Moving the Lords could be an inspired gesture of the government’s commitment to the regions

The government intends its suggestion of moving the House of Lords to York (or Birmingham) to be a symbol of its commitment to move power and attention out of London. It is right; symbols matter. 

There are practical questions to be answered, but none is an insuperable obstacle. What matters far more, though, is any changes about the makeup of the Lords – such as any step towards an elected second chamber. There were those in Parliament who resisted the full exodus of both Houses during the refurbishment that is soon to begin, on the grounds that members might never return. They look likely to be proved right, at least in the case of peers though not MPs. When peers leave the Palace of Westminster in the next few years, they might, the government suggests, be decanted to a permanent home in York, with Birmingham a possible runner up. The symbolic importance is indisputable. Part of the scrutiny of government and the process of legislation would move out of Westminster. 

Moving the House of Lords would probably save money 

It is likely that some of the £100m-odd annual running costs would fall (about a fifth of the total cost of running the Palace of Westminster), although costs cannot be the driving force. The shift would be intended to say something about priorities, and that message would be diminished if the change seemed driven merely by the search for a location cheaper than the capital. 

Of course, there would be the cost of a new building – but it would very likely be cheaper to run than the current one due to lower maintenance costs. It is also likely that it would need fewer than the 500-odd staff now running the Lords, and it is possible that they would be paid less than necessary in London. That would cut the £30m or so on staffing costs each year. Goods and services, around another £30m a year at the moment, might be cheaper too. 

The most unpredictable element would be the £23m or so spent on the peers’ daily attendance allowance (up to £300 a day, if they claim it) and expenses (much more curtailed than for MPs). Fewer peers might attend – many drop in comparatively briefly to the Palace of Westminster to claim the daily allowance – but those that did would almost certainly need recompense for travel and accommodation. The two hour train journey from London to York, combined with late sittings, would make overnight visits a necessity for many. At present., however, peers can only claim travel expenses in some circumstances, and can’t claim for accommodation – which is effectively wrapped up in the flat-rate daily allowance. An overhaul of the allowance system would probably be necessary. 

There would also have to be reform (or abandonment) of theatrical occasions such as the State Opening of Parliament, which begins with Black Rod knocking on the door of the Lords. A more substantial question is what would happen to the ways in which the Lords and Commons work together – such as joint committees – and where ministers who are also peers would spend their time. Those are, though, not insuperable. 

Upper House location is not as important as Upper House composition  

If the government is prompted to make this move by a desire to get the Lords – where there are many opponents of its Brexit plans – out of sight (and easy reach of the television cameras), it is the wrong side of the digital revolution to stand much chance of success.

But where the Lords sit matters far less than who they are. There are signs that the government may raise, as part of its Constitutional Commission in the spring, a proposal to make at least part of the Lords elected. This might be devised so that elected peers represented regions of the country. In theory, this might be an important step in strengthening public trust in government. But this is one reform – often mooted – where the devil really is in the details.

Whether the elections were on party lists has enormous implications for party control of the Lords. So would the length of terms, and – the point that help scupper past efforts – whether a partially elected Lords would begin to challenge the Commons for legitimacy. 

Moving the Lords out of London would have a real symbolic effect. But it would be to confuse form with content to say that where the Lords meet matters more than who they are.