IT may have been to celebrate Brexit or to banish the Brexit blues, but for whatever reason the amount of champagne bottles sold in the House of Lords has soared by a fizztastic 40% in the last year.
The SNP, which does not nominate anyone for the upper chamber at Westminster, are all in a tizz over the revelation, which came from figures revealed under Freedom of Information laws.
They show that bars and restaurants in the House Lords sold 520 bottles of champagne from December 2018 to October 2019, up from 369 last year.
The unelected Lords and Ladies in the House get an allowance of £305 per day which would enable them to buy seven bottles a day with the luxury champagne selling for £43 a bottle.
We know it’s a luxury “own label” champagne because in the years of the Labour Government the Lords rejected the merger of their catering service with that of the Commons, with one clerk alleging that they did so for fear that their champagne might be diminished in quality.
The Lords denied that was the sole reason for dismissing the merger, of course, and to be fair the catering subsidy was down. There is a serious point to all this after the recent reports revealing that Boris Johnson is plotting to put more Brexiteers and right-wing allies in the House of Lords.
Nicky Morgan has already been confirmed as a new member of the Lords so that she can stay in the job of culture secretary while the disgraceful case of Zac Goldsmith – to be made a peer after losing his seat to the Liberal Democrats – is only now coming under scrutiny after it was revealed that the Prime Minister’s partner Carrie Symonds is a personal friend of the new member of the Lords.
SNP MSP Tom Arthur said: “The public will be shocked that these unelected peers, defeated politicians and party donors are pocketing £300 a day – then guzzling champagne at the taxpayer’s expense.
“It seems the Lords would rather treat themselves by living a life most can only dream of.
“The idea of Lords – many of whom have been rejected by the electorate – spoiling themselves while poverty and food bank use continues to rise will be enough to make most voters sick.
“It’s time for this undemocratic, archaic and out-dated institution to be abolished 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