Last Monday, the roof of the House of Commons chamber contrived to leak. This adds to the long list of hazards – asbestos, sewage leaks, crumbling masonry, fire risk – that I described in the Observer two weeks ago, along with the mind-bending £7bn-£13bn estimate for putting them right. The daunting scale of the problem prompts in many an understandable reaction, that it would be better to relocate parliament to an entirely new building. The palace, though, as a globally famous monument, will still have to be restored, whether or not MPs and lords continue to work there.
An alternative way to reduce cost would be to think the unthinkable about heritage. For a feature of the building is the sheer expanse of intricate interior detail, much of which is never seen by the public. It is like a big fat Victorian novel that doesn’t know when to stop. Is it essential to the building’s beauty and significance that absolutely all this detail be retained and reconstructed? Does world heritage truly need mile after mile of Victorian double-flock wallpaper and linenfold oak panelling? The answer, from parliamentarians, would probably be a scandalised “yes, we do need to keep it all”. In which case, subject to robust scrutiny of the costings, the bill will have to be paid.
