I announced in a written statement on 17 December 2013 that the contract had been awarded for an independent appraisal of the options for restoring and renewing the palace, in co-operation with the House of Lords. A temporary relocation of Parliament is one of the options being analysed. Other options include a phased programme of less disruptive interventions or a partial relocation. No decisions on the matter are expected in this Parliament, and certainly not before the report is received.

What consideration is being given to a temporary relocation of Parliament to enable refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster.

I fear that once again we are kicking an issue into the long grass. Sadly, we have lost the opportunity to relocate to east London now that the Olympic park is soon to reopen. Would not a relocation to somewhere such as, say, Birmingham, in the centre of the country—[Interruption.] It could be Birmingham or any other city that Members may wish to suggest. Would that not only speed up the improvement of this place but modernise ways of working and change the culture of this place once and for all?

As explained in evidence submitted to the Procedure Committee for their review of the parliamentary calendar,¹ it is not possible to determine accurately the costs or risks of breaking up the long recess, as costs will vary from project to project, and hence from year to year.

Major projects being undertaken this summer, notably the mechanical and electrical works in the Palace of Westminster including the corridor works on the Principal Floor, were planned around the known sitting dates. There were no quantifiable additional project costs. However, it will not always be possible to schedule

works to fit a shorter summer recess without additional costs, and some projects cannot be deferred indefinitely. An analysis prepared by the Director General, Facilities for the Finance and Services Committee in 2011 suggested that, if there were a permanent reduction in the uninterrupted period available for summer works to five weeks, the overall cost penalty would typically be of the order of £1.5 million, predominantly in capital costs, based on the mix of projects undertaken in 2011-12.

Routine maintenance and the rolling programme of projects to the Palace of Westminster are planned around known sitting dates, and project timeframes therefore reflect this constraint. The key factor for the Parliamentary Estates Directorate is certainty about the parliamentary calendar to allow for effective planning.

Apart from the works programme, the marginal costs of September sittings are relatively low because most other operating costs are fixed for the year as a whole and are unaffected by the number and distribution of sittings. Marginal costs of a two week sitting in September are about £200,000, mainly as a result of increased Hansard costs and late-night working. If sitting in September resulted in fewer sitting days at other times, there would be offsetting savings.

In January 2012 the Commission appointed a Study Group to examine the long term requirement to renew the infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster. In its terms of reference the group was asked to examine the full range of options, including a temporary re-location of Parliament. The report of the Study Group is expected to be submitted to the Commission and the House Committee of the House of Lords next month.¹ Written evidence submitted by the Clerk of the House and Chief Executive, available at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmproced/writev/1370/p220.htm