Parliament could become the next “Notre Dame inferno”, a former Commons leader has warned, as it was confirmed proposals for a multibillion-pound restoration will not be published until the end of 2025.
Peter Hain, the Labour peer and former Commons leader who was a cabinet minister under Tony Blair, said the restoration of the Paris cathedral showed how fast work could be done when politicians acted decisively.
He said that the 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 the 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.
Amid dissatisfaction with the options and costs which were proposed in 2019, in 2023 the sponsor body for the works was abolished and its functions brought back in-house, transferred to the corporate officers of the two Houses of Parliament – which means they reside with the clerk of the House of Commons and the clerk of parliaments.
The House of Commons has been contacted for comment.