Moaning peers whine about threat to move the House of Lords to Stoke

Moaning peers whine about Boris’s threat to move the House of Lords to Stoke as they insist MPs should also be joining them up north

  • String of peers hit out at ministers’ suggestions they could be relocated to Stoke 
  • They question why – if they’re moving away from London – MPs won’t join them
  • Michael Gove has hailed the ‘formidable’ attractions of the Staffordshire city

Peers today moaned about Boris Johnson’s threat to move the House of Lords to Stoke as they furiously accused the Prime Minister of a ‘power grab’. 

In a two-hour debate, a string of peers hit out at ministers’ suggestion they could be relocated to the Staffordshire city while Parliament is refurbished.

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove recently hailed the ‘formidable’ attractions of Stoke as a new home for the Lords.

But peers, who can claim up to £323 for each day they attend Parliament, have reacted with anger to the proposal.

They today questioned why – if they were to move northwards from Westminster – MPs would also not be joining them.

Tory peer Lord Norton of Louth claimed the Lords needed to be ‘co-located’ with the House of Commons in order to help fulfil the ‘essential functions of Parliament’ and for the ‘convenience of citizens’.

The proposal to move the Lords away from London has been framed as part of the PM’s levelling up agenda, with Mr Gove having also suggested Burnley, Edinburgh, Sunderland, Plymouth, Wolverhampton or York as other possible locations for peers.

It was claimed the House of Lords needed to be ‘co-located’ with the House of Commons in order to help fulfil the ‘essential functions of Parliament’

A string of peers today hit out at ministers’ suggestion they could be relocated to Stoke while Parliament is refurbished

The proposal to move the Lords away from London has been framed as part of the PM’s levelling up agenda

But Lord Norton said: ‘Moving one chamber to another part of the country does not bring that chamber closer to the people.

‘It detaches it from those organisations who seek to put their case.

‘They will most likely remain London-based in order to lobby the House of Commons and Government.’

He also claimed that splitting the two Houses of Parliaments would constitute a ‘power grab’ by ministers.

‘Separating the two chambers empowers Government,’ Lord Norton added.

‘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.’

Lord Young of Cookham, a former Cabinet minister, joined his fellow Conservative peer in suggesting MPs should join the Lords in moving from London.

‘I notice it is not proposed the Commons should join us in this exodus,’ he said.

‘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.’

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove recently hailed the ‘formidable’ attractions of Stoke as a new home for the Lords

Lord Fowler, the former Lord Speaker, branded the proposal as an ’empty public relations measure’ with ‘a range of practical drawbacks’.

‘Far from increasing the influence of the second chamber with Government it will, by the policy of separation, decrease that influence,’ he said.

‘Out of the way, out of sight, that is the danger. It will make it much more difficult to hold ministers to account and the only people who will be happy with the result are ministers.’

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham of Droxford accused the Government of chasing ‘gimmicks and PR stunts’ in its levelling up agenda.

‘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,’ he said.

Lord Blunkett, the Labour peer and former home secretary, branded the proposal to move the Lords as a ‘nonsense’, adding: ‘The constitutional issue is the centrepiece and the core of why it is a nonsense.’

He told the debate: ‘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.’

Source: Read Full Article