RESTORATION of the crumbling Houses of Parliament could cost the taxpayer more than £7bn and take up to 40 years to complete, a report by experts has suggested.

 

The ornate Gothic palace, most of which dates back 160 years but some 1000 years, is in dire need of restoration with cracked walls, leaking roofs and decaying masonry.

The £2 million 250-page report from the team of experts was commissioned in 2013 with the warning that unless restoration work were carried out to the world heritage site, then irreversible damage could be done to the Palace of Westminster.

The experts set out three main options with differing "mid-range" costs and timescales.

First, a rolling programme with MPs and peers continuing to use Parliament. This would take 32 years and cost £5.7bn. But this is the mid-range estimate; the higher range one is £7.1bn and taking 40 years.

This option would still mean both chambers would have to be closed for between two and four years with sittings temporarily relocated. Users of Parliament would have to "tolerate high levels of disruption and disturbance over a long period and there would be high level risk to business continuity". This, says the report, is the least predictable option in terms of cost and duration and offers the least opportunity to improve amenities.

Second, a partial decant. This would take 11 years and cost up to £4.4bn. With this option, work could be carried out more quickly if, first, the Commons, then the Lords moved into temporary accommodation. Again, this approach depends on temporary accommodation being found. "Security and nuisance issues would have to be managed at the boundary between the two zones," says the report.

Third, a full decant. This would take "most likely" six years and cost up to £3.9bn. The report notes that risks to business continuity would be greatly reduced under this option, assuming the challenge of securing sufficient temporary accommodation can be overcome.

In the last parliamentary session, sources close to the process told The Herald that the main option was for MPs and peers to move out to the QEII building, directly opposite the Commons. Indeed, the Lib-Con Coalition was on the point of selling the conference centre but was advised not to at the last minute given it could provide a temporary home for Westminster's politicians.

The report also looks at costs over a 60-year period, which would include maintenance and running costs, with each main option coming in between £18.5bn and £21.4bn.

Richard Ware, the restoration programme's director, insisted the historic building was "in dire need of renovation".

He explained: "The Palace has reached a turning point in its history with many features needing major renovation. These include antiquated heating, ventilation, water, drainage and electrical systems combined with extensive stonework decay, leaking roofs, corrosion and the need to improve fire containment.

"Even the intensive programme of urgent repairs carried out over the last five years is barely scratching the surface," he added.

One official, stressing the importance of the Palace - where 1400 Members and more than 2000 staff work - previously noted: "This is the greatest historical building in Britain. We have to preserve this for the nation not just for today but for future generations."

The report also stresses the benefits of renovation, including the provision of a modern parliament with an enhanced working environment, improved public access, lower running costs, better safety and increased employment for, among others, apprentices.

It points out the multi-billion pound costs are "provisional" but would be firmed up once a decision was made. The necessary funding would be subject to "a full business case evaluation, taking value for money and affordability into account".

The notional start date is 2020 ie after the next General Election, although Alex Bell from Deloitte Real Estate, which led the review, admitted 2020 "might not be an achievable start date". The report notes that delays to making a decision could cost up to £85m a year.

A joint committee of MPs and peers will be established to look into the restoration process and it is hoped to make its recommendations by early 2016. Politically, it could be a fraught exercise as the expectation is that there would have to be votes on the way forward and which of the three options is deemed the best.

Mr Ware stressed how he believed politicians were fully aware of the need to get on and secure the building for future generations. "I have every confidence they will work their way through this," he said.

It is also expected that some Members might suggest building a new UK Parliament outwith London such as in Manchester or Birmingham, although the experts were not asked to look at this scenario, which Mr Ware noted would involve extra costs such as those covering moving departments.

Officials also said there would be "security challenges" for any of the options but declined to go into detail.