Jacob Rees-Mogg hints any move of Parliament to York would be temporary

A letter from Boris Johnson to those in charge of Parliament’s £6bn restoration and renewal project revealed this week that the Prime Minister asked for York to be considered as a location to move either the House of Commons, House of Lords, or both, when MPs and peers move out for essential work to be done.

But MPs today questioned whether the proposal was temporary, or for the long term, following rumours the House of Lords could be moved North permanently.

In the Commons Tory chairman of the Liaison Committee Sir Bernard Jenkin said: “I’ve listened carefully to what (Mr Rees-Mogg) has been saying. He’s laid great emphasis on saving the building, the Palace of Westminster.

“But can he just clarify it is the policy of the Government that this should be saved in order that it should be the home of our national Parliament, permanently?”

Leader of the House Mr Rees-Mogg replied: “I think (Sir Bernard) may be alluding to the mention in the Prime Minister’s letter of York and I would remind (Sir Bernard) that between 1301 and 1335, Parliament met in York 11 times, but that when Edward IV tried to get it to move to York it was unsuccessful.

“And so it will end being a matter for parliamentarians as to where this House sits.

“Though strictly speaking, the meeting of Parliament is called by the sovereign to her palace at Westminster and that, I think, is something that it would be highly unlikely to change without the acceptance of parliamentarians.”

While Rother Valley Conservative MP Alexander Stafford said the Lords should move out, with MPs moving into the second chamber in their absence.

He said: “We were bombed in the Second World War, and we moved down to the other place [the Lords].

“We should move down to the other place, we should be where the Lords are, and they should be the ones to decamp.

“We are democracy, the other place is not the beating heart of democracy, but we are, so we need to stay here and it's not beyond the wit of man to understand how to do that, and frankly to say otherwise is defeatist.”

In a letter published on Wednesday, Mr Johnson said that locations outside London should be considered as a review is under way on how to handle the repair works at Parliament, which some estimates state could cost £6bn.

Mr Johnson wrote: “The Government is considering establishing a Government hub in York and it would therefore make sense to consider this as a potential location.”

Shadow Commons leader Valerie Vaz questioned if a temporary move to York had been costed, adding in the Commons: “This House won’t be able to continue with a patch and mend approach or a quick fix – that won’t do – and any delays will exacerbate the problem, probably making it cost more.”

While Labour MP Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) asked if parliamentary staff would be expected to move to York if Parliament relocated there.

Meg Hillier, Labour chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, cautioned MPs to be aware of the “smoke and mirrors” from Downing Street.

She said: “I put the move to York for the House of Lords in the same category as the bridge to Northern Ireland or the estuary airport or the garden bridge.”

When the Lords debated the idea of a move to York earlier this week, Lord Singh of Wimbledon said: “York is seen as something of an Outer Mongolia by the general public, who view the House of Lords as an outdated institution.”

Today leader of City of York Council Keith Aspden invited Lord Singh to the city.

Writing to Lord Singh he said: “I recognise the concerns raised by members of the Lords in regard to how the proposed relocation would impact on the checks and balances embedded in our democratic systems, which ought to be respected and preserved. However, I hope you will agree that the Government must address the regional inequalities and work to decentralise our political system to achieve a more politically and economically balanced future.”

He added: “Whilst it is disappointing to hear honourable members of the House of Lords refer to York in an unflattering manner, and it only further demonstrates the need to embrace the proposed relocation as the first step towards genuine decentralisation of the London-centric political bubble.”

Before Parliament voted in 2018 to approve the renewal works, which will entail decanting the whole building for at least six years, MPs had pushed rival plans that would have seen only a partial vacating required.

This would have forced builders to work around the Commons schedule.

The idea has since gained traction again following the coronavirus outbreak.

A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) stated that the £4 billion cost previously reported for the project was likely to be a “median” figure, with the final outlay on the Unesco World Heritage Site expected to be higher.

Initial estimates put the final bill as high as £6bn, with the builders expected to be in until the 2030s.

The body said that a team will assess whether a recommendation made in a report four years ago that all MPs and Lords should leave the Palace of Westminster while the work was carried out is still the “best and most cost-effective” option.

Under the previously agreed plans, MPs are expected to move to Richmond House, the former home of the Department of Health, while the Palace of Westminster – with a floorplate the size of 16 football pitches and containing 1,100 rooms, 100 staircases and three miles of passageways – is being restored.

Parliament authorities spent £369m maintaining the estate between 2015-19 and have predicted that costs will increase further without significant restorative works, with jobs identified including removing asbestos from 1,000 locations and repairing falling masonry.

The sponsor body is expected to report its findings in the autumn.

The NAO called for a tight grip on expenditure for the project in its April report.