Moving the House of Lords to Yorkshire is pointless - should we get rid instead? YEP letters

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
The debate in regards to moving the House of Lords north to Yorkshire will, to many, appear pointless.

By Shaun Kavanagh, via email

Pointless because even more people might consider “getting rid” of an institution that really is unnecessary, especially when considering the financial burden on the country.

One of the Lords’ functions is to adjudicate on issues prior to them becoming law. Such decisions could, and most probably should, be decided by the most eminent Queen’s Counsel barristers qualified in legal matters and not ex-politicians and others without the appropriate knowledge or experience.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad
the houses of parliamentthe houses of parliament
the houses of parliament

Why does the country need the current total of 800 peers with the potential to claim their daily attending allowance of £305 per day for their attendance in the chamber? A quick calculation, based on reduced attendance figures (i.e. 800 peers x £305 each x five days) at say an average of 40 attendances per peer per annum equates to a potential total of £48.8m.

The total is not based on the actual number of days a peer might attend so that figure could increase significantly. A massive cost for some undeserving peers, hereditary members who sit, say nothing and then go home with potentially £1,525 per week “tax free” plus travel expenses.

Read more:

At least one peer last year pocketed £50,000 for attending, sat and never spoke a word. What does that say for the value of the House of Lords?

Get rid of it as it is nothing less than “jobs for the boys, and girls” and “not even a job” at that.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The vast majority of peers are from the varying political parties so, judging by what goes on in the shambolic House of Commons, particularly during the last three years, it is simply an extension of the House of Commons therefore a worthless extension.

It is an extremely costly institution, an unnecessary financial burden on our society. Peers have even complained about their attendance allowance. Becoming a peer is generally an honour bestowed for services, even for those who failed whilst in service.

Many will ask, is the Lords necessary, more so when the recipients will have been doing what they wanted and being paid in the process?

Do people know anyone can apply to become a peer, yes apply, providing the applicant can meet the qualification criteria? That makes a mockery of the whole system. Instead of contemplating a move of the unnecessary and outdated House of Lords, let’s get rid.