Peers have branded a call to split up the two Houses of Parliament and decamp the Lords to another part of the UK a Government "power grab".
The warning came after Cabinet minister Michael Gove said the upper chamber could move to Stoke-on-Trent during a multi-billion-pound restoration of the parliamentary estate.
Scotland has previously also been suggested as a possible location for Lords, including a leaked letter revealing Edinburgh was considered an option and Mr Gove himself telling Times Radio Glasgow was also on the table.
However, the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, which is just a few minutes’ walk from the Palace of Westminster in London, was ruled out.
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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel