(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. 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. 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. 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”.
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.