For nearly 500 years, the Palace of Westminster has been the beating heart of British democracy.
From Big Ben’s iconic chimes to the Speaker’s ringing call of “Order!”, the building has symbolized stability and continuity.
Now, under Sir Keir Starmer’s government, that centuries-old tradition may be at risk, as plans emerge to move MPs and peers out of their historic home for a potentially decades-long restoration.
The Case for Restoration — and the Costs
There’s no denying the palace needs work. Turrets are crumbling, basements are tangled with faulty wiring, and decades of wear have taken their toll.
Experts agree that having an empty building makes repairs easier and, potentially, cheaper.
But a full decant comes with more than a financial cost — the bill may run into tens of billions — and threatens the symbolic connection the public feels toward Parliament.
Tradition Versus Modernisation
The Palace of Westminster is woven into the British psyche.
Its closure risks severing the emotional link citizens feel with their democracy.
Over the centuries, the building has shaped how people think about politics, inspiring a sense of ownership and pride.
Moving lawmakers into a temporary site with bland, modern interiors could erode that connection — an outcome welcomed by some technocrats pushing the decant.
Speakers and the Power Struggle
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, a traditionalist, has been caught on the back foot.
Having long advocated for MPs to remain in the palace while restoration continued, Hoyle has seen allies switch sides and been sidelined from key committees.
Historically, Parliament has survived disasters while maintaining operations: after the 1834 fire, MPs continued to meet during rebuilding, and following WWII bombing, they moved only briefly before returning.
The Politics of Full Decant
Announcing a full decant has political and financial implications.
Immediate costs include £2.6 billion for a replacement chamber at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, with the total restoration projected at around £20 billion.
Some architectural upgrades — from Net Zero compliance to disability access — are seen by critics as over-the-top, likened more to luxury hotel standards than practical necessities.
Labour Figures Leading the Charge
Labour’s deputy chief whip, Sir Mark Tami, and ally MP Nick Smith are spearheading the push for a full evacuation.
Alongside parliamentary clerks, they are navigating the restoration bureaucracy to ensure the plan proceeds, even as traditionalists like Hoyle push back.
New Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell has also sided with the decant plan, further consolidating momentum.
Lords Shake-Up Adds Uncertainty
The early resignation of Lords Speaker John McFall adds a subplot.
His successor could dramatically influence the balance of power on restoration decisions.
Potential candidates include Crossbencher Deborah Bull and two Conservatives, Lords Gardiner and Forsyth, each with different views on the decant, leaving the outcome uncertain.
Taxpayers Brace for Scrutiny
The Commons Finance Committee, led by Conservative MP Steve Barclay, has launched a public inquiry into the full-decant plan, concerned about excessive spending.
Crossbench peer Lord Vaux, a chartered accountant, reportedly needed to cool his nerves after reviewing the budget.
The inquiry promises a rigorous examination, highlighting the tension between ambition, cost, and accountability.
The Stakes for Democracy
Beyond the money, the decant raises fundamental questions about parliamentary democracy.
Westminster is more than bricks and mortar; it is a symbol, a reminder of centuries of debate, compromise, and governance.
For lawmakers, taxpayers, and citizens, the restoration plan will test the balance between modernization, financial prudence, and the preservation of a national treasure.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn