Peers have criticised proposals for the House of Lords to temporarily move out of London while renovation works are carried out on the Palace of Westminster.
It is not the first time that the idea of a temporary relocation for the upper chamber has been mooted, with the latest indication that it could happen coming from levelling up secretary, Michael Gove.
In a letter to Lords speaker Lord McFall, Gove said: “It is clear to me that the House of Lords moving elsewhere, even for a temporary period, would be widely welcomed. I know cities and towns across the UK would be pleased to extend their hospitality to peers.”
Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Gove suggested that Burnley, Stoke-on-Trent and Sunderland could all be suitable locations to host the Lords.
Indeed, the Conservative party’s levelling-up agenda makes references to addressing regional inequalities by taking “decision-making closer to the communities”, and a temporary move for Parliament may be a step taken to help address that.
However, Lord McFall suggested that Parliament’s two houses needed to be kept as one geographically and any plan to separate them was “highly questionable”.
Lord McFall said in a letter to his fellow peers: “Whilst I agree with the secretary of state that politics can be too London-centric, I don't believe moving locations in and of itself would address these concerns.”
The Lords speaker also said that the role of the House of Lords was “indivisible” from that of its counterpart, the House of Commons.
Meanwhile, the independent Lord Carlile went further, suggesting that it would be “adverse and unconstitutional” for the Houses to operate geographically apart and that the Commons must relocate alongside the Lords if peers are required to move.
Others however have been more supportive of the idea, with independent Lord Austin arguing that there was “a case for looking at whether Parliament's deliberations could take place elsewhere in the country.”
However, a spokesperson for the upper chamber has said that it is a “matter for the House itself” to decide on any relocation, “whether on a permanent or temporary basis.”
The House of Lords had touted the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster as an alternative venue for parliamentary business during the works, a move which would keep disruption at a minimum given its close proximity to Parliament.
However, Gove said in his letter to Lord McFall that he “cannot endorse” plans for the Lords to “decamp to a temporary home a mere 200 yards” away.
The renovation works on the Palace of Westminster are set to cost billions of pounds and could take decades to complete. Full proposals for how Parliament will operate during the renovation works are expected to be tabled by a parliamentary commission later in 2022.
While MPs have already consented to the idea of vacating the House of Commons while works take place, the costs of the project are proving to be of concern.
The authority responsible for delivering the renovation works has suggested that if Parliament is fully vacated, costs should fall between £7 billion and £13 billion and works should be completed within 12-to-20 years.
However, if MPs or peers choose to remain in Parliament while works continue, it has been estimated that the cost of renovations could reach as high as £22 billion and take up to 76 years to complete.
Image taken from Wikimedia Commons
