MPs have been warned that the Palace of Westminster could be placed on Britain’s “at risk” register for heritage sites if they further delay plans for a major project of restoration and renewal during a parliamentary vote on Wednesday, it can be revealed.



A briefing note drawn up for politicians by Historic England that has been seen by the Guardian, also claims that such a move could place parliament’s Unesco world heritage site status in jeopardy.

The public body, which has a statutory duty to advise ministers on all matters relating to the historic environment, is concerned that MPs may back a motion that would push back any decision on comprehensive works until the end of the parliament.

“If the first motion were passed, by 2022 a decade of clear warnings would have been unheeded,” the group has written. “A delay until then would make it necessary for Historic England, knowing what we do now, to assess the palace for inclusion (as a whole or in part) on the heritage-at-risk register.

“We would assess the site as we do any other. Unesco might take a similar view in respect of world heritage site status.”

Wednesday’s free vote centres around whether or not to push ahead with a controversial proposal for MPs and peers to vacate the traditional home of parliament for six years to make way for a restoration project that will cost more than £3.5bn.



Calls for urgent action have been growing amid warnings about the risks facing the historic site. Seven fires broke out in the first 11 months of last year at the building, which has a postwar steam heating system with hot pipes lying next to electrical cables with minimal insulation. Meanwhile, 200 toilets failed earlier this month.

But the idea of fully shifting the Commons chamber to Whitehall is opposed by a group of largely Tory politicians and some ministers who believe the Victorian building should not be left unoccupied. They say the work should be carried out in sections while MPs remain on site.

In its submission to MPs, Historic England makes clear that it strongly supports the option of a full decant of workers and politicians as it would be the “quickest, most cost effective and carry the lowest risk”.

A further document drawn up by architects – and also seen by the Guardian – claims that alternative proposals to keep MPs on site also “have a higher level of security risk”.

David Brock, principal inspector of buildings at Historic England, said that keeping parliament operational while carrying out the work seriously lengthened the timeline to more than a decade if only half the tenants moved out at once, or 35 years if everyone stayed on site.

He added that they would be ‘extremely reluctant to place the building on the risk register. “We know how many people of goodwill are working towards the right outcome,” he said. “But we would have to consider it if it felt that there was no forward impetus.”

On Wednesday MPs will be asked to vote on two motions being laid by the government, with claims that one is being pushed by Downing Street, while a second is backed by the leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom.

The first of the motions, which Historic England is concerned about, would see the main decision delayed until the end of the parliament. The second would set up a delivery authority to assess three options in detail, including a full decant or retaining a parliamentary foothold, leading to a further vote in 18 months time.

There will also be amendments from the Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, who believes that MPs should retain a debating chamber on site throughout the works, and a cross-party group who want work to start more urgently.

That motion includes signatories such as Meg Hillier, the chair of the public accounts committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, and Conservative Johnny Mercer.

Bryant said he hoped that five cabinet ministers would vote with the motion, including Chris Grayling who chaired a joint committee that first recommended that MPs and peers move off site.

“We’ve got to stop shilly shallying around, we’ve got to make a decision,” said Bryant. “This is the most iconic building in the world and we should adopt the swiftest and most cost effective means of protecting it for future generations. That means a full decant while the work goes on.”

He said one of the government motions kicked the issue into the “long grass” and the other into the “very long grass”.

But Graham Brady, the Conservative MP who is backing Leigh, said the first motion would start immediate essential works. “The second point is it is obviously right we seek to spend public money wisely and it is far from clear that there would be massive savings from a decant followed by the building of a temporary structure, while the work is concluded,” he said.

“Many engineers and architects believe there is a viable way by which sections of the building could be isolated to allow the work to be done in a staged way allowing parliament to retain a footprint within the palace of Westminster throughout the period of works.”