Palace of Westminister — Restoration and Renewal — Cost-Effectiveness of Relocation — 31 Jan 2018 at 18:53

The majority of MPs voted against reviewing the cost-effectiveness of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster during renovations.

MPs were considering the following motion:

  • That this House—
  • (1) affirms its commitment to the historic Palace of Westminster and its unique status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Royal Palace and home of our Houses of Parliament;
  • (2) takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster ‘Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster’, HL Paper 41, HC 659;
  • (3) accepts that there is a clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in this Parliament, whilst acknowledging the demand and burden on public expenditure and fiscal constraints at a time of prudence and restraint;
  • (4) accepts in principle that action should be taken and funding should be limited to facilitate essential work to the services in this Parliament;
  • (5) agrees to review before the end of the Parliament the need for comprehensive works to take place.

The amendment rejected in this vote stated:

Amendment (c), at end of paragraph (2), insert:

  • '(2A) regrets that no detailed assessment has been carried out of the cost-effectiveness of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster, and calls for any future review to include such an assessment.'

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £100 credit (until 20th December) for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con235 (+2 tell) 3075.7%
DUP7 0070.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab164 5064.8%
LDem4 3058.3%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 31 (+2 tell)094.3%
Total:410 47072.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Jake BerryRossendale and DarwenCon (front bench)aye
Kevin FosterTorbayCon (front bench)aye
Marcus FyshYeovilCon (front bench)aye
Ian AustinDudley NorthLab (minister)aye
Gerard KillenRutherglen and Hamilton WestLab (minister)aye
Justin MaddersEllesmere Port and NestonLab (minister)aye
Graham StringerBlackley and BroughtonLab (minister)aye
Chris WilliamsonDerby NorthLabaye
Vincent CableTwickenhamLDem (front bench)aye
Edward DaveyKingston and SurbitonLDem (front bench)aye
Layla MoranOxford West and AbingdonLDem (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive