The House | As former London Fire Brigade Chief, I believe we must choose the safest restoration option: full decant

4 min read5 min

In my current roles as Chair of the National Building Safety Regulator and strategic safety advisor to Transport for London, I continue to have a direct involvement in construction, public, and workplace safety. The restoration and renewal of Parliament is therefore a matter of particular interest.

As we approach a critical decision about how to repair and preserve this magnificent building for the nation, I offer a perspective shaped by decades of experience in safety and risk management, including as a frontline firefighter.

The first point to acknowledge is my newfound understanding of why the building is such a difficult place to leave, even temporarily. Its history and role in our democracy render the decision before us both practical and, for some, existential in nature.

After a career responding to major incidents and addressing the aftermath of tragedies both large and small, I am convinced of the case for choosing a full decant of Parliament during restoration. Safety in ageing buildings never stands still and without significant further intervention, the risks escalate alongside the decaying fabric.

The cost of merely maintaining the status quo and remaining compliant with safety legislation could easily exceed the current annual expenditure of approximately £70 million. Especially if phase one works do not commence and a rational restoration choice is not made.

It is understandable that people compare this project to renovating a home while still living there. But that comparison is simply not reliable. This major restoration requires a large workforce, complex procurement and contracting models, and materials far beyond domestic scale. The standards for a heritage building that is also a heavily used workplace are significantly higher than a family home.

Parliamentarians insisting on robust change control and an accurate budget for the delivery process is both necessary and justified. Based on my experience of some of the largest infrastructure projects, this is set to be among the most complex and large-scale work sites in Europe – making such controls essential.

Furthermore, the work required to bring Westminster up to even basic legal compliance with building regulations is considerably more challenging and expensive than starting from a vacant plot.

Some have argued that if the Palace were truly unsafe, it would have been closed already, thereby casting doubt on the safety case for a decant. This oversimplifies how proportionate regulation operates in a heritage building of this size and occupancy. Regulation involves making almost daily informed decisions by weighing risks and accounting for the building’s ongoing deterioration. It also fails to factor in the increased risk during any chosen renovation programme.

As London’s Fire Commissioner, I oversaw the safety of 20,000 listed buildings. Westminster was the highest risk of all, due to its current state of repair and high occupancy – and all despite it being exceptionally well managed.

The fire loading in the Palace – the amount of combustible material – is extraordinary. Almost no other building in London compares; and its art, architectural features, and collections are priceless. On top of that, it is populated daily by thousands of staff and visitors, including disabled people and others who require additional support to evacuate.

In the event of a major incident, the London Fire Brigade would face difficult choices. Depending on the time of day the safe evacuation of many, many people would almost certainly take precedence over the preservation of the building. Just think about the scale and complexity of that task.

Compounding the fire loading risks are ageing electrical and other utility systems, ongoing hot cutting work as part of maintenance, frequent fire incidents, and access and layout challenges. Its continued safe operation is only made possible by regularly updated fire plans, engineering solutions such as sprinklers and mist sprays, and the outstanding daily work of dedicated safety professionals.

All these challenges come before the arrival of one of the largest renovation projects in the world, which will introduce additional access challenges for firefighting. My extensive experience of safety on construction sites leads me to the firm conclusion that I would not wish to remain on site when major works gets fully underway.

Some will likely disagree or view my concerns as excessive. As a professional firefighter who joined the London Fire Brigade out of a willingness to take risks rather than avoid them, my perspective is grounded in what I’ve experienced rather than caution for its own sake.

Sadly, things can and do go wrong – even in buildings or systems long considered safe enough. I have witnessed too many tragedies and counted out too many bodies to believe the unthinkable cannot happen.

In that spirit, I urge all colleagues across the Palace to make the rational decision: begin enabling works now, regardless of which final option is chosen, and make way gracefully for the renovations to proceed when the time comes.