By Ollie Whiting

THIS week the relocation of the House of Lords during the refurbishment of Parliament has been hotly debated.

Initially, the Lords believed that they would be able to move just 200 yards up the road to the QE2 conference centre, but the peers were told to look elsewhere after this proposed move was blocked by the landlord and Levelling Up Minister Michael Gove.

Gove told the Peers that they would have to move miles away during the restoration of Parliament, saying that he did not want them as tenants, suggesting alternatives such as Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, and Burnley.

The Lords did not take the rejection from Gove amicably with Tory Peer, Lord Cormack accusing Gove of a “freelance exercise by an intellectual flibbertigibbet”.

An independent Peer from the Lords, John Mann, has claimed that if The Lords moved to a location up North, then the number of lords would be cut from 775 to 300, saying “All the peers who are just using it (Westminster) as their London dining club would stand down”.

There has been criticism over the cost of the House of Lords now for many years. This is due in part to The Lords drumming up an eye-watering annual £117m bill for the taxpayer, with 20 per cent of that money used for generous £323 daily allowances.

The sheer expense of The Lords, coupled with accusations of Boris Johnson selling peerages for party donations, has led to questions over the political authority and integrity of the unelected second chamber of the UK political system.