“An unacceptable cloak of secrecy” over the restoration of the Houses of Parliament, according to MP | Politics news

[ad_1]

The chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee told Sky News she “could weep over the five years lost in the decision to abolish the organization set up to carry out a long-term renewal of Parliament”.

Dame Meg Hillier MP says there is an “unacceptable cloak of secrecy” around the decision to put the restoration program back to the drawing board after estimated costs rose to between £7bn and £22bn.

But every week the work isn’t done costs £2.5m to maintain – and the house’s former headmaster, Dame Andrea Leadsom, says she worries the Palace of Westminster might be Britain’s Notre Dame.

After decades of debate, MPs remain deeply divided over the cost of working, whether they should move out of Parliament, and where their temporary home might be if that is the case.

When the Palace of Westminster burned to the ground in 1834, the flames were so high they could be seen from 20 miles away.

Photo: The Palace of Westminster burning in 1834. Pic: Parliament of the United Kingdom

Politicians at the time had spent many years already arguing about the need to renew the old parliament.

Now, nearly 200 years later, many fear that without large-scale restoration work, a similar disaster could befall its successor.

More about the Houses of Parliament

But after decades of debate, the organization set up by Parliament in 2018 to manage the massive renovation project was abolished.

“I could cry for the five years we’ve lost,” says Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee. “There was a real problem here with the messenger being shot.

“It’s like we’re back to square one. Now we have no sponsoring body, no plans to carry out the work, and there is still an argument about whether or not we should stay on the premises while the work is done.”

“This is not about us MPs. This is about a country building – yes, it will cost a lot of money, but you can’t avoid it.”

A recent report by the commission concluded that any potential start date “has been pushed back for many years by repeated attempts to re-examine the basis of the programme.”

“We don’t want it to take another catastrophic incident to finally spur action,” the statement read.

What work is already being done?

Ongoing repair work to strengthen the roof and Victorian masonry is ongoing and work has recently been carried out to restore the roof of St Stephen’s Hall, for example (on the site of the original Commons Chamber, which burned down), as well as to renovate the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben.

But the real challenge lies in the vast, labyrinthine basement with gas and dripping water pipes mixed together along with a swamp of electrical wires, telephone cables and even a working steam engine that is part of the Victorian sewage system.

Dr Alexandra Meakin, Lecturer in Politics at the University of Leeds, is an expert on the Restoration programme. She says the mess downstairs is a disaster waiting to happen.

“With gas and steam pipes running in tandem, even if there is a small leak, there is a huge fire risk – it is only allowed to stay open at all if there are fire guards on patrol 24 hours a day.

“The danger is real, not just cosmetic. And it’s not just about MPs and peers, it’s about the staff who work there – thousands of people in catering and cleaning who shouldn’t be working in a death trap, not to mention the millions of visitors including school children.”

The palace is also riddled with asbestos – last year a leak during building work meant as many as 117 contractors and employees could have been exposed.

“If you try to do big on the minors, it’s going to be hard to beat,” says Dr. Meakin. “Asbestos runs the entire length of the building.”

Concerns about costs, schedules, and governance

In January 2018 Parliament voted to proceed with plans to vacate the building – known as ‘casting’ – and undertake a complete renovation, setting up an independent sponsoring body (a team of around 55 staff and experts plus parliamentarians) to lead and manage the project along the lines of the London Olympics.

Last January, they published interim cost and schedule estimates that predicted the core business alone would cost between £7bn and £13bn – and take 19 to 28 years.

If MPs and peers insist on staying put, they have warned the project could end up taking 76 years, and at a cost of up to £22 billion.

For some, this was more than acceptable.

In March, the House of Commons and Lords committees (made up of speakers, clerks and other senior parliamentarians) said they had concerns about the project’s costs, timelines and governance.

They recommended that the sponsorship body be abolished entirely and that the mega-project be brought home.

The MPs and Lords voted on it in the summer, and the resolution was passed into law just before Christmas.

Conservative MP Sir Edward Lee questions what he calls “ridiculous” estimates made by the sponsoring body.

“There are ways to do that that mean you don’t have to take everyone out at great cost,” he claims.

“We can’t have an expensive, gold-plated scheme, especially when the economy is in tatters – the public will look askance at Parliament spending £20 billion on itself.”

“We just need to move on.”

Last month, the shadow leader of the House of Representatives, Thangam Debonaire, accused some MPs of “undermining” the work of the sponsoring body and “arguing with experts”.

Sir Edward denies that this is the case, and says it is right that the MPs and Lords should regain control of the project.

“We just need to keep it going and make it safe,” he says.

By contrast, Ms Meg Hillier describes the committee’s intervention as “sloppy”.

“If they did that with any other piece of legislation, it would cause an uproar,” she says. “I am very concerned.

“We’ve seen huge problems in the past – costs almost tripled during the renovation of Elizabeth Tower, and the memory of what happened with Portcullis House. [which ended up substantially over budget and schedule when built to house MPs’ offices in the 1990s] He still haunts people here.”

Where will the employees move to?

Another complication is the lack of consensus as to where the occupants of the Palace of Westminster will move to, even if agreement is reached that they should do so.

While long-term plans were developed to get the Lords to the nearby Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson later asked the program to explore the option of sending them to York instead.

In May 2022, Upgrading Secretary Michael Gove also intervened, saying he would prefer to see them move to Stoke.

For MPs, under an earlier stage of the project £70m had been spent preparing plans to rebuild Richmond House, the old Department of Health building in Westminster.

But this idea has now been abandoned as too costly; And while some hope the remote working technology used during COVID-19 can help provide a solution, reaching consensus on this aspect of the program alone is clearly fraught with contention.

“One of the most famous buildings in the world”

As the former Leader of the House, Dame Andrea Leadsom, MP, has overseen the 2018 legislation through Parliament.

The decision to back out of a large part of it, she says, “seems like a way to push the situation into the tall grass — it’s catastrophic.

“I get that it’s a huge bill, and I sympathize with the need to get value for taxpayers’ money — but this is one of the most famous buildings in the world.

“There have been nearly 50 fires in the last decade, any of which could have resulted in some kind of absolute burning of the palace in the style of Notre Dame.

“There’s an awful lot of money being spent already just to patch and fix… We just need to step in and do it instead of going back all the time and changing decisions about how to do it.”

When will the next vote take place?

MPs are now expected to vote on a new strategy by the end of next year.

Parliament said in a statement: “In July 2022, members of both Houses agreed on a more integrated approach to future restoration, prioritizing essential safety work. We continue to work across Parliament to ensure the safety of those who work and visit here, and to support the continuation of Parliament work.

This includes planning a major and complex restoration of the Palace of Westminster to preserve it for future generations.

“More than 2,000 areas of the palace have been examined this year to give a better understanding of the condition of the building. These surveys will provide a wide range of options for the delivery of restoration work, including the level of ambition during these challenging economic times.”

[ad_2]