Asbestos Count Soars in Parliament
New surveys have revealed a fresh surge in asbestos presence across the Palace of Westminster and the broader parliamentary estate. The total number of confirmed asbestos items now exceeds 1,650, marking an increase of 500 since 2021. Parliamentary authorities said the latest findings emerged during preparatory work for the long‑awaited refurbishment programme, which aims to address the building’s deteriorating fabric.
Despite the removal of 700 asbestos‑containing materials over the past five years, the overall tally has continued to rise, according to a Freedom of Information request by the BBC. The majority of the identified items are classified as low risk because they are concealed, but almost 200 are deemed medium risk, meaning they may require remedial action. A parliamentary spokesperson emphasised that “the absolute priority is the safety of those who work on and visit the parliamentary estate”, citing enhanced monitoring, new awareness training and further removal plans.
Health Risks and Political Fallout
Health experts and bereaved families have challenged the notion that concealed asbestos poses only a minimal threat. Kris Gledhill, whose mother Alice Mahon—Labour MP for Halifax from 1987 to 2005—died in 2022 from malignant mesothelioma, told the BBC that “asbestos should never be considered low risk”. He argued for a precautionary approach, noting that “in addition to the risks from buildings deteriorating over time, there are also risks of damage from extreme weather events, floods and fire, and from disturbances caused during renovation and maintenance work.” Ms Mahon, he added, was aware of the dangers and identified two workplaces where she may have been exposed, one of which was the Palace of Westminster.
Dr Hannah Moody, chief executive of Mesothelioma UK, warned that “although asbestos was banned in 1999, it remains present in many public buildings across the UK and continues to cause serious illness and work‑related deaths, including from the aggressive cancer, mesothelioma.” She urged the introduction of a national asbestos register and a phased removal programme for public buildings, stressing that “workers should be given health and safety advice to manage the risks.”
Commons authorities have cautioned that achieving an entirely asbestos‑free building is impractical without extensive demolition or irreversible damage to the historic structure. Their stance reflects the complex balance between preserving heritage and safeguarding occupants.
Restoration Debate and the £40bn Price Tag
The escalating asbestos problem has intensified pressure on MPs and peers to resolve the restoration and renewal (R&R) programme, a process that has been mired in indecision for years. The Commons Public Accounts Committee described the current moment as “crunch time”, warning that each additional year of delay costs taxpayers £420 million. The committee’s inquiry highlighted the “real and rising… grave risk” of a fire that could see “the whole lot go up”, drawing parallels with the “Notre Dame‑like flames” that would dominate global news coverage.
Geoffrey Clifton‑Brown, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, emphasised the urgency: “Consider the impact of global rolling news footage of Notre Dame‑like flames licking out of the building’s roof, resulting in the destruction of our heritage, or worse, injuries or loss of life.” He criticised “a political allergy to gripping the nettle” of refurbishing Parliament after years of procrastination.
The committee concluded that sufficient information now exists for MPs and peers to vote on a way forward before the end of the year. Government whips have reportedly discussed holding a debate and vote by then, although no date has been set. The vote would determine whether to proceed with up to £3 billion of initial works and would narrow down four current options ahead of a final decision by 2030.
One proposal would see both Houses vacate the site for up to 24 years from 2032, at a cost of up to £15.6 billion. Another option involves moving only the House of Lords out of the building, a plan that would cost £39 billion and take 61 years to complete. A further option retains the current arrangement with phased works, while a fourth suggests a hybrid approach combining partial relocation with in‑situ upgrades.
Critical setbacks identified by the committee include an over‑complex decision‑making process and delays in securing a temporary home for the Lords at the nearby Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, which is owned by the government. The committee also warned that the current trajectory could see the total project cost exceed £40 billion, a figure that has sparked intense debate among MPs and the public.
Why it Matters
The growing asbestos tally inside Parliament is more than a technical headache; it is a stark reminder of the human cost of delayed action on public‑building safety. The discovery that over 1,600 asbestos items remain—some posing medium risk—underscores the urgency of completing the restoration programme, not only to protect staff and visitors but also to safeguard the nation’s democratic heritage. The financial implications are staggering: each year of postponement drains £420 million from the public purse, while the overall bill could reach £40 billion and span six decades. The political pressure to “grip the nettle” reflects a broader societal expectation that elected officials should prioritise safety and preserve historic institutions rather than allow them to deteriorate into potential disasters. As the debate moves toward a vote before year‑end, the decisions made will shape not only the future of the Palace of Westminster but also set a precedent for how the UK addresses asbestos risks in its public buildings, influencing health outcomes for workers and the general public for generations to come.
