Tom Richmond: It's time for an end of this unsavoury peer show

Even with the new peerages skewed in the Conservatives' favour, it still leaves Labour with the most representatives in the Upper House – and Cameron hinting that he might have to appoint even more hobby politicians to ensure that the coalition's legislation is passed.

This would, of course, not be an issue if the House of Lords was fully-elected. This cannot come a day too soon. It frankly stinks that party donors can be given peerages – and a right to influence policy – that is denied to mere mortals. Buying privilege should have no place in a civilised democracy.

The counter-argument is that the Lords offers a more mature, and reasoned, debate that is rarely witnessed in the House of Commons – an argument that holds some credence judging by the empty benches on Monday afternoon for the Prime Minister's statement on Nato's withdrawal from Afghanistan and George Osborne's briefing on the Ireland bailout.

For the former, Cameron received just 26 questions from backbenchers. Taking aside Ed Miliband's response as Labour leader, there were no contributions from Yorkshire MPs.

And, on the latter, Alan Johnson's reply as Shadow Chancellor was followed by 49 questions, including four from Yorkshire MPs. They ranged from David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, querying why the UK can afford to support Ireland, and not honour a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, to a frivolous intervention from Alec Shelbrooke, a Tory backbencher, about Labour's policy approach towards the euro.

It was depressing stuff, the empty benches were there for all to see, and illustrated a glaring contradiction – at a time when the coalition is reducing the number of elected MPs by 50, it is increasing the unelected cronies who are eligible to sit in the Lords.

What is needed is a fundamental reform of Parliament, with an elected Upper House and clear protocols for MPs. For, while I do not expect the Commons to be packed for every minute, I'd be interested to know why so many of this region's representatives thought that landmark speeches on Afghanistan and the economy did not warrant their attention. Or were they waiting for the whips to tell them what to do? Now that's a subject for another day.

DAVID Laws was clearly a very able politician until he resigned from the Cabinet, just over two weeks into office, after being caught milking the Parliamentary expenses system.

Now the former Lib Dem Treasury chief secretary has signalled that middle-class households must have their taxes cut to ensure that they do not carry an unacceptable burden from the spending review.

Laws, whose expenses abuse was compounded by the fact that he's one of Parliament's wealthiest MPs following a lucrative stint as an investment banker, hopes to return to the Cabinet. He says "processes have to be observed" first, including the promotion of his book on the coalition.

That maybe so. And, while the coalition might benefit from his financial acumen, it surely cannot be right that second chances continue to be given to those politicians who have shown such poor judgment in the past – whether it be over policy or their expenses?

ANOTHER politician who appears not to embrace the concept of "we're all in this together" is the hitherto anonymous Cheryl Gillan, the underwhelming Welsh Secretary.

She has threatened to resign from the Cabinet because she is opposed to the planned high-speed rail link – a great economic opportunity for the North – passing through her leafy Chilterns constituency as it leaves London.

It beats me that a Welsh Secretary can have a constituency 100 miles from the Severn Bridge. But, when Gillan signed up to the Cabinet, she must have known that there was going to be this conflict of loyalties – and she should have been prepared, as Cameron and Osborne keep reminding us, to act in the national interest when accepting her job.

ARE we going to have to become a nation of volunteers to help balance the country's books?

The answer appears to be "yes" judging by Commons leader Sir George Young's recent reply to Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman.

Sheerman is particularly concerned at the impact of coalition cuts on the voluntary sector, pointing out: "The whole concept of the 'big society' is supposed to be based on volunteers, voluntarism, the third sector and charitable intervention... yet the sources of funding for the third sector right across the piece have either been frozen or disappeared."

The response? "Not all voluntary work involves expenditure. Many people give their time for nothing..." said Young.

In other words, give up even more time for free.

THE London-centric nature of transport spending is illustrated by how the costs of widening the M25 were allowed to increase by 24 per cent, or 660m, because of poor management on the part of the Highways Agency.

Those concerned must not be allowed to get away with the squandering of funds. For, without such inefficiencies, the Leeds rapid transit bus scheme could have been built – complete with an extension to the outer suburbs.

Instead, it is one of 22 schemes on hold and competing for a 600m funding pot that the Government made available in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Just when is this culture of waste and mismanagement going to end?