Palace of Westminster

The UK Parliament is in a state of disrepair. The majestic Victorian building requires major work. It was first built in 1016, current structure is Victorian 1840. Damaged during WW2, can find details about it here and here. Rebuilt after WW2, Victorian design remained untouched. Over time, it has developed many hidden dangers, such as asbestos, fire hazards and structural defects. Temporary fixes have kept it functioning, but they are insufficient to prevent further deterioration.

Members of Parliament know about the problems, but they have postponed. They have spent years considering the same options: whether to remain in the building while it is being fixed, or to relocate temporarily or permanently. During 2018 debated Restoration and Renewal Programme, voting to temporality move out. After five years of indecision, they scrapped the sponsor body that was supposed to oversee the project and decided to bring it in-house.

However, this could result in a delay that could inflict huge permanent damage on the historic building. Kicking the issue into the next parliament. Westminster’s design is deeply flawed by modern standards. It lacks adequate fire safety measures, ventilation systems and accessibility features. The whole process of repairing stone, art and basic systems is complex and expensive. Conservatives are destroying the very thing they claim to love. No desire to preserve the Victorian palace of Westminster.

One option that has been suggested is decanting Parliament, which means moving its functions outside the main building while it undergoes restoration and renewal. This would make the project cheaper, safer and faster than staying put. Restoration and renewal would involve replacing existing systems that are outdated or unsafe with more efficient and reliable ones. Maintenance at present is costly and only delays a more comprehensive solution.

My own opinion is that Parliament should move out permanently and find a new location that better suits its modern needs. The palace should be turned into a museum that displays its history and significance for the public. Westminster is an icon of London and a symbol of democracy. The building and what it stands for are well-known, but it does not have to be limited by its past.

Some of the factors that may influence this decision are: accessibility, affordability, availability, security and symbolism. Here are some of the potential candidates for a new parliamentary site:

York has been proposed as a possible location by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It is a historic city close to the geographic centre of England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It would require upgrading infrastructure to accommodate parliament and its associated functions. The city may lack the space and the estimated cost is £3 billion.

Manchester has also been suggested as a possible location. It is a modern city considered the capital of Northern England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It has hosted major events like the Commonwealth Games and the G7 summit. It has the infrastructure to accommodate parliament but may lack the space. The estimated cost is £2 billion. There may be competition from other nearby cities such as Liverpool or Leeds.

Birmingham is another option. It is the second-largest city in England with a diverse population and a reputation for culture. It is well connected to the rest of England and has hosted events like Manchester has done. It already has the infrastructure but may lack political support. A new parliamentary complex in Birmingham is estimated at £1 billion.

Need to offer local housing for MPs. Every MP has unique circumstances, families of different sizes. There could be other alternatives depending on feasibility, affordability, desirability and acceptability. The cost of the project is huge ranging from £3 to £77 billion. Until work begins we won’t know the real cost. Westminster’s decay feels similar to politics at present: unable to discuss policy instead focusing on division over problem-solving. Part of broader trend, lack of scrutiny.

The next government is going to have to deal with a crumbling parliament. Both mainstream parties have a consensus: something must be done. Parties are seriously thinking about devolution. Moving parliament would show they are serious about that. Devolution is going to play an important role going forward, aiming to decentralise the UK. There is a broad direction pointing that way, but no agreement on the fine details.

The next parliament is will be one dealing with crisis. Therefore would need to restore trust in British politics. Period of renewal not just Westminster but public service. Decaying palace is an reflection.