MEMBERS of the House of Lords may have quaffed more than 700 bottles of their own-brand bubbly last year, according to figures obtained by the SNP.
Bars and restaurants serving peers sold 369 bottles of own-label champagne in 2017/18, alongside 292 bottles of prosecco and 25 bottles of rose champagne.
In their response to the SNP, the Lords make clear that all food and drink sold in their venues are “above cost price”, and that the facilities are open to a “wide number of users including members of both houses, staff, visitors to the parliamentary estate and journalists based in the press gallery”.
Even so, around £1.2 million of the public’s money is spent every year subsidising catering, including more than £700,000 for the peers’ dining room.
A recently published wine list revealed that the £43 own brand champagne is one of the cheaper options, with Champagne Pol Roger, Winston Churchill’s favourite brand, selling for £72.
The dining room was open to the public for three weeks last year, charging £45 for three courses.
A freedom of information request from 2013, however, disclosed that peers were able to order a two-course lunch for £15.50.
The bars in Parliament are probably the only places in central London where a pint of draft beer costs less than a fiver.
SNP MSP Bill Kidd was outraged at the perks for the 790 members of the Lords: “The House of Lords is a democratic disgrace – with party donors and cronies given a say on our laws without the chance for voters to kick them out.
“It’ll stick in the craw of voters to hear that these unelected Lords are guzzling champagne and prosecco while others are struggling.
“The Lords are just one of the ways in which the Westminster system is archaic and out of touch – and they should be scrapped for good.”
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