PROPOSALS by the Lords to draw up a new Act of Union were last night said to increase the case for abolition of the “irrelevant” Upper House.
Martin Docherty, the SNP MP, claimed the plan illustrated the pressing need to reform the Lords which he said was not “fit for purpose”.
He said: “Despite their utter irrelevance, Lords now want to try to influence the democratic debate on Scotland’s future, proposing a House of Lords ‘Act of Union’.
“Lectures on the future of democracy in Scotland from the House of Lords shows just how out of touch they are.
“I do believe a democracy as varied and of the size of the UK should have a revising chamber, but this must reflect democratic traditions. There are numerous models around the world on how this could be achieved – and it is clear that the House of Lords is simply no longer fit for purpose.’’
Yesterday, The Herald reported a cross-party group of Lords was working on plans to draw up a new Act of Union in a bid to try to weaken momentum towards a second independence referendum.
Docherty, who secured a debate on the future of the Upper House in the Commons yesterday, added: “The House of Lords is an absurd, anachronistic legislature. It is full of more thanover 800 unelected cronies and donors who are not accountable to the electorate, and who are given a peerage for life. The electorate have a right to expect something better in terms of how legislation in this country is scrutinised. That is what our debate is about today.”
The Prime Minister David Cameron has faced accusations of cronyism after appointing a raft of new Tory peers, including former ex-ministers and advisers.
Among Those appointed last year included the Glasgow-born businesswoman and Tory supporter Michelle Mone.
Peers can turn up for atheir £300 tax free daily allowance and are not require to contribute to debates.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here