Ayes have it as Shropshire MPs ponder big revamp for Houses of Parliament

Resident rodents, leaking roofs, crumbling walls and toxic asbestos throughout. You could be fooled into thinking these are the grim conditions of a rundown office block – not that of a palace.

Parts of the landmark building are so riddled with asbestos, frail stonework and ageing electrics that it has been said the Grade I-listed building would be demolished if it was not protected.

Now a senior parliamentary committee is set to recommend that all MPs and peers vacate both Houses of Parliament for six years to allow for urgent repairs to be undertaken.

This would be the cheapest and quickest option – a snip at £3.5 billion to £3.9 billion, with relocation starting as early as 2020.

The other options are a partial relocation, taking about 11 years at a cost of between £3.9 billion and £4.4bn, or a rolling programme over a staggering, estimated 32 years for a whopping £5.7bn.

These sums are eye-watering, and have prompted calls from some MPs to leave the historic estate altogether.

Shropshire and Mid Wales MPs have waded in on the discussion but also shared their experiences of the crumbling facilities over the years – with one revealing his first office didn't even have a window.

Despite being in the dark at that time, North Shropshire MP Owen Paterson could see the light in the situation.

"My first office was really small, there was only room for one or two people in it, it was quite pokey, and it had no window, which I think is in breach of European law," the former Environment Secretary joked.

"When I was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my office then was completely infested with moths, and it had no air conditioning."

Mr Paterson said he was in favour of the recommendation to vacate both Houses of Parliament temporarily for work to be carried out.

He said: "This has to be done. Over the years water has got inside because it isn't watertight, corroding the ironwork. It isn't good and I do think it will get to a stage of being dangerous."

• The Westminster estate includes a hotchpotch of buildings from different eras, from the 900-year-old Westminster Hall, to the modern Portcullis House, with its vast glass atrium, which opened in 2001 and would be unaffected by the repairs programme.

• A study last year found the Palace has deadly fire risks, collapsing roofs, crumbling walls and leaking pipes – as well as large quantities of deadly asbestos.

• The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster said: “The Palace of Westminster, a masterpiece of Victorian and medieval architecture and engineering, faces an impending crisis. There is a substantial and growing risk of either a single, catastrophic event, such as a major fire, or a succession of failures in essential systems.”

• It is not known where MPs will be moved to if Westminster closes – but there has been much speculation. Some believe the House of Commons could be relocated to the Department of Health’s courtyard in nearby Whitehall.

• Other suggestions include the Foreign Office and the Treasury. Big events – such as the Queen’s official opening of parliament – could be held in Wembley Stadium.

Glyn Davies, MP for Montgomeryshire, said he backs a temporary move but branded a permanent move away from Westminster "crazy". "There's nothing wrong with moving out of Parliament temporarily in order for upgrade works to be carried out, there's no question that they're needed, it's in a very bad state of repair. I do think the mice we have running around there will be disappointed as I don't think they'll have they'll have same free rein as they do now," he said.

"But on a serious note, a move away from Westminster would be crazy, it's one of the most iconic buildings in the world that's worth of billions of pounds to Britain, it's what makes Britain."

Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczynski was also quick to make the case for investment in Parliament, rather than see it demolished.

He said: "This is a beautiful historic building that is visited by hundreds of thousands of people every year. You have got people coming from all over the world just to take photos of Big Ben.

"It is very old and there are huge structural problems with it and they are telling us they need to refurbish it.

"I was delighted and thrilled that post-Brexit we can now ensure that as much as possible of the materials and craftsmanship is British which we would not have been able to do because of the European procurement process."

Speaking of the ageing features Westminster is riddled with, Mr Kawczynski said: "People do not see the problems with the building but there are various parts of this huge palace where there are real issues, structural, wiring, electrics – it is a very old building.

"It is not a case of patching it up. The repairs to this building cost about £100 million a year. What is good is it is going to be creating something which will last hundreds of years and future generations will be able to benefit from it.

"You do not just knock things down and start again, especially not something as iconic as this building. We are surrounded by tourists who want to come to this building and we should be proud of that. If we do not refurbish it what do you do with it? Knock it down?"

Philip Dunne, MP for Ludlow, said: "I'm pleased that this joint committee of the House of Commons and House of Lords has made such recommendations.

"I'm aware of the challenges of keeping the building safe when it has infrastructure that is ancient and woefully ill-equipped for conditions in today's world. I think it's the right decision and I think it's necessary."

He said if MPs and Lords did move out of the Palace of Westminster buildings for refurbishment it should be done quickly – and doing it split across two parliaments would mean that each would at least get to have some time in the traditional houses.