Shropshire Star

Shropshire and Mid Wales MPs would leave Westminster for renovation works

MPs in Shropshire and Mid Wales say they would be willing to move out of the Palace of Westminster to allow it to be renovated – if it's the cheapest option. They say work to the iconic building should be done as quickly as possible and in the most cost-effective way.

Published

Some MPs said they would support plans to temporarily move Parliament, possibly to the Midlands, but others believe it could be very disruptive.

An independent committee has suggested that unless MPs and peers move out it will cost £5.7bn and take 32 years to repair.

Some of the worst damage is on the famous skyline and in the decaying stones that are being weathered away.

Option 1

Major restoration of the Houses of Parliament, without moving MPs and peers out. This would cost at least £5.7bn – but would take 32 years.

It would allow Parliament to continue with limited disruption and the extra cost could be spread over a longer period.

Option 2

MP and peers moved out for six years.

The cost of the restoration would drop to £3.5bn, but this would cause maximum disruption.

Both the House of Commons and Lords would have to move to a new venue.

Option 3

A halfway house option – with the House of Commons and Lords taking turns to move out to new venues.

This would cover a total time period of between nine and 14 years, costing between £3.9 and £4.4bn.

Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, said: "On the one hand these buildings, and Big Ben in particular, are iconic buildings – Grade I-listed and World Heritage sites.

"But the building is riddled with asbestos and antiquated wiring. Some people have said if it was not for its historic nature it should be replaced with something modern.

"But I go to work every day over the Westminster Bridge and the pavement is lined with tourists taking pictures of the buildings. They are hugely popular buildings, particularly Big Ben.

"But we have to consider that with the staggering amount of money they are proposing to spend on it, money which is in very short supply at the moment and is essentially needed for the NHS, education and other important projects, so I would be extremely concerned if the Commons voted for one of the more expensive options.

"We have to sell it to the British people. I do not think we have in our history had a £3 billion spent on any building.

"I think as long as London continues to be our capital, and I do not see any reason why it would not, I think Parliament should ideally remain at that site. However, there has to be a huge amount of scrutiny on the costs, and what firms will be used to provide this."

Mr Kawczynski added: "I think we have to be very flexible. If it is going to cost less money to undertake these renovations not to be there then we have to decamp somewhere else.

"I think it would be extremely difficult to justify extra tax payers' money just to remain there while work takes place.

"If it means moving out to Birmingham or somewhere else in London for the duration of work then so be it."

Owen Paterson, MP for North Shropshire, said: "My gut feeling is that we should all move out of Westminster so that we can get the workmen in and crack on with the work.

"This would be the cheapest option for our taxpayers, but it would also be the best option for everyone.

"When Parliament is recalled in the summer, or when you have to go to Westminster in the summer recess it is an absolute nightmare.

"There are painters and workmen everywhere along with scaffolding and building materials. It is almost impossible to carry on working."

But Mr Paterson said he had no idea where Parliament could move to.

"It is not just the politicians, Westminster is a huge entity that would have to move out lock, stock and barrel.

"I have absolutely no idea where we could move - need it be London? I don't know. Why not Birmingham, it certainly has good public transport and road connections," he said.

Philip Dunne, MP for Ludlow, said: "I think it's an enormous sum of money and whichever way they decide to do it they should look at doing it as quickly as possible in the most cost effective way - and if that means moving out then so be it."

But he dismissed the idea of moving somewhere like the Midlands as impractical.

"I think it would be more disruptive if we went very far.

"There are seven buildings as part of the Westminster estate and the palaces are only two of those."

He said there were buildings such as the Methodist Hall or Church House within walking distance.

"That would mean people in the offices at Westminster could stay put. If we all went to, say, Birmingham or Shrewsbury, that would be disruptive for thousands, not hundreds of people."

Glyn Davies, MP for Montgomeryshire, said: "I hope that Parliament will not be moved out, but it's an option that will have to be considered if it will save the taxpayer billions of pounds.

"It is early days yet and we don't have enough information to make any firm decisions on whether to move out and if so where."

The collection of buildings, courtyards and passageways cover eight acres on the banks of the River Thames, with more than 1,000 rooms and three miles of corridors that have already dealt with their fair share of disaster.

Originally built on the site of William the Conqueror's first palace, the Houses of Parliament were left severely damaged by a fire in 1834 and were then rebuilt as a Gothic fantasy palace.

The landmark was also bombed 14 times during World War Two.

But even in these worst of times the politicians who occupied the premises never moved out completely.

A 250-page report details five scenarios ranging from a "do minimum" gradual approach, which would take 32 years, to "a full move out" which would mean that parliamentarians can no longer work in the building for six years.

Parliament is to establish a joint committee of MPs and peers who will make a decision from the options.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.