The building will be left empty for at least six years for repair work

After an historic Commons vote, MPs and peers are to move out of the Houses of Parliament while the crumbling building is repaired and restored at a cost of around £4bn.

At the end of a three-hour debate, MPs voted by 236 to 220, a majority of just 16, to go ahead with controversial plans for a "full and timely decant" of the Palace of Westminster.

But in a move urged by Theresa May to keep costs down, MPs voted by 234-185 for a motion proposing only essential work between now and the next election and a review of the cost of further work.

The move out of Parliament for MPs and peers will not happen before 2025, the Government insisted, and MPs are likely to move to a temporary Commons chamber in Whitehall.

Image: MPs voted to decant while the repair work takes place

And because of security concerns, part of Whitehall will be included in a new security zone, which could mean two of Westminster's most famous pubs - the St. Stephen's Tavern and the Red Lion - closing.

Advertisement

It will be the first time MPs have moved out of the Palace of Westminster since the Second World War, when the Commons chamber was badly damaged by bombing.

The House of Lords is due to vote on the proposals next week, but MPs who back the move out of the Palace of Westminster are confident that peers will back the decisions taken by the Commons.

The so-called "decant" was bitterly opposed by a large group of mainly veteran MPs - mostly Tories - who proposed an amendment aiming to keep the Commons inside the Houses of Parliament.

Their amendment, which was not voted on after the "full and timely decant" was backed, proposed: "During the progress of work, the debating chamber of the House of Comons will remain in the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House."

Image: There have been warnings that a catastrophic fire could occur

Younger MPs have told Sky News the older MPs are motivated by self-interest because they don't want to end their days in the House of Commons in temporary accommodation.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom promised a legal guarantee that MPs and peers will return to Parliament after restoration.

Opening the debate, she said she had listened "very closely to very real concerns" that MPs and peers may be "forced out, never to return" by moves to secure the long-term future of the Palace of Westminster.

Experts claim parts of the Houses of Parliament are crumbling and there have been warnings that a catastrophic fire could occur unless ageing electrical systems are replaced.

Image: Mrs Leadsom told MPs there could be no blank cheque for the work

Mrs Leadsom told MPs there could be "no blank cheque" for this work, but warned of "critical risks" in the Palace of Westminster - revealing there have been 60 incidents over the last 10 years which had the potential to cause a serious fire.

"The Palace of Westminster in all cases will remain the home of our Parliament," she said. "That has always been the plan.

"To make absolutely clear, full or partial decant will not take place until 2025 at the earliest."

Image: One of the leading supporters of a move out, Labour MP Chris Bryant

Answering MPs who feared they would not return, she said: "I am happy to confirm today that were the House to agree that we must take action now, this commitment to return to the Palace will be enshrined in the legislation the Government will subsequently introduce to set up the sponsor body and delivery authority.

"It will be on the face of the Bill, putting the matter beyond doubt."

One of the leading supporters of a move out, Labour MP Chris Bryant, told MPs: "In the end, this place is here to make decisions on behalf of the nation.

"It's time we got a grip and made a decision. I don't mind what the decision is in the end, but make a decision we must surely to God."

Image: The Red Lion pub may have to close under the plans

In his first speech since quitting as the Prime Minister's former deputy, Damian Green said Parliament was not safe in its current condition and it was not a "wild exaggeration" to say it was a "death trap".

Sir Edward Leigh, who led those opposing the move, said: "I predict that we will be out of this building for 10 or even 12 years because actually the Canadian parliament, they are moving out for 12 years.

"And we have to say to our constituents, do we really believe at this time of unparalleled austerity we should now take the decision to spend upfront, this evening, £5bn on our own working place?"</s>British MPs vote to abandon the historic Palace of Westminster during renovations which will cost upwards of $6 billion.

Britain's Houses of Parliament has fallen into disrepair and poses a serious fire risk. (Credit: Reuters)

British MPs have voted to move out of the historic Houses of Parliament for at least six years to allow a 3.5 billion pounds ($6.17 billion) restoration project to take place.

MPs voted 236 to 220 in favour of the move to a temporary location while widespread repair work is carried out on the Palace of Westminster, parts of which date back to the Middle Ages.

The relocation is not expected to take place until the mid-2020s.

The sprawling building by the River Thames is in disrepair. There are fears it is a major fire risk, it is plagued with rats, and struggles to manage the million tourists who visit every year.

In a debate on Westminster's future, MPs were told there had been 60 episodes in recent years that could have led to a serious fire.

Experts have warned there could be a "catastrophic event" if urgent refurbishments are not carried out.

Commons leader Andrea Leadsom said the "patch and mend" approach to preserving Westminster could not be allowed to continue.

Labor MP Stephen Pound said there was a lot at stake.

"Just think about what it means as an icon of democracy, of representative democracy, where the people's voices are heard, in this building, in this place, in this chamber, in this Palace of Westminster," he said.

"We cannot lose this."

But MPs have previously put off a decision because of the high costs involved.

"In these days of austerity, tightening of belts, impending disaster of Brexit, this would be near the bottom of public concerns," Scottish National Party MP Pete Wishart said.

"And the sums are simply eye-watering."

MPs debated whether to move everyone out during the building works, or stay in place and try to work around it.

Moving everyone out while the work takes place has been called a "full decant".

Historic building dates back mostly to the 19th century

In its current form the 1,100-room Palace of Westminster dates from the mid-1800s.

The site was rebuilt after a fire destroyed many parts of the previous building in 1834, although the parts that survived date back to 1099.

The House of Commons chamber had to be rebuilt after being destroyed during a German bombing raid in 1941.

Tourists coming to London are already confronted with a covered-up Big Ben which is undergoing restoration work which will take another few years.

The Government says MPs will return to Westminster after the renovations are complete.</s>The future of the Palace of Westminster will be voted on by MPs but a final decision on a multibillion-pound restoration programme could be further delayed.

Parts of the Houses of Parliament are crumbling and there have been warnings that a catastrophic fire could occur unless ageing electrical systems are replaced.

But concerns over cost and public opinion have dogged the restoration and renewal project, expected to cost around £4 billion, and one of the options put forward for MPs to consider is for a further review.

MPs must decide whether they can “afford to justify” repairs to the historic building, Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said earlier this month.

Mrs Leadsom has tabled two motions for debate on January 31, with the first allowing MPs to authorise essential repairs but agree to review before the end of the Parliament in 2022 the “need for comprehensive works”.

The second would establish a body to carry out a “sufficiently thorough and detailed analysis” of various aspects linked to the restoration work, including whether MPs and peers move out or partially stay in the palace during the repairs, and would seek to push forward the process sooner.

The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster warned in 2016 that the decision on how to repair Parliament could not be delayed any further.

Labour’s Chris Bryant, who sat on the joint committee, is backing a bid to reject the options put forward by Mrs Leadsom in favour of more rapid progress.

An amendment tabled by Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier would back the 2016 recommendation for a “full and timely decant”, with MPs and peers leaving the building for work to be carried out.

It is the “swiftest and most cost-effective option”, he said.

Meanwhile, an SNP-led amendment would see MPs consider the option of whether to abandon the Palace of Westminster altogether.

It calls for a review of the work to include a “detailed assessment of the cost-effectiveness of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster”.

SNP MP Neil Gray said: “While Labour and the Tories in the Scottish Parliament are set to vote against a pay rise for nurses and investment in public services, it is utterly hypocritical for them to vote at the same time for billions to be spent on crumbling palaces for politicians.”

As well as the threat of fire, the building is thought to be vulnerable because of its antiquated sewerage system and parts of the palace are riddled with asbestos.</s>British MPs vote to move out Westminster for repairs

Pedestrians cross Westminster Bridge on a foggy day in central London December 11, 2013. — Reuters picLONDON, Feb 1 — British MPs yesterday voted in favour of moving out of their historic Westminster home, to make way for major renovation work of the iconic Houses of Parliament.

Lawmakers backed the decision for a “full and timely decant” of parliament by 234 votes to 185, paving the way for a multi-billion-pound revamp of the dilapidated complex.

“This debate arguably should have taken place about 40 years ago,” said House of Commons leader Andrea Leadsom at the start of the debate.

“The Palace of Westminster is the seat of our democracy, an iconic world-famous building and it is in dire need of repair,” she added.

Much of the Palace dates from the mid-1800s, while Westminster Hall was built in 1099.

The complex is part of the Unesco Westminster World Heritage Site and includes the Houses of Parliament and the clock tower housing Big Ben, which is already undergoing work.

Conditions are considered dire, with a Commons committee listing fire, sewage inundation and electrical failure among possible risks if urgent repairs are not carried out.

“The risk of a catastrophic failure is high and growing with every month that passes,” the committee said in a March report.

There are reports of mice infestations, while there is a round-the-clock patrol as modern fire prevention measures are impossible to implement.

“That’s a most unusual way of dealing with things, and we really need to do a full restoration to deal with the fire safety aspects,” said David Orr, a member of its restoration and renewal programme board.

One MP said that urine was leaking into his office and sewage ejectors — pushing parliamentary waste into London’s main sewer — are from the Victorian era and could soon fail, according to engineers.

- ‘Death trap’ -While the MPs’ vote signifies a step towards the large-scale renovation, lawmakers have yet to decide when they will be moving out or where to.

They agreed a body would be established to provide up-to-date costings and a “realistic” timetable for repairs, which would allow lawmakers to return to their chamber “as soon as possible”.

But not everyone was convinced, with MP Edward Leigh warning that voters experiencing “unparallelled austerity” would not be happy with politicians spending billions on their own revamp.

“I think that’s a very difficult decision, a very difficult argument to make to our constituents,” he told parliament, predicting that lawmakers would have to move out for up to 12 years.

But fellow Conservative lawmaker Damian Green warned parliament was not safe and said it is not a “wild exaggeration” to describe it as a “death trap”.

Cost estimates so far have included a £5.7 billion (6.5 billion euros, $8.0 billion) price tag for lawmakers to stay on site, with the works taking 32 years.

The most efficient proposal would take six years, costing upwards of £3.5 billion, with both MPs and lawmakers from the House of Lords having to move out.

There have been various suggestions for lawmakers’ alternative base, including plans for a floating chamber on the River Thames drawn up by architects Gensler. — AFP</s>MPs have supported both Houses of Parliament moving out during the multibillion-pound restoration programme.

They committed to a “full and timely decant” after deleting sections from a motion which would have allowed them to kick into the long grass the need for “comprehensive works” at the Unesco World Heritage Site.

A body would also be established to provide up-to-date costings of the work and a “realistic” timetable for the repairs.

The amendment was tabled by Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier and was viewed as a way of ensuring more rapid progress to repair the Palace of Westminster compared with two motions tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom.

But Conservative former minister Sir Edward Leigh warned during the debate that Ms Hillier’s amendment could result in MPs leaving Parliament for up to 12 years and effectively authorise the spending of £5 billion during a time of “unparalleled austerity”.

Ms Hillier’s amendment was supported by 236 votes to 220 – majority 16.

The amended motion was then voted upon and approved by 234 votes to 185, majority 49.

Peers are to consider the restoration and renewal of the palace on February 6.</s>A battle has erupted over whether MPs should move out of a crumbling Palace of Westminster while refurbishment costing billions of pounds goes ahead.

Some North East MPs are arguing Commons and Lords debates should take place elsewhere, because it would cut the cost of long-awaited repairs to the Houses of Parliament.

But they are up against colleagues who insist that major debates must always be held on the Parliamentary estate - even if it means taxpayers pay more.

Newcastle Central MP Chi Onwurah, Blaydon MP Liz Twist, Gateshead MP Ian Mearns and Houghton and Sunderland South MP Bridget Phillipson are among those calling for the cheaper option, which would still cost at least £3.5bn.

They have put their name to an amendment stating: “A full and timely decant of the Palace is the best and the most cost-effective delivery option.”

It would mean MPs move to an alternative location, such as a nearby building in London, for a period of at least five years.

There have also been suggestions that MPs and members of the House of Lords could move out of the capital entirely, and hold debates in English regions instead.

But 44 MPs have put their names to an amendment insisting: “During the progress of work, the debating Chamber of the House of Commons will remain in the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House.”

Carrying out repairs while MPs are still using the buildings would push costs up to at least £4.42bn, according to a study in 2014.

The fact that the figures are more than three years old, and almost certainly under-estimate the cost today, reflects the lack of progress in making a decision.

While many people associate Parliament with the Commons debating Chamber and its famous green benches, it’s also a sprawling complex of corridors, offices, canteens and meeting rooms, where thousands of officials, researchers, journalists and maintenance staff work.

Most of the Palace of Westminster was built between 1840 and 1870. Some areas were rebuilt after the Second World War, largely to repair bomb damage.

It’s in a poor state today, with frequent minor floods and mechanical breakdowns,

Some the high voltage cables in the building are decaying - but there is no way of accessing many of them.

The building is not well compartmentalised, which could allow fire to spread quickly.

And there is a substantial amount of asbestos in the building which has to be removed.

But MPs have been slow to do anything about it.

The problem may be partly that they are worried about being seen to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing their own offices.

However, there is also no agreement about what should be done. Some think it’s obvious that they should move out temporarily, if that’s going to cut costs.

Others claim that if they do this, some excuse will be found to prevent MPs ever returning, and the place will become a museum.

And a few, including SNP MPs, suggest the best course of action would be to build a brand new Parliament with up to date technology.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said Parliament had a “hotch potch” of pipes and wiring that was ageing faster than it was possible to repair.

“There are some critical risks in the Palace of Westminster,” she said.

“Firstly, the lack of fire compartmentation increases the risk of fire, meaning that 24-hour fire patrols are necessary in order to keep us safe.

“Over the last 10 years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire.”

She also highlighted a “huge amount” of asbestos in the walls and the fact many pipes and cables were decades past their lifespan.

“The likelihood of a major failure grows the longer the systems are left unaddressed,” she said.</s>Pictures show some of the 4,000 windows which need to be restored at the Palace of Westminster in London.</s>The Government has promised to legally guarantee MPs and peers will return to Parliament should they move out during a multibillion-pound restoration programme.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said she had listened “very closely to very real concerns” that parliamentarians may be “forced out, never to return” by moves to secure the long-term future of the Palace of Westminster.

But Mrs Leadsom said two motions before MPs about how to approach the repairs were intended to be “explicit” that this was not the case, adding the commitment to return would also be put in law.

Parts of the Houses of Parliament are crumbling and there have been warnings that a catastrophic fire could occur unless ageing electrical systems are replaced.

But concerns over cost and public opinion have dogged the restoration and renewal project, expected to cost about £4 billion, and one of the options put forward for MPs to consider was for a further review.

Mrs Leadsom has tabled two motions for debate on January 31, with the first allowing MPs to authorise essential repairs but agree to review before the end of the Parliament in 2022 the “need for comprehensive works”.

The second would establish a body to carry out a “sufficiently thorough and detailed analysis” of various aspects linked to the restoration work, including whether MPs and peers move out or partially stay in the palace during the repairs, and would seek to push forward the process sooner.

Labour’s Chris Bryant, who sat on the joint committee, is backing a bid to reject the options put forward by Mrs Leadsom in favour of more rapid progress.

An amendment tabled by Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier would back the 2016 recommendation for a “full and timely decant”, with MPs and peers leaving the building for work to be carried out.

Moving the motions, Mrs Leadsom said there could be “no blank cheque for this work” and warned of “critical risks” in the Palace of Westminster – noting there have been 60 incidents over the last 10 years which had the potential to cause a serious fire.

Speaking on motion two, Mrs Leadsom said: “(It) invites the House to make a clear statement about the need to act with urgency but also ensures that a rigorous and professional business case will be drawn up that will provide confidence to members and to the public.”

She said if this motion was carried, the final fully-costed recommendation from the body would be returned within 12 to 18 months for a vote.

Mrs Leadsom added: “The Palace of Westminster in all cases will remain the home of our Parliament. That has always been the plan.

“To make absolutely clear to all (MPs), full or partial decant will not take place until 2025 at the earliest.”

Mrs Leadsom also sought to reassure MPs who feared they would not return following a full decant, telling them: “To put the matter beyond doubt and recognising the depth of concerns from some colleagues, I am happy to confirm today that were the House to agree that we must take action now, this commitment to return to the Palace will be enshrined in the legislation the Government will subsequently introduce to set up the sponsor body and delivery authority.

“It will be on the face of the Bill, putting the matter beyond doubt.”

Mr Bryant said neither of the motions in Mrs Leadsom’s name made a decision, telling the debate: “In the end this place is here to make decisions on behalf of the nation. It’s time we got a grip and made a decision.

“I don’t mind what the decision is in the end, but make a decision we must surely to God.”</s>LONDON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - British lawmakers will leave the Palace of Westminster for at least six years to allow for a proposed multi-billion pound refurbishment, the first time politicians have left the historic building en masse since World War Two.

At a vote on Wednesday, lawmakers voted in favour of a "full decant" of the building, home to the "Big Ben" clock tower, perhaps London's best-known landmark, to try to fix a multitude of problems that some politicians said had made the palace a potential "death trap".

The planned move, part of a proposed 5.6 billion pound ($8 billion) modernisation, will not take effect until 2025 at the earliest.

"There are difficult decisions to make on how we best protect one of the world's most iconic buildings for future generations, but we must address these decisions head on," Andrea Leadsom, leader of the House of Commons, told lawmakers, many of whom were reluctant to leave the building.

"The Palace of Westminster is the seat of our democracy, an iconic world famous building and it is in dire need of repair," she said, adding there were "critical risks" at the palace, where over the last 10 years 60 incidents could have ended in fire.

Westminster has been at the heart of British politics for some 900 years and lawmakers have gathered on the same site since 1547. The Palace of Westminster was almost completely destroyed by a fire in 1834 and it was rebuilt in 1852. The Big Ben bell was installed in the clock tower seven years later. ($1 = 0.7013 pounds) (Reporting by Elizabeth Piper)</s>MPs have finally agreed a multi-billion pound restoration project to shore up the crumbling Houses of Parliament. 



Concerns over cost and public opinion have dogged the restoration and renewal project, which could cost around £6 billion. 



The proposal agreed to by MPs, tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom will commission an Olympics-style delivery authority to led a major restoration of the Palace of Westminster - and for MPs to move out of the historic building while that takes place.

MPs in favour of that option by 234 to 185.

Ms Leadsom, who led the debate, said it was a decision that should have taken place around 40 years ago.





She said parliament consisted of a “hotch potch” of pipes and wiring that was ageing faster than it was possible to repair. 



“There are some critical risks in the Palace of Westminster,” she said. 



“Firstly, the lack of fire compartmentation increases the risk of fire, meaning that 24-hour fire patrols are necessary in order to keep us safe. 



“Over the last 10 years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire.” 



She also highlighted a “huge amount” of asbestos in the walls and the fact many pipes and cables were decades past their lifespan.

“The likelihood of a major failure grows the longer the systems are left unaddressed,” she said. 



Other options put forward included an amendment proposed by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Meg Hillier and endorsed y the chairs of several select committees including Frank Field, Rachel Reeves, Hilary Benn and Nicky Morgan. 



This commits parliament to a "full and timely decant" as the most "cost-effective" solution.

It also proposed a Olympic-style delivery authority.Ms Hillier said: "We cannot keep putting this into the long grass, we have to make a decision".She tackled arguments over the expense of the repairs saying: ""It is going to cost money, of course, but it's not as if that money, let's face it, the Treasury is going to give to matters in my constituency that I want to see.Estimates suggest a 'full decant', which would mean relocating both MPs and peers while the entire building is renovated, would cost £3.5 billion over six years.While a 'partial decant’, moving first MPs while the House of Commons is renovated and then beginning work on the Lords after they return is understood to cost: £4.4bn over 11 years.To ‘refurbish on site’, meaning a rolling programme of upgrades would be carried out while MPs and peers remain in the Palace, would cost an estimated £5.7bn over 35 years.A number of MPs voiced concern that if MPs moved out while the repairs were taking place then they wouldn't return.But Shadow Commons leader Valerie Vaz said action needed to be taken “immediately”, and warned that MPs could have to leave the Palace of Westminster without choice if they did not do so to begin the repairs.She said the link to the site “might be broken beyond our control and we would have to be forced to leave if there were a fire or any other act of God that takes place.”During the Commons debate, former First Secretary of State Damian Green warned that the Houses of Parliament were not safe saying that while it was an “exaggeration” to describe the Unesco World Heritage site as a “death trap” it is not a “wild exaggeration”.He said: “Anyone who has taken that tour of the basement will have seen the full horror of the current arrangements.”The MP for Ashford pointed out that chunks of masonry had fallen off high parts of the building, adding: “We are lucky that no-one has been killed so far because of this.“It is not remotely conceivable that if this were a normal building that people would be allowed to work in it let alone that thousands of tourists would be allowed to visit it.”He said he supported those saying Parliament should stay in the Palace of Westminster in the long term, but said: “I think no-one’s conscience should be comfortable with the potential consequences of delay and inaction in these circumstances.”Sir Patrick McLoughlin, the former transport secretary argued in favour of a “full decant”.He said the recent renovation at London Bridge station would have been finished much more quickly if the station had been closed.A joint committee warned in 2016 that unless urgent action was taken the Palace of Westminster was at risk of a “catastrophic event”.The steam-heated building - with its basements a tumble of wires, pipes and cables - was the scene of seven fires in 2017, while there were two hundred reported “toilet failures”.The outgoing senior parliamentary official Black Rod warned action needed to be taken or it could become “another Grenfell”.



The famous Big Ben bell has already been silenced while urgent work is carried out on the Elizabeth Tower. 



An amendment to motion one in the name of SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, which asked for any future review to assess the cost of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster, was defeated by 410 votes to 47 - majority 363.
MPs vote 236–220 in favour of moving out of the Houses of Parliament for six years while the Palace of Westminster undergoes repairs at a cost of around £4 billion. The move out of Westminster will not occur before 2025. It will be the first time MPs have moved out of the Palace of Westminster since World War II.