There’s a strange feeling of déjà vu before today’s debate on the restoration and renewal of parliament — the second in less than three years, after more than four decades of failure to act.

Surely we should be using chamber time to focus on our Covid-19 recovery, not debating again whether to stay in the palace, or undertake a full decant. In that first debate on January 31, 2018, Hansard records the key facts that are still true today. First, 24/7 patrols are necessary to keep the million visitors a year and the 7,500 workers here safe and to retain our fire safety licence. Over the past ten years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire.

Second, there is a huge amount of asbestos packed into the walls that needs to be carefully and expensively removed to enable repairs. Third, many pipes and cables are decades past their lifespan, with some now impossible to access. The likelihood of a major failure grows the longer the systems are left unaddressed.

Fourth, we know that falling stonemasonry has on several occasions forced parts of the palace to be closed off. It is only by sheer luck that no one has been injured or killed.

So on the vexed issue of what to do, it is not a case of whether we fancy moving out or staying here, it is that if we don’t move out, all the evidence points to a disaster that will force us out. If and when that happens, as I pointed out in 2018, the contingency arrangement for a catastrophic failure in this palace is a provisional chamber in a building in Parliament Square, using curtains and temporary systems. It is designed to last for a few weeks, at most.

That’s why in January 2018 we agreed on a full decant to temporary alternative accommodation, for the five to ten years that restoration requires. Some argue that we should permanently move elsewhere; others that we should refuse to move out at all. To each of them I would counter that the Palace of Westminster is a world UNESCO Heritage Site; it is one of the most famous buildings in the world and it is the seat of our democracy — we don’t have the option to simply walk out and hand the keys back to the Queen, and it is surely our duty to maintain this iconic place for future generations.

The decision to move to a newly-built Richmond House was not taken lightly. Value for taxpayers’ money is vital. But the review of parliament’s security following the murder of PC Keith Palmer identified that both security staff and MPs were more easily protected within the palace estate.

Richmond House, no longer needed for government business, situated within the estate, in poor repair itself, was the preferred choice for a permanent contingency site where MPs could continue to work while the palace received the vital mechanical and engineering work that was so long overdue. Once the restored palace is back open as the beating heart of our democracy, Richmond House would provide a permanent contingency location, an education and debating centre, a home for the parliamentary archives and the extra committee rooms we have long needed.

Recent months have demonstrated that many of us can work productively from home, so the sponsor body’s review of the plans for decant are to be welcomed, but I do urge colleagues against lobbying others to try to convince them we should stay in the palace and risk hindering this vital work.

The last time the palace was restored was because it burnt down and those who plead that we cannot spend this money should reconsider the cost of rebuilding from the ashes. We have seen the devastation that happened at Notre Dame, and we cannot allow a similar disaster to happen here.

In an optimistic vein, restoration and renewal of this magnificent palace will create employment and training opportunities, apprenticeships and growth for small businesses and skilled craftspeople across the UK. It will showcase our creativity and ingenuity, spotlighting the best of British. It will provide work to thousands of people who in a post-Covid world will surely need it. This should rightly form part of the palace’s historic legacy and its place for future generations to come.

Andrea Leadsom is a Conservative MP and former leader of the House of Commons. This article originally appeared on Red Box.