RUTH Davidson says she would vote to scrap the unelected House of Lords – despite being on the verge of taking her seat in the chamber.
The claim has been branded “laughable” by the Scottish Greens, who dismissed any pretensions that the Scottish Tory is determined to reform democracy in the UK.
In an interview with the Scotsman, Davidson reflected on her Holyrood career as she steps down from the Parliament.
The former party chief has repeatedly been accused by Nicola Sturgeon of shying away from voters after accepting a peerage from Boris Johnson.
But the Scottish Tory insists she wants to spark changes in the House of Lords.
"I think we should have an elected second chamber and will absolutely vote for it and will hopefully help work to establish what an elected second chamber is going to look like,” she said.
"I don't think an unelected chamber is going to last very long to be honest because there's pretty much agreement across all the major parties that it should be an elected chamber.
"However, the system we have at the moment exists, it's quite an important function to do legislative scrutiny – we don’t have that in Scotland and I think we’ve seen where that has fallen down – and I don't think the chamber that exists should only be filled with people who live inside the M25 corridor because the legislation it's looking at applies to the whole country."
The Scottish Conservative has previously been tipped to take up an unelected position in Boris Johnson’s government when she takes her seat in the Lords.
But Davidson denied having any interest in such a role, adding: “I became [party] leader in Scotland almost immediately after getting elected – I didn’t get to learn my trade on the backbenches.
"I’m going to the House of Lords to learn to be a backbencher, to be involved in the House of Lords when I’m there. I'm not looking for, nor would I accept, a role that takes me away from my family when they're just young.”
The Edinburgh MSP’s assertions were ridiculed by Patrick Harvie.
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson to 'have unelected role in UK Government once in House of Lords'
The Scottish Greens co-leader told The National: "The idea that a newly-enrobed Conservative peer wants to put herself out of a job is laughable.
"The Tories have shown no interest in democracy. They have misled the Commons, tried to prorogue parliament, dodged scrutiny on Covid contracts and are taking powers away from our devolved parliament in Scotland."
He added: “I've no doubt Ruth is looking forward to an easy life as an unelected backbencher, but let's not pretend it is going to lead to a modernisation of the UK's broken democracy.”
An SNP spokesperson said: "Baroness Ruth Davidson's hypocrisy knows no bounds - just as she is running away from democratic accountability she claims she wants to make the House of Lords more democratic.
"That claim rings hollow, especially when she is about to pick up her £300-a-day of taxpayers' money simply for turning up in the Lords.
"Baroness Davidson should be careful what she wishes for - if the House of Lords was to become elected, the people of Scotland would most certainly vote her out of it!"
Downing Street has set a precedent for appointing unelected politicians to its government.
The Prime Minister recently handed former chief Brexit negotiator David Frost a peerage, before appointing him to a newly created role in the Cabinet. Frost, who has never been democratically elected to any role, was put in charge of overseeing the UK’s relationship with the EU.
Other peers in Boris Johnson’s government include Health Minister James Bethell, who likewise has never been elected to any political position.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel