Westminster needs to maximise use of building after works
After years of delaying the inevitable, a decision has finally been made on the future of the Houses of Parliament.
To date, successive governments have avoided undertaking a programme of substantial restoration work and have made do with a patchwork of repairs.
But it has long been known that the Palace of Westminster is at risk of a major infrastructure failure.
Just last year, a car was damaged, and a Labour MP narrowly avoided being hit when a piece of masonry fell from one of the newer buildings on the estate.
Serious incidents such as this are rare, and experts are at pains to reassure the many thousands of people who visit and work in the Houses of Parliament that they are not at risk of harm and the building is safe.
But time is running out to start the necessary upgrades if the palace – a UNESCO World Heritage Site – is to be preserved for future generations.
The main problem lies in the mechanical and electrical services which are not designed to cope with modern demands.
Wear and tear and retrofitting of upgrades to cope with changing technology has taken its toll on the already obsolete infrastructure and there is now a serious risk of a sudden, catastrophic failure, or small incremental failures that will make the building uninhabitable.
An independent cost appraisal was carried out on a range of options for the work, suggestions included: No decant, with lords and MPs staying in the building during restoration works; a partial decant, with the lords leaving during repairs and MPs moving between the commons and the lords chambers as work is done; and a full decant, with MPs and lords moving out of the building to allow all works to be completed at once.
I supported the cheapest option: a full decant, which passed by just 16 votes with most Tory MPs preferring not to leave.
As MPs, we must remember that we are temporary custodians of parliament, it belongs to our constituents, not us.
We are there because our constituents sent us to a job, a job we can do elsewhere, especially if it means saving billions of pounds.
The SNP called for an assessment of the cost of permanently relocating parliament outside of Westminster.
I supported this because, in theory, I like the idea of the UK Parliament being nearer the middle of the country and I think all options should be on the table.
However, in practice, this option would likely prove to be the most expensive of all.
Most people accept the palace of Westminster should not be left to fall apart, but even if it was turned into a museum the restoration work would have to be completed.
If the work must be done, it makes sense to get the best use out of the building by continuing to use it as our parliament.
But, if parliament is to remain in the south east, future governments must carefully consider other options to better distribute power across the United Kingdom.
We are there because constituents sent us to do a job