Last week, the Restoration and Renewal Client Board published its costed proposals for saving the Palace of Westminster. The options have been narrowed to two: a full decant costing up to £15.6 billion over 20 to 25 years, or a semi-decant that could take 60 years and cost approaching £40 billion. A £3 billion first phase of works would begin this year.
The debate that follows will focus, as it always does, on where to put MPs while the building is fixed. Richmond House? The QEII Conference Centre? How big should the temporary chamber be?
But there is a more interesting question, and it is one that liberals should be leading on: why do we still assume that 650 MPs need to be in the same building at all?
We already know this works
During the pandemic, the Commons went hybrid. MPs participated remotely in questions, statements, and debates. Select committees took evidence from witnesses across the country and the world. Electronic voting functioned securely. The Hansard Society found that remote committee work was one of the most valuable innovations of the period, and Liberal Democrat MPs were among the highest users of hybrid participation.
Then Jacob Rees-Mogg ended it, forcing a return to physical-only proceedings without even allowing a debate on extending the arrangements. The Hansard Society called the decision “over-hasty, poorly thought-through, unwise and unnecessary.” MPs with disabilities, caring responsibilities, and constituencies hundreds of miles from London were simply shut out.
That decision was wrong then. Revisiting it now, when Parliament faces its biggest logistical crisis in a generation, is not just sensible. It is a democratic opportunity.
This is a liberal argument
The case for hybrid working is not really about technology or convenience. It is about who gets to participate in democracy and on what terms.
Westminster’s culture of presenteeism is a filter. It selects for people who can spend four days a week in London, maintain two homes, endure late-night votes, and have no caring responsibilities that conflict with an unpredictable schedule. It penalises MPs with disabilities, new parents, and anyone whose constituency is not a short train ride from SW1. It concentrates political power in London and weakens the connection between MPs and the communities they represent.
Liberals have always understood that institutions are not neutral. They shape who participates, whose voice is heard, and how power is distributed. A Parliament that requires permanent physical presence in central London is not a level playing field. It is a system designed by and for a particular kind of person, and it excludes others by default.
Hybrid working would not eliminate the demands of the job, but it would make those demands compatible with a wider range of lives. That is not a perk. It is a basic condition for a more representative democracy.







