the repairs to take place — were reopened, meaning that when parliament was dissolved in May 2024, the prospect of spades in the ground was even further away than when the Queen had opened parliament after the 2019 general election.  

Where are we now? 

There has been no evidence of enthusiasm from the incoming government for the R&R programme, or the potential to change the parliamentary building. The issue was not mentioned in the Labour manifesto, nor have the new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, or Leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell, made any commitments. Indeed, Powell’s response to a parliamentary question which asked if she planned to ‘to amend the Restoration and Renewal (a) budget, (b) timetable and (c) decant policy’, actively avoided taking a position: 

The Restoration and Renewal Programme is a matter for Parliament. The Parliamentary Client Board agreed the strategic direction of the Programme in February and expect costed proposals for three options (including full decant, continued presence and enhanced maintenance and improvement) to be put to members in 2025, enabling the Programme to progress. 

While the future of R&R is indeed a matter for parliament, it is worth noting that the original governance arrangements for the project sought to place this control in an independent organisation, believing this to be the best way to ‘deliver a value for money programme, which commands the confidence of taxpayers and Parliamentarians’. This structure was intended to minimise the risks of ‘incomplete or ambiguous definition of the brief, changing the scope part-way through the project, lack of continuity in governance, [and] changes in the political context’. In 2022 parliament took back control of R&R, but this year’s election has provided an example of why this may risk continuity in governance. The R&R Programme Board, which ‘is responsible to direct and have oversight of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster’, had been chaired by Nigel Evans as part of his duties as Deputy Speaker, with Penny Mordaunt also an ex officio member as the then Leader of the Commons — neither were re-elected as MPs at July’s general election. The R&R Client Board, which is ‘responsible for making critical strategic choices and recommendations relating to the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster’, has faced even greater turnover, with four of its seven Commons members not returning to parliament. The two boards are yet to be set up after the election, so there may be even more turnover, due to MPs taking up different parliamentary or ministerial roles.  

Powell’s reference to the work underway (by the R&R Delivery Authority) to cost options for the necessary work offers hope that the election, despite the significant turnover in the Commons, will not further push back decisions on R&R. The Strategic Case for R&R, published in March 2024, stressed the belief of MPs and the public that the Palace ‘should be restored and protected for future generations’. This is welcome, but each week of delay is costly: both in financial terms, with £1.45 million spent per week just to keep the Palace operating, but also in terms of the risk to the building. In 2023 the then Clerk of the House of Commons, John Benger, warned of the danger of further delays: 

if we just wait and wait, and defer and defer, eventually there will be catastrophic and irreversible damage to the Palace, which is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. I am very clear about that.

While the risks of failing to act have been made clear, there are many reasons why MPs (and it is primarily MPs, rather than peers) have been unwilling to push forward with R&R. The unwillingness to meet in another venue during repairs and the potential for changes to a building they love so dearly are two such factors. Even greater, however, is the cost of the project, which could reach up to £37 billion (if parliamentarians insist on remaining in the building during works). While it can be hoped that Meg Hillier (who spearheaded Commons scrutiny of R&R as chair of the Public Accounts Committee) will continue to flag the risks of not acting on the state of the palace, in her new role as Chair of the Treasury Committee, the upfront cost of R&R may be almost impossible for MPs to commit to, especially in the context of cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners. The irony, of course, is that the costs have increased to such a level in part because of previous decades of delay and indecision. Further, the costs of R&R will be dwarfed by the cost of rebuilding parliament after the inevitable catastrophe—which, of course, will be accompanied by the devastation of losing an iconic part of UK identity and a global symbol of democracy.  

This is the dilemma that will be faced by MPs in 2025 when they decide on the future of their workplace. It will be fascinating to see how their experience of mice and leaks — not to mention the shameful lack of access for disabled people — will shape their decision.   

About the author

Dr Alexandra Meakin is Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Leeds.

Featured image: Removal of cast iron roof parts – Big Ben (CC BY-NC 2.0) by UK Parliament.