A CALL to split up the two Houses of Parliament and move the Lords to another part of the country has been branded a Government “power grab” at Westminster.
The warning came after Cabinet minister Michael Gove suggested the upper chamber could move to Stoke-on-Trent during the multi-billion pound restoration of the parliamentary estate.
The Levelling Up Secretary put forward the idea after ruling out the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, which is just a few minutes’ walk from the Palace of Westminster in London, as an alternative location for the Lords during any decant.
The conference and exhibition space is an executive agency that comes under Gove’s department.
It is not the first time ministers have suggested moving the unelected chamber, where the Government does not have a majority, with York previously mentioned as a possible home during the extensive renovation of the crumbling Palace of Westminster.
The Government has insisted any future decamp was a matter for Parliament.
Leading a debate on the issue at Parliament, constitutional expert and Tory peer Lord Norton of Louth stressed the need for both houses to be located together in order to fulfil their respective functions.
He said: “Separating the two chambers empowers Government. The suggestion that the House of Lords moves to a different part of the country with the House of Commons in Westminster is essentially a power grab by the executive.
“I am not making the case against the House of Lords moving. I am making the case against the House of Lords alone moving.
“If one chamber moves, the other must do as well and so too must the executive.
“If Westminster decamps then so too must Whitehall.”
Labour former Cabinet minister Lord Blunkett argued against dismissing the suggestion of separating the two houses as “mischievous politics”.
He said: “Some of those who have been putting forward the notion of splitting our Parliament have a brain and understand exactly what they are doing, but are not mindful of the long-term consequences and the spin-off which would occur in terms of the way our democracy works.”
Liberal Democrat Lord Stoneham of Droxford said: “I do find it slightly ironic that those who were telling us a few years ago about the huge extravagance and duplication of housing the European Parliament in two places are now very keen for Parliament to meet in two locations.”
Former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler said: “I don’t think that what is proposed adds up one bit to a levelling-up agenda. The public are not fools. They would see it as an empty public relations measure – a measure which has a range of practical drawbacks.”
He added: “Far from increasing the influence of the second chamber with Government it will, by the policy of separation, decrease that influence. Out of the way, out of sight, that is the danger.”
Tory former cabinet minister Lord Young of Cookham said: “I notice it is not proposed the Commons should join us in this exodus.
“If relocation of the Lords elsewhere would have a leading role to play in delivering the levelling-up agenda … would not that impetus be magnified several times over if we were to be joined by the other place?
“Sauce for the ermine goose is surely sauce for the plebeian gander.”
Responding, Cabinet Office Minister Lord True told peers any decision about its location was to be decided by them, and that they could not be forced to move by the Government.
He said: “By the principle of exclusive cognisance. Any decision of its location is a matter for this house itself to decide upon.
“The Government – and I speak at this despatch box as a Government minister – recognises and respects that position.”
He added that he agreed with “all of those points” raised regarding the benefits of co-location.
