1-20 of 27 results for subject:Location
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.246 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Location
- We searched for
- subject_t:Location OR subject_t:Relocation OR subject_ses:91881
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords motion to take note of the case for both Houses of Parliament to continue to be co-located in the same city. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the case for both Houses of Parliament to continue to be co-located in the same city. Agreed to on question.
Lords private notice question on what consideration they have given to the location of the House of Lords Chamber during the restoration and renewal programme.
Lords private notice question on what consideration they have given to the location of the House of Lords Chamber during the restoration and renewal programme.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their current requirements for the geographic location of servers used to store public data when procuring cloud services.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their current requirements for the geographic location of servers used to store public data when procuring cloud services.
When procuring cloud services, departments should use the Technology Code of Practice principles and follow the government Cloud First policy. They should also follow NCSC security guidance and the Information Commissioner's Office’s guidance on adequacy of a country’s level of data protection. These policies and guidance provide clear guidelines of the things a department should consider, including security classification and best value for the taxpayer.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 11 August (HL7467), whether a feasibility study of using a site in York for the House of Lords or a government department has been commissioned by the Cabinet Office; and whether discussions about such a site have...
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 11 August (HL7467), whether a feasibility study of using a site in York for the House of Lords or a government department has been commissioned by the Cabinet Office; and whether discussions about such a site have...
There are already Civil Servants based in York. Through the Places for Growth Programme, the Cabinet Office is exploring opportunities to relocate Civil Service roles across the UK. By relocating more Civil Service roles, including senior grades and decision-making roles, out of London, the Government wants to create and distribute opportunity, jobs and investment across the whole United Kingdom.
In that context, the Government has engaged with the York Central Partnership, and, as part of this, explored whether the space would allow for Parliamentary activity, should it be required.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made toward establishing a government hub in York; which minister has overall responsibility for the project; and how they intend to update Parliament on further developments.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made toward establishing a government hub in York; which minister has overall responsibility for the project; and how they intend to update Parliament on further developments.
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in his Ditchley Speech, the Government is determined to ensure that the Civil Service is better distributed across the country. The Places for Growth Programme is working with departments and public bodies to firm up relocation plans and further details will be announced in due course.
The Places for Growth programme is exploring opportunities across the whole of the UK. Lord Agnew is the Cabinet Office Minister of State with direct responsibility for this programme.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many government hubs they are proposing to establish outside of London and the South East; and when they expect each of these to be fully operational.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many government hubs they are proposing to establish outside of London and the South East; and when they expect each of these to be fully operational.
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in his Ditchley Speech, the Government is determined to ensure that the Civil Service is better distributed across the country. The Places for Growth Programme is working with departments and public bodies to firm up relocation plans and further details will be announced in due course.
The Places for Growth programme is exploring opportunities across the whole of the UK. Lord Agnew is the Cabinet Office Minister of State with direct responsibility for this programme.
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the answer from Lord True to Lord Norton of Louth on 14 July (HL Deb, col 1546), when the information referred to will be provided to Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Norton of Louth.
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the answer from Lord True to Lord Norton of Louth on 14 July (HL Deb, col 1546), when the information referred to will be provided to Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Norton of Louth.
Further to the question posed during the debate on 14 July, a letter was sent on 21 July.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord True on 14 July (HL Deb, cols 1542–6), whether any feasibility study or costings have been undertaken by the Cabinet Office on moving the House of Lords to York; and, if so, which minister authorised the study.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord True on 14 July (HL Deb, cols 1542–6), whether any feasibility study or costings have been undertaken by the Cabinet Office on moving the House of Lords to York; and, if so, which minister authorised the study.
As part of the strategic review for the Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Government believes the Sponsor Body should consider decant locations outside London, including York. The location of the House is a decision for a sovereign Parliament.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord True on 14 July (HL Deb, col 1546), whether they will place a copy of any correspondence relating to their expenditure so far on the possible relocation of the House of Lords to York in the Library of the House.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord True on 14 July (HL Deb, col 1546), whether they will place a copy of any correspondence relating to their expenditure so far on the possible relocation of the House of Lords to York in the Library of the House.
The Prime Ministerâs letter to the CEO of the Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority and the CEO of the R&R Sponsor Body, which requests that it give consideration to decant locations outside of London, were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 15 July. This letter is also publicly available on the parliamentary website.
The Government is keen to ensure the R&R of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and would like the Sponsor Body to advise Parliament regarding a range of options as part of this process. As per the principle of exclusive cognisance, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament itself.
My Lords, as I said in my Answer on this last Monday, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Both Houses will need to review their sitting arrangements as part of restoration and renewal. The Government are keen to ensure that the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and asked the sponsor body to advise Parliament on a range of options and consider decant locations outside London in its strategic review. The Government are not prejudging any particular outcome.
My Lords, as I said in my Answer on this last Monday, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Both Houses will need to review their sitting arrangements as part of restoration and renewal. The Government are keen to ensure that the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and asked the sponsor body to advise Parliament on a range of options and consider decant locations outside London in its strategic review. The Government are not prejudging any particular outcome.
My Lords, as I said in my Answer on this last Monday, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Both Houses will need to review their sitting arrangements as part of restoration and renewal. The Government are keen to ensure that the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and asked the sponsor body to advise Parliament on a range of options and consider decant locations outside London in its strategic review. The Government are not prejudging any particular outcome.
My Lords, in the original debates on this subject, my noble friend rightly pointed to the heritage nature of this great Palace of Westminster, which I think we all hold dear. Indeed, heritage is one of the aspects referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter. So far as how the Houses will operate when decant—if decant—takes place, that is a matter for them. I would simply say that the broad and generous acres of Yorkshire are not in another continent.
My Lords, in the original debates on this subject, my noble friend rightly pointed to the heritage nature of this great Palace of Westminster, which I think we all hold dear. Indeed, heritage is one of the aspects referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter. So far as how the Houses will operate when decant—if decant—takes place, that is a matter for them. I would simply say that the broad and generous acres of Yorkshire are not in another continent.
My Lords, do the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that after restoration and renewal is complete, both Houses will continue to sit in the Palace of Westminster as their permanent home? Bearing in mind that only one bicameral legislature in the world, that of the Ivory Coast—we owe that information to the Lord Speaker—has Chambers in different geographical locations, does the Minister accept that it makes no constitutional or economic sense to remove either or both Chambers to any other city within the UK for just a few years?
My Lords, the sponsor body is independent: that was the decision of your Lordships’ House and of the other place. The strategic review was announced in May by the sponsor body and it is for it to progress as it wishes. It is open to every Member of Parliament, not just the Prime Minister, to put forward their views to the sponsor body.
My Lords, the sponsor body is independent: that was the decision of your Lordships’ House and of the other place. The strategic review was announced in May by the sponsor body and it is for it to progress as it wishes. It is open to every Member of Parliament, not just the Prime Minister, to put forward their views to the sponsor body.
My Lords, any suggestion about a move should have been made to the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, not in a letter to non-parliamentarians. I ask the Minister to remind the Prime Minister that he is not a president but is accountable to Parliament, which needs to be located close by so that the Prime Minister and Ministers can report to Parliament, no matter how much he dislikes having to do so. This is the nature of our democracy, and Parliament will hold him to it.
My Lords, I think the second part of the noble Lord’s question is germane to the Question that follows; I am not sure if he has a chance to ask a question on that. The Conservative Party’s donations are declared, permissible and controlled. On the first part of his question, I stand by every word I used last week.
My Lords, I think the second part of the noble Lord’s question is germane to the Question that follows; I am not sure if he has a chance to ask a question on that. The Conservative Party’s donations are declared, permissible and controlled. On the first part of his question, I stand by every word I used last week.
My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister’s letter proposing that both Houses of Parliament might relocate to York had already been sent when the Minister answered questions on this on 15 July, yet he made no reference to it in any of his replies. Was that because he was not aware of the letter or because he chose not to inform this House that the Commons might also be moved?
On 9 July, in answering questions on the ISC report on Russia, he described suggestions that the Conservative Party had received large sums from Russian donors as “wild charges”. Now that several articles in the quality press and the published ISC report have substantiated that such sums have been accepted by the Conservatives, will he withdraw that reply?
My Lords, giving personal views from this Dispatch Box is probably not the wisest thing. On the timescale, again, the sponsor body is independent. It will conduct its review on the timescale it has set out, but I understand that it expects and hopes to report this autumn.
My Lords, giving personal views from this Dispatch Box is probably not the wisest thing. On the timescale, again, the sponsor body is independent. It will conduct its review on the timescale it has set out, but I understand that it expects and hopes to report this autumn.
My Lords, I hope our democratic machinery will get a move on in taking a decision about relocation and will take a wholly common-sense view on what is appropriate, which I personally believe is to stay in Westminster. The great cities of this country have an important local leadership role and a role liaising with Westminster, but I do not think it makes any great sense for them to be considered as a location for our Houses of Parliament. The Minister is not necessarily in a position to support that, but I would be interested in his personal views.
My Lords, again, the sponsor body is independent. It was obliged under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, which your Lordships assented to, to prepare a strategy on this and to consult Members of each House of Parliament. That was published in May and, as I said, I hope and understand that the sponsor body will report in the autumn, but I take note of what the noble Earl said.
My Lords, again, the sponsor body is independent. It was obliged under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, which your Lordships assented to, to prepare a strategy on this and to consult Members of each House of Parliament. That was published in May and, as I said, I hope and understand that the sponsor body will report in the autumn, but I take note of what the noble Earl said.
My Lords, the Earl of Devon was first summoned to Shrewsbury, so I am not averse to sitting elsewhere, but I am very concerned
about delay. We passed the restoration and renewal Act last autumn with an urgent mandate to get to work immediately to save the Palace. Nowhere in the Act is the sponsor body empowered to second-guess that mandate. Under what authority is the sponsor body conducting its strategic review, and why is it not complying with its obligation to restore this key national heritage?
My Lords, I will have to take advice on the matter in order to respond to the noble Lord. Options coming out like chaff will have varying effects, as he will know. I repeat that this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of your Lordships’ House and, in the last resort, of the other place.
My Lords, I will have to take advice on the matter in order to respond to the noble Lord. Options coming out like chaff will have varying effects, as he will know. I repeat that this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of your Lordships’ House and, in the last resort, of the other place.
My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl because the situation is now confusing in terms of its accountability. Options seem to be coming out of No. 10 like chaff from an aircraft under missile attack. But given that we are in the season for crackpot ideas and bearing in mind that the furthest point from the sea in our great maritime nation is Coton in the Elms in Derbyshire at 45 miles, and that a large number of cruise ships that are now lying idle may in the future be available at very cheap rates, could not both Houses embark on a ship and operate from it while visiting all parts of our islands? I have raised this idea before on the Floor of the House and the Minister replying said that it would be looked at. Has it?
My Lords, I always commend an open mind, but unfortunately for the Liberal Democrat party, many of its proposals for reform have fallen on stony ground.
My Lords, I always commend an open mind, but unfortunately for the Liberal Democrat party, many of its proposals for reform have fallen on stony ground.
My Lords, since the origin of the idea to move to York came from No. 10, perhaps we should carry on up to Barnard Castle. In the meantime, the real wake-up call for this House is that for the past 20 years, the Conservative and Labour Benches have frustrated any real and radical reform of this House. I ask the Lord Speaker to call together the leaders of all parties to consider such a programme of radical reform. While I know that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, unless we are willing to reform ourselves, we will certainly be plucked and stuffed by that cabal in No. 10.
My Lords, I never answer hypothetical questions. On the factual point, as I have said, this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of both Houses.
My Lords, I never answer hypothetical questions. On the factual point, as I have said, this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of both Houses.
My Lords, in the event that the Government should decide to move this House to another location against its will, would that require primary legislation and would the Minister propose to take such legislation through all its stages in this House?
My Lords, a number of factors have been raised by noble Lords during our various exchanges of which I have taken careful note, and the considerations that my noble friend has put forward are among those. Indeed, they were alluded to in the Prime Minister’s letter, along with timelines, the effect on the work of Parliament and so on, which were specifically referred to.
My Lords, a number of factors have been raised by noble Lords during our various exchanges of which I have taken careful note, and the considerations that my noble friend has put forward are among those. Indeed, they were alluded to in the Prime Minister’s letter, along with timelines, the effect on the work of Parliament and so on, which were specifically referred to.
I welcome the statement by my noble friend the Minister that this is finally a matter for Parliament and not one for the Government to order. Knowing the obvious benefits of the two Houses working together in many fields, I hope that the Joint Committee which is investigating this matter recognises the importance of ensuring the closest possible co-location of the two Houses, and that in view of the problems caused by the pandemic, it seems quite unrealistic to try to move Parliament elsewhere in the country because it will be difficult enough to operate it even in our present locations.