Moving the Lords north would have far-reaching implications

This spring, the government is planning to launch a review into the constitution. It will assess the workings of the courts and Parliament, with ministers reportedly contemplating a permanent move for the House of Lords — away from Westminster and to a city in the north or Midlands, such as York or Birmingham.

This is not the first time that a plan to move some or all of Parliament has been mooted. There is an argument to be made for moving the House of Lords a few hundred miles away from Westminster, but losing the practical advantages of being just a few hundred steps away from the House of Commons – and most government departments – needs serious consideration.

Cutting costs and ‘levelling up’ the country could be reasons to relocate the Lords

The government can point to two immediate reasons for relocating the House of Lords.

One motivation is to save money, with the relocation designed to cut costs as fewer London-based peers are likely to claim their £300-a-day attendance allowance. In reality, however, the effect on costs is likely to be more complicated, at least in the short-term.

The other reason is more symbolic, but perhaps more important for the government. Shifting the UK’s Upper House out of the capital would fit with the government’s desire to “level up” parts of the UK—and to solidify its position with voters in traditional Labour areas who moved to the Conservatives at the election.

Moving the Lords outside of London would clearly have significant symbolic importance. But it would also raise huge questions for the House’s work and ability to fulfil its functions – questions that, while not necessarily insurmountable, would require serious thought.

If peers move north then what about their staff, shared services and state openings?

Moving their lordships would presumably also require relocating the 600 staff who work in the Lords. This would need extensive consultation and an understanding of how it might shape the House’s ability to retain and recruit staff in the future. What, too, of those staff who work in roles that cut across the two Houses, like the Parliamentary Digital Service, or security? Would the Parliamentary Archives move with the House of Lords – where they currently sit – or remain in London?

There are also a raft of procedural questions. What, for example, of the ceremonies that bookmark each session of Parliament – state opening and prorogation? These require the Queen to attend the Lords, and MPs to physically move between the two Houses. Where and how would these ceremonies take place if the upper House were hours away from London? While those ceremonies are rare – if symbolically important – events, there are more everyday procedural implications too. The government has ministers in the Lords (including Cabinet ministers, such as Baroness Morgan, currently the secretary of state at DCMS). They need to be available to answer questions in the House, but also require access to their government departments – most of which remain London-based. The same is true of civil servants whose job is to track legislation through Parliament, or who need to provide briefings – often at short notice – to Lords ministers.

The work of select committees also needs to be thought through. Lords-based committees may find it harder to get officials to appear as witnesses if it requires a lenghty train journey rather than a short walk. And the situation would be even more complicated for Parliament’s handful of joint committees, whose members are drawn from across the two Houses. Would these committees still be able to meet regularly – and if so, where?

If these questions are not properly addressed, then there is a danger that the Lords may struggle to fulfil its role of scrutinising government and holding it to account. And what about the broader point about scrutiny of the Lords itself? National newspapers, mostly, based in London, would need to consider recruiting and deploying specialist Lords correspondents – who would then require their own form of briefing system – to work, remotely, with the Commons counterparts in Westminster. 

Relocating the House of Lords requires detailed thought and considerable persuasion

None of these questions are impossible to answer. The government might decide that the value of moving a key part of the UK constitutional system outside of London outweighs some of the challenges that it throws up. Or it might even feel that some of these challenges are in fact opportunities – to further decentralise the seat of government, rebalance the UK, or boost public engagement with Parliament. Nonetheless, all of these issues will need working through – and peers won’t be the only group who need to be persuaded that the move makes sense. This will require sustained, detailed thought by the government, in conjunction with parliamentary authorities.