‘The catastrophe is coming’: The battle to fix Britain’s crumbling parliament

LONDON — The Palace of Westminster stands on the banks of the River Thames as a proud symbol of British democracy. 

But upon closer inspection, this neo-gothic mini-village, part of a UNESCO World Heritage site, is falling apart.

Britain’s parliament has become an increasingly dangerous place to work for the 650 MPs, more than 800 members of the House of Lords, and thousands more staff who use it.

The Restoration and Renewal (R&R) program, set up to deliver the long-delayed overhaul of the palace, warns of serious risks from fire, flooding, crumbling stonework and aging mechanical and electrical systems.

Parliament needs fixing — and in the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on what to do next.

But there’s little consensus on how to proceed. The fight over the future of the site is now pitting politicians worried about spiraling costs against those who think the need to act is growing more urgent by the day. As this week’s POLITICO Westminster Insider podcast explores, fixing parliament is a story of seemingly endless division and delay.

Two options, eye-watering numbers

The way forward, presented to MPs and peers by the R&R team, has been boiled down to two stark options.

The first is the so-called “full decant.” This would involve moving MPs and peers out of the palace to allow major works to be carried out. On current estimates, it would take 19 to 24 years and cost up to £15.6 billion.

The second is an even slower, staged approach — catchily named “Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus”(EMI+) — where only the House of Lords is moved out, and works are done in phases while MPs’ parliamentary business continues on the estate. But that could take 38 to 61 years and cost up to £39.2 billion, the program’s figures suggest.

In the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on whether to at least green-light an initial seven-year package of preparatory works — a step that keeps both longer-term options alive, with a final decision pushed into the next decade.

One of the most prominent advocates of the faster approach is Marie Goldman, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chelmsford. Goldman is a member of parliament’s Restoration and Renewal Programme Board, a cross-party body that scrutinizes the restoration team’s work. 

For Goldman, the logic is blunt: if the work is going to happen at all, it is safer and ultimately cheaper to do it without thousands of staff, MPs and visitors continuing to use the building. “Trying to do those works with MPs and everyone else in place… feels like an absolute nightmare,” she says.

The fight over the future of the site is now pitting politicians worried about spiraling costs against those who think the need to act is growing more urgent by the day. | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls via WPA/Getty Images

Goldman is adamant that MPs and peers find a solution and believes Britain’s international reputation is at stake: “Nothing would say. Hey, look at the demise of Britain than watching the Houses of Parliament crumble into the Thames.”

The government has said it will allow MPs a free vote on the restoration plans.

Labour MP Mike Reader has followed the saga closely since his election in 2024. He backs option two, EMI+.

Reader told POLITICO he has spoken directly with the consultants and contractors working across the estate — and believes the restoration team has underestimated the scale of the work needed, saying he fears “the discovery risk” of finding new problems as the work progresses.

Reader says a longer-term approach would allow the restoration team greater scope “to learn and improve over time.” His “biggest fear” is that a different government decides to “stall and delay” the scheme or “require a complete rethink.”

“Instability and uncertainty are the biggest risks to a program like this,” he warns.

Wasting money

The fiercest critics see the project as typical of Westminster’s habit of wasting public money — and argue selling a multi-billion pound revamp will be impossible in a country grappling with the rising cost of living.

Veteran Tory MP Edward Leigh, styled as the Father of the House for his long service, is a long-standing skeptic who argues that parliament should focus narrowly on essential safety upgrades rather than what he derides as “gold-plating.”  He believes plans to create a new visitors’ reception and steps to reduce the building’s carbon footprint are “bells and whistles.”

“You don’t need all this, not when there’s an economic crisis. Our constituents are going to be absolutely furious.”

Leigh wants what he describes as a “third option”: repealing parts of the current legal framework that mandates the restoration “in one go” and repairing the Palace in stages around MPs.

His concerns over the costs involved are shared by the Conservative Party’s top brass. Leader Kemi Badenoch has raised “serious concerns about value for money.” She has instructed her party to vote against the plans in any parliamentary vote. 

‘Catastrophe’

Academic and parliament restoration specialist Alexandra Meakin — who has studied the project for years and previously worked in parliament — strongly disagrees with the Conservative Party’s position.

Parliament needs fixing — and in the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on what to do next. | Andy Rain/EPA

“Desperately wanting there to be a third way or for it to not cost as much or for the repairs not to be as essential doesn’t make it less true,” she warns.

Meakin adds: “Every review, every expert shows you cannot do this in any cheaper, quicker or safer way than just moving out entirely.”

In her view, the core purpose of restoration is not gilding the palace — but preventing a future in which the building becomes unusable because of a major fire, flood or infrastructure failure.

She warns: “The catastrophe is coming. The Palace of Westminster will become uninhabitable, whether it’s through fire, flood, or a failure of the essential infrastructure. And at that point, MPs and peers will have to face up to the fact that they have lost their own workplace, but they’ve also lost this iconic building for the nation.”

Looking to Ottawa

The U.K. is not the only old democracy grappling with decaying, neo-Gothic legislature buildings. Canada’s already moved its Commons chamber into a temporary home (known as West Block) while major works on Ottawa’s Centre Block proceed.

Nick Taylor-Vaisey is POLITICO’s Ottawa bureau chief. He told Westminster Insider that Canada’s success was in part down to persuading hesitant MPs to move out entirely.

The trick? Ensuring they were excited by their new alternative.

“The West Block Chamber is actually a former courtyard and there is a glass ceiling on top, a novel, modern take on how you can build a legislature.” 

Looking to the U.K., Taylor-Vaisey advised: “There is this chance to rethink what it could be.”

Current plans in Westminster would likely involve MPs moving into Richmond House on the Whitehall estate, while the Lords would move into the QEII conference center.

So far neither seems to have captured the imagination.