But Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, who opposes the full decant option, said the proposals were “absurd”.
“We should just repair the building like everybody else,” he told the BBC. “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.”
In contrast, the Prospect trade union called for a full decant.
“Successive governments and parliaments have been kicking the can down the road on restoration and renewal of the estate for years,” general secretary of the union, Mike Clancy said.
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.”
The restoration of Parliament has long been in the pipeline in Westminster. The parliamentary estate – which includes the House of Commons and the Lords – is crumbling and there are concerns about the risk of a catastrophic incident, such as a fire.
Parliament says there have been 36 fire incidents, 12 asbestos incidents and 19 stonemasonry incidents since 2016.
A parliamentary committee report from a decade ago warned that the Palace of Westminster “faces an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore”.
“Unless an intensive programme of major remedial work is undertaken soon, it is likely that the building will become uninhabitable,” it said.
No action was taken for years but with falling masonry, lingering asbestos, regular fires and exploding toilets, everyone agrees the work needs to be done.
However, there is no consensus on the way forward.
Either way, taxpayers will have to pay for the works and pick up a bill that is expected to run into many billions.