60 years, £40 billion: The UK taxpayers' cost to revamp British Parliament. How does India compare?

Fresh proposals to restore the British Parliament warn that the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster could extend for more than six decades and cost close to £40 billion if lawmakers continue to occupy the building during repairs.

At the heart of the issue is whether MPs and peers should temporarily vacate one of the world’s most iconic legislative buildings to allow comprehensive restoration work, or remain inside while construction is carried out in phases over several decades.

How UK's Palace of Westminster is at a breaking point

The Palace of Westminster, home to the UK’s House of Commons and House of Lords, is facing mounting structural and safety challenges after decades of underinvestment and piecemeal repairs.

Much of the building dates back to the Victorian era, with some sections even older. Over time, its internal systems and physical fabric have deteriorated to a point where maintaining the status quo is no longer viable.

More from Explainers

Shadow Warrior | The Epstein Files expose elite depravity

Explained: The row over the £9.6 million door at UK Parliament, which doesn’t work

The scale of the problem is mounted by the sheer cost of keeping the building functional. Repairing and maintaining the parliamentary estate currently costs approximately £1.5 million every week, a figure that officials have described as financially unsustainable.

Large sections of the House of Lords are facing potential heating failures, while the sewerage system has developed significant faults, reported BBC.

In areas constructed using reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, toilets have been permanently removed due to safety concerns.

Since 2016 alone, there have been 36 fire incidents within the parliamentary estate. Of these, 12 involved asbestos, a hazardous material once widely used in construction, while 19 incidents were linked to falling or unstable stonework.

Warnings about the condition of the Palace of Westminster are not new. More than a decade ago, a parliamentary committee report cautioned that the building faced an impending crisis and could eventually become uninhabitable without urgent and intensive remedial work.

However, despite repeated alarms, successive governments delayed decisive action, largely due to concerns over cost, disruption and political fallout.

The Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, the body tasked with overseeing the project, has now warned that continued delay will only increase both risk and expense.

In its assessment, postponing a firm decision adds an estimated £70 million each year to the overall cost, while allowing safety hazards to worsen.

In a statement accompanying its latest recommendations, the board said, “A decision is needed now on starting restoration work. Most of the building dates from the Victorian era and some parts are much older. Over the decades, its fabric and its services have deteriorated and require substantial repair or replacement. We are beyond the point where putting off these major works is sustainable.”

How UK's Palace of Westminster may be rebuilt

According to reports cited by The Times, if British MPs and peers agree to a “full decant” — meaning the entire Parliament temporarily relocates — the restoration process is expected to take between 19 and 24 years, with projected costs reaching up to £15.6 billion, including inflation.

Under this scenario, a complete move-out would begin in 2032, allowing engineers and construction teams unrestricted access to the building.

By contrast, if lawmakers choose to stay in the palace while repairs are carried out incrementally, the timeline could stretch from 38 to as long as 61 years.

The financial implications are equally dramatic. The cost of this option, which would involve complex phased construction around sitting MPs and peers, is estimated at up to £39.2 billion.

The board overseeing the project concluded that allowing Parliament to remain in the building would not only double the overall cost, but also significantly prolong disruption while increasing safety risks.

One of the more expensive proposals involves relocating only the House of Lords while leaving the House of Commons in place, a plan that could still take 61 years and cost nearly £39 billion.

Despite the scale of the figures involved, MPs and peers are not being asked to approve the full programme immediately. Instead, they are being asked to vote on an initial phase of work lasting seven years, with a budget capped at £3 billion.

This phase would include refurbishing the interior of the Victoria Tower, constructing a jetty on the River Thames to allow materials and supplies to be delivered by river, and beginning underground works on tunnel shafts needed for future stages.

If approved, these preliminary works could begin as early as this year. Temporary accommodation would also be built during this period to support MPs and peers during later phases of construction.

The R&R Client Board has said lawmakers must select a single preferred option by the middle of 2030. Any final agreement would require approval from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

How UK stakeholders have reacted

While there is broad consensus that the Palace of Westminster can no longer be left as it is, there is little agreement on how the restoration should be carried out.

Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh has emerged as a vocal critic of the full decant option, arguing that relocating Parliament entirely would be unnecessary and wasteful.

Speaking to the BBC, he said, “We should just repair the building like everybody else. We can do it in bits. We don't have to have a full decant. I don't think the MPs and peers, if they leave the building for 15 years, they'll ever come back. As far as the public are concerned, it's a complete and utter waste of money.”

Trade unions representing staff working on the parliamentary estate have taken a different view. Prospect, which represents engineers, specialists and other professionals, has strongly backed a full decant, arguing it is the safest and most cost-effective approach.

Prospect general secretary Mike Clancy said, “Successive governments and parliaments have been kicking the can down the road on restoration and renewal of the estate for years.”

He added, “Every report and expert assessment for more than a decade has found that a full decant is the safest and most value- for-money option. This is the option which Parliament should back.”

How UK taxpayers will bear the cost

According to figures reported by The Times, the cost of restoration will be spread across Britain’s 34.5 million income taxpayers. Under the most expensive option, each taxpayer would effectively contribute around £1,136.

A full decant, while still costly, would reduce that figure to approximately £450 per taxpayer. Even the initial seven-year phase would cost close to £100 per taxpayer.

The board has acknowledged the scale and sensitivity of the expenditure, stating that it is “all too aware of the very high costs involved in an infrastructure programme of this scale, complexity and duration”.

It has said it will continue to seek guidance from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and HM Treasury.

At the same time, officials argue that the restoration would deliver broader economic benefits, including the creation and support of thousands of jobs over several decades.

How India built a new Parliament

Comparisons are being drawn with India’s recent experience of parliamentary redevelopment. India inaugurated a brand-new Parliament building in May 2023, with its first legislative session held in September the same year.

The project emerged from concerns about the ageing Old Parliament House, which was completed in 1927.

By the early 2010s, proposals began circulating for a replacement building capable of accommodating a growing number of lawmakers and modern legislative requirements.

In 2019, the Indian government formally announced plans for a new Parliament building as part of the larger Central Vista Redevelopment Project.

The new structure was built on plot number 118 of the Parliament Estate on Rafi Marg, adjacent to the old building.

It was designed by architect Bimal Patel of HCP Design, Planning and Management, and constructed by Tata Projects after the company submitted the lowest bid in a competitive tender overseen by the Central Public Works Department.

Construction formally began in January 2021, following a groundbreaking ceremony in October 2020. Materials were sourced from across the country, with sandstone and granite from Rajasthan, teak wood from Maharashtra, and carpets from Uttar Pradesh.

A statue of India’s national emblem was installed atop the building in July 2022, and the main structure was completed the following month. The entire project was finished on May 20, 2023.

The new Parliament building is triangular in shape, spans 64,500 square metres, and rises to four floors. It has been designed to match the height of the old building and to withstand earthquakes.

The complex includes a Constitution Hall showcasing India’s democratic heritage, multiple committee rooms, lounges for MPs, dining facilities, libraries and extensive parking.

The Lok Sabha chamber can seat 888 members, while the Rajya Sabha chamber has capacity for 300. Importantly, the old Parliament House remained fully operational throughout construction.

Parliamentary sessions continued without interruption, as the new building was constructed alongside it rather than replacing it midstream.

Construction schedules were carefully coordinated around security requirements, VIP movements and session days. Workers, construction materials and traffic used separate access routes, ensuring that parliamentary business could proceed without disruption.

Once construction was complete, legislative activity transitioned seamlessly. The first proceedings in the new building took place on September 19, 2023, during a special session of Parliament. On the same day, the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023 was introduced.

The project’s estimated cost stood at around Rs 1,200 crore (approximately GBP 98 million), a figure that has been repeatedly highlighted in comparisons with Britain’s far more expensive and prolonged refurbishment plans.

Drawing attention to the contrast, BJP leader Vijay Chauthaiwale wrote on X, “Full renovation of British parliament (Palace of Westminster) will take 20 years if parliament moves somewhere in transit and will take 60 years if renovation is done in stages while parliament remains functional in same building. In the meantime, India has built its ultra-modern and aesthetically designed new parliament building in three years and started using it.”

With inputs from agencies