Relocation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

Several parties have argued for the relocation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from the Palace of Westminster, London to the English Midlands or Northern England, for economic and democratic reasons.

A background event is the bad shape of the Palace of Westminster, and the high projected costs of restoration parallel to continued sessions.

Proposals

There has also been some interest for relocation to Manchester, Kingston upon Hull, Birmingham, York, Oxford and Exeter, as well as more outlandish ideas such as Sealand. George Galloway has suggested Leeds as a new location.

The Electoral Reform Society supports the idea of relocation, making a case for England's or Britains demographic or geographic centres of gravity, as well as more hypothetic ideas, such as a touring parliament, or a parliament ship.

Current Position on Relocation

On the 29 October 2012 the House of Commons Commission issued a Bulletin stating:

At its meeting on Monday 29 October, the House of Commons Commission considered an internal Study Group report on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The Commission was united in taking very seriously its responsibilities for this iconic and much-loved Grade 1 listed building in a UNESCO world heritage site. It also expressed strong support for continuing to protect the health and safety of visitors, Members and staff. It is therefore of the unanimous view that doing nothing is not an option. Equally, the Commission is acutely conscious of the current public spending environment and is committed to ensuring that any consideration of how the Palace could be restored is based upon securing maximum value for taxpayers’ money. The report is a useful first analysis of the issues. However, the Commission has ruled out the option of constructing a brand new building away from Westminster and no further analysis will be undertaken on this option. In addition, the Commission was not persuaded that the case for a decant had been made, and wished to ensure that all options were rigorously tested by independent analysis, detailed costing's and robust technical information, to ensure no suggestion of internal bias. Fulfilling their obligations as custodians of the Palace of Westminster requires informed, considered decision-making by both Houses of Parliament. A great deal of work remains to be done before Parliament is in a position even to consider the merits and demerits in principle of particular options.

• Direct Link to the House of Commons Commission bulletin http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/house-of-commons-commission/minutes/commons-commission-bulletins-to-members/bulletin-29-october-2012/

On the 10 December 2015 Building.co.uk published: Nine firms and joint ventures have been shortlisted for two client advisory roles on the mammoth £6bn restoration of the Houses of Parliament. Allies and Morrison, BDP, Foster + Partners and HOK have been shortlisted for the architectural lot, while Aecom and Mace, Capita and Gleeds, CH2M, Arcadis and Turner & Townsend have been shortlisted for programme, project and cost management services. The client advisory contracts are expected to be awarded by the end of June 2016 and to be worth up to a combined £29m. A “decision in principle” on the form the Renovation would take (Duration/Schedule) is expected to be reached by members of both Houses of Parliament in spring 2016 to allow for the works to begin in 2020/21.

GOING FORWARD: A restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster could well result in the temporary relocation of Parliament but a permanent relocation to a new building now seems unlikely although the final hurdle of public reaction to the commitment of vast financial resources to the Westminster site could still have the potential to influence MP's and other groupings known to be supportive of a permanent move.

Arguments

• Meeting a desire of devolution and decentralization, expressed by movements such as the Scottish independence initiative.
• Avoiding an expensive restoration of the Palace of Westminster.
• Mitigating the privileges of the City of London.
• Deflating the real-estate bubble in London.
• Stimulating the economy of the Midlands and/or northern England.
• Emphasizing separation of powers.
• A move of the seat of Government to a greenfield site on the outskirts of Greater Manchester would shift the center of gravity of the main governing body of the Union centralizing it between its four main constituent parts England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales.

Alternative uses of the Westminster Palace

There are suggestions to convert the Palace into a museum. A more bold proposal is conversion into housing.