This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42891608

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
MPs debating options for repairing Parliament Call to end 'patch and mend' of Parliament
(35 minutes later)
MPs will vote later on plans for multi-billion pound programme to to repair and modernise Parliament's buildings. The "patch and mend" approach to preserving the Houses of Parliament cannot continue, MPs have been told as they debate plans for a multi-billion pound modernisation programme
Parts of the Houses of Parliament are crumbling and there have been warnings of a potentially deadly fire unless ageing electrical systems are replaced. Commons leader Andrea Leadsom said the iconic building faced "critical risks".
Opinion is split over whether MPs and peers should move out of the Commons and Lords while work is done, seen as the most cost-effective move. Opinion is split over whether MPs and peers should move out of the Commons and Lords while work is done.
Commons leader Andrea Leadsom told MPs that Parliament faced "critical risks". Ms Leadsom said a decision on a full decant was needed but, if backed, would not happen before 2025 at the earliest.
There had been, she said, 60 episodes in recent years which could have led to a serious fire, adding that the "patch and mend" approach to the fabric of Parliament of the past 40 years was no longer viable. There had been, she said, 60 episodes in recent years which could have led to a serious fire.
While any full-scale restoration programme would be likely to see MPs and peers leave for a "significant" amount of time, she said the Palace of Westminster "will always remain the home of Parliament" and this would be guaranteed in future legislation.
As well as the threat of fire, the building is seen as vulnerable because of its antiquated sewerage system and areas of the palace, which was largely rebuilt in the 19th Century after it burnt down, are riddled with asbestos.As well as the threat of fire, the building is seen as vulnerable because of its antiquated sewerage system and areas of the palace, which was largely rebuilt in the 19th Century after it burnt down, are riddled with asbestos.
Two motions tabled by the government will be debated later on Wednesday. Two motions tabled by the government are being debated.
The first would allow MPs to approve essential repairs but agree to review the "need for comprehensive works" before the next election, which is due in 2022.The first would allow MPs to approve essential repairs but agree to review the "need for comprehensive works" before the next election, which is due in 2022.
The second would establish a body to carry out a "sufficiently thorough and detailed analysis" of various aspects linked to the restoration work, including whether MPs and peers should move out and whether this process should happen sooner. The second would establish a Sponsorship Board and Delivery Authority to carry out a "sufficiently thorough and detailed analysis" of various aspects linked to the restoration work, including whether MPs and peers should move out, reporting back to MPs within 18 months for a "take it or leave vote".
In 2016, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster warned that the decision on how to refurbish Parliament could not be delayed any further and backed a "full and timely decant". While Parliament needed to get on with the matter, she said the business planning must be rigorous to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
An amendment to the government motions tabled by Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier would back this recommendation. In 2016, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster warned that the decision on how to refurbish Parliament could not be delayed any further and backed a "full and timely decant" to Richmond House, a nearby building in Whitehall currently used by the Department of Health.
Labour's Chris Bryant told Sky News for MPs to want to stay in the building while extensive building work was taking place was "bonkers" and they had a duty to preserve Parliament for the next 100 to 200 years. Backing this option. Labour's Chris Bryant said for MPs to want to stay in the building while extensive building work was taking place was "bonkers" and they had a duty to preserve Parliament for the next 100 to 200 years.
"I say to colleagues, it is really time we got a grip of the situation and voted for something which might be inconvenient for us but is in the long-term interests of the nation." "I say to colleagues, it is really time we got a grip of the situation and voted for something which might be inconvenient for us but is in the long-term interests of the nation," he told Sky News.
Under his plan, Parliament would temporarily relocate to Richmond House, a nearby building in Whitehall currently used by the Department of Health. But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said he could no longer support the plan because the measurements had changed and the bulk of Richmond House would have to be demolished, considerably increasing the cost of the project.
DUP MP Ian Paisley said there was "no cheap option" and anyone who believed this was "deluded".DUP MP Ian Paisley said there was "no cheap option" and anyone who believed this was "deluded".
"There is necessary work that needs to be done and necessary money that needs to be spent," he said."There is necessary work that needs to be done and necessary money that needs to be spent," he said.
An SNP-led amendment would see MPs consider the option of whether to permanently abandon the Palace of Westminster altogether.An SNP-led amendment would see MPs consider the option of whether to permanently abandon the Palace of Westminster altogether.