Parliament must not be divided by relocation, peers argue

Peers in the House of Lords have criticised Michael Gove for proposing the temporary relocation of the upper house of Parliament outside London.

The House of Lords could be moved elsewhere in the UK while extensive work is done to renovate Parliament.

On Monday, Mr Gove told MPs he would welcome the relocation, naming the city of Stoke-on-Trent as a possible host.

But one peer said dividing the two houses of Parliament would be an "adverse and unconstitutional act".

"Can he remind Mr Gove that we are one Parliament, not two," Lord Carlile told peers, suggesting the House of Commons, where MPs sit, should be part of any relocation.

He and other peers gave Mr Gove's proposal a chilly reception during a question on the location of the Lords during Parliament's multi-billion pound restoration.

The levelling up secretary made the suggestion in a letter to the Lord Speaker Lord McFall, reported by the Sunday Times and seen by the BBC.

"It is clear to me that the House of Lords moving elsewhere, even for a temporary period, would be widely welcomed," Mr Gove.

"I know cities and towns across the UK would be pleased to extend their hospitality to peers."

Mr Gove made similar comments when speaking in Parliament on Monday, touting the "formidable" attractions of Stoke-on-Trent, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson held a cabinet meeting last week.

Mr Johnson's government has previously raised the prospect of relocation before, first mooting the move in January 2020.

Taking "decision-making closer to the communities" is part of the government's flagship levelling up agenda, which seeks to address regional inequalities.

But a spokesperson for the Lords said any decision on relocation "whether on a permanent or temporary basis, is ultimately a matter for the House itself".

A parliamentary commission is expected to make proposals about future arrangements for the restoration programme later this year.

MPs have already voted to accept the principle of vacating the Commons during restoration work, but issues such as the rising projected cost have provoked a backlash.

In their debate on relocation, peers were mostly dismissive of the idea and critical of Mr Gove for raising it in the manner he did.

Conservative peer Lord Forsyth, whose question prompted the debate, said relocation was "a matter for this house, and not for the executive".

In one pointed intervention, Conservative peer Lord Cormack asked if Mr Gove had been given the authority to contact the Lord Speaker, or "was this just another freelance exercise by another intellectual flibbertygibbet?"

Some peers argued it was impractical to separate the Lords from the Commons.

However others supported the move, including independent peer Lord Austin, who said: "I think there is a case for looking at whether Parliament's deliberations could take place elsewhere in the country."

The restoration of Parliament will cost billions - but the price will go up considerably if MPs or peers stay put in the building.

Earlier this year, a report said the restoration could take up to 76 years if MPs were not moved, with the price tag for repairs reaching £22bn.

The project's sponsor body and delivery authority said the cheapest option would involve a "full decant" of the palace for between 12 and 20 years, leading to the work costing between £7bn and £13bn.

This method would cut the restoration time to between 19 and 28 years.

Some peers wanted to use the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster - minutes away from Parliament - as an alternative venue during the restoration.

The Lords had begun working on plans for a relocation to the QEII.

But in his letter to the Lord Speaker, Mr Gove said he "cannot endorse" a plan for peers to "decamp to a temporary home a mere 200 yards from the Palace of Westminster".