John Thurso MP

Many staff work part-time, 'hot desk' in offices or have roles which do not require office accommodation. The numbers located permanently in each building in the Commons part of the Parliamentary Estate have therefore been based on the available desk spaces. The number of desks available in each building is shown in the following table.

I have asked the Director General, Facilities to provide the hon. Member with additional briefing.

The amount spent to heat and light the Commons estate in the past two financial years was:

The reason for the differences between the two years is mainly due to changes in tariffs.

In the 12 months to the end of March 2012, 18,755 tonnes of carbon dioxide was emitted due to energy use on the parliamentary estate. Of this figure, 4,884 tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted from the use of natural gas on the estate, with the remainder emitted as a result of electricity generation.

The Houses have jointly set a target to reduce absolute carbon emissions, and the level of emissions in 2011-12 was 16.4% below those of 2008-09. 85% of the electricity supplied to the estate is procured on renewable green tariffs; however, in line with standard practice, this is not taken into account when calculating carbon dioxide emissions for energy generation.

This means that the House is on target to achieve its longer-term aim of reducing carbon emissions from energy consumption by 34% between 2008-09 to 2020-21.

I have asked the Director General, Facilities to contact the hon. Lady directly to brief her in more detail.

The House of Commons owns 11 listed buildings on the Parliamentary Estate and has one building (the Palace of Westminster) shared with the House of Lords. The following table shows the listed status and forecast expenditure for each of these buildings for the next three years. The figures are planned expenditure and are subject to the submission and approval of business cases. Expenditure includes all works planned by the Parliamentary Estates Directorate and includes VAT where appropriate. The figures include both capital and resource spending, and include contributions by the House of Lords towards shared costs.

These properties were not previously zero rated as they are not

"intended for use solely for a relevant charitable purpose"

(see Section 14.7, HMRC Notice 708) nor do they qualify as a relevant residential purpose within the meaning of Section 14.6 of HMRC Notice 708. The changes to VAT application will therefore not have any effect on forecast costs.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the responses given on 8 June 2011, Official Report, columns 338-9W.

In 2011, between June and December, there were 23 reported thefts and in 2012 there have been 13 reported thefts up to 22 March.

The following table shows the items reported stolen:

I understand that the hon. Member is meeting officials next week to discuss the voluntary agreement for the hospitality and food service sector, and the work that it might entail. I am sure that they will be keen to learn more about how the Waste and Resources Action Programme can contribute to reducing further the amount of food waste from catering operations in the House of Commons.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have talked to the Commissioners who are present. We have agreed that were the hon. Member for Harlow to accept my amendment, the Commission would ensure that there was no charge for entry to the Clock Tower during the current Parliament. We cannot, of course, bind successor Parliaments. As written, however, the motion is such that it might affect other parts of the important savings programme to which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred, and we should therefore prefer to listen to the will of the House on this occasion in order to preserve the greater good of the programme.

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that on this occasion his sense of smell is a touch out? What he should be smelling is a desperate attempt-if I can put it like that-by those of us who are in charge of these things to seek to accommodate the views being expressed. I put it to him, to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and to his other hon. Friends that I really am seeking to arrive at where they want to go.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but you have just reminded me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have substantial progress to make in a very short time, so I will move on.

In 2004-05, the estimate-our total cost-was £189 million. In 2009-10, it was £278 million. Even taking out the one-offs and exceptionals, that was an increase in excess of 25% in the cost of this place in five years, more than twice the rate of inflation. This year, the out-turn is expected to be in the order of £205 million to £206 million, which is a substantial saving. The programme has been undertaken by the Management Board, and I think it has done an excellent job of examining very professionally what is going on. I see that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is leaving her place, but before she does so, may I say to her that I do not believe there are too many managers here or that they are distant from those at the bottom? The board is well constructed and does its very best to ensure that it is in full touch with both the staff and Members' needs.

There is no question, nor has there ever been, that access to the Palace and the parliamentary process will be charged for at any time. However, I put it to hon. Members that we get more than £1.5 million in income from tours. We have been charging for summer tours for 10 years, and we are piloting art tours for which we charge £15. I say in parenthesis that the other place charges £30 for its tours-I do not know whether the art is better. We have a long history over the past 10 to 15 years of opening up the parts of this place that are not available to the public for a variety of reasons, and recovering the specific costs of doing so. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that what we are proposing for the Clock Tower is very much in line with that principle.

I invite my hon. Friend to accept my amendment, which would allow the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee, which I chair, to consider the points that he has made, take them on board and return with an appropriate proposal. I ask him and other hon. Members to accept that as a better way forward. The answers to all his other questions will have to wait for another day.

I will.

The Commission put forward the overall figure of 17% savings in real terms during the summer of 2010. That figure informed all the documentation that has come out since, and it is the target. I actually hope that we can go further than that, because the process has demonstrated that many of the ways in which we do things have remained unchanged for many years, decades even. When they have been properly examined and re-engineered, it has been found that there are real and considerable savings to be made, not only monetary savings but increases in the efficiency of our work patterns.

I cannot update the hon. Lady on that point at this particular moment.

At a time of national austerity, when we are seeking to reduce the cost of public services to the taxpayer, it is absolutely right that Parliament and parliamentarians are in the vanguard. Indeed, it would be absolutely wrong were we to exempt ourselves from that process.

The hon. Gentleman might say that; I think I will move rapidly on.

On the first part of the motion, I thank my hon. Friend for succeeding, in one debate, in giving more publicity among Members to the savings programme than I have managed to do in the past 18 months. In fact, the process began shortly after the election and continued through 2010. I have carried out a number of consultations and had the honour of speaking to various party groups. I have twice been honoured to appear in front of the 1922 committee. All the points that have been set out in the current savings programme were contained in the consultation documents that were put out, as they were in e-mails, reminders and a number of surgeries for which I made myself available. The Commission and the management have tried very hard to consult Members on all aspects of what is proposed.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from 'risk' to end and add

'and invites the Commission to reconsider its current proposal to charge for Clock Tower tours.'.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate and on speaking to his proposition so passionately and eloquently. May I first correct one or two small points of fact? I am not actually the Chairman of the Commission, and Members of the House did vote for him, because it is ex officio the Speaker. He is always the Chairman of the Commission. I am merely its representative, tasked with speaking on occasions such as this and answering my hon. Friend's many very good questions.

I should like, if I may, to divide my hon. Friend's motion into two parts. I shall speak initially to the first part of it, with which I entirely agree, and then to the second part, with which I have some difficulties. I will then suggest to him that he and other hon. Members might like to accept my amendment, which I hope is a gracious way forward that will enable the Commission to take on board all the points made in the debate, reconsider the matter and see how best to accommodate what has been said.

May I pick up on a couple of points that have been made? My hon. Friend spoke about the waste of food. I am a qualified caterer-it was what I used to do for a living, and I am a fellow of a variety of professional bodies. Food wastage here is below the average for professional caterers. At the end of the day, there are always things left over on a plate, and they get thrown away. There is always a degree of food wastage, but the wastage here is at a much lower level than in many commercial companies and the House works extremely hard to keep it down.

The basis for issuing passes to Members' staff is that the sponsoring Member states that the individual is employed to assist with his or her parliamentary duties in one of the recognised roles. No passes have been issued since May 2010 on the basis that an individual is a political lobbyist.

The House of Commons catering service is part of the House Service, and therefore is not subject to the Government Buying Standards for food and catering. However, the catering service seeks to follow industry best practice and so has recently completed an audit of its performance against the Government Buying Standards. I am placing a copy of the audit report in the House of Commons Library.

No record is held of the country of origin of food procured by the House of Commons catering service and so it is not possible to confirm the overall proportion of food sourced from British producers. However, certain categories of food are purchased in accordance with higher animal welfare schemes or standards that demand full traceability through the supply chain, and estimate that over the past 12 months: (i) more than 98% of fresh meat and poultry supplies were from British reared and slaughtered livestock; (ii) around two-thirds of seafood supplied was caught in British coastal waters; (iii) all fresh eggs were British, Lion-stamped and Freedom Food assured; (iv) all fresh milk and cream was sourced from UK producers; and (v) all dairy ice creams and sorbets were produced in the UK using local fresh milk and cream.

No. The Commission agreed on 27 February that the contract for the hire and upkeep of trees should be renegotiated at the earliest opportunity with the aim of reducing the cost significantly.

Removal of the trees would lead to a noticeable increase in noise levels and reduced levels of shade (especially in summer, where the glass roof would probably lead to a requirement for additional cooling). The trees also improve air quality.

The removal of the trees would result in higher ambient noise levels.

The estimated value of food and drink recorded as wastage in each of the restaurants and cafeterias operated by the House of Commons catering service over the past 11 months (April 2011 to February 2012) is set out in the following table. Monthly figures are not available for previous periods. Food wastage is recorded at selling price, but the cost price (based on the budgeted food cost percentage) has been estimated in order to answer this question.

No information is held on the amount of food and drink recorded as wastage.

Food and drink wastage is inevitable in any cafeteria or restaurant business and food production planning is particularly difficult for the House of Commons catering service due to the daily uncertainty about the numbers of people attending the House, and the hour until which certain outlets must remain open. Despite these constraints, food and drink waste is below the industry norms for similar types of food businesses. This is achieved by making relatively little use of pre-made, packaged foods that have a limited shelf-life. Instead, food is where possible prepared in-house from fresh ingredients. Ingredients or prepared dishes left over at the end of the day are either transferred to another outlet for sale or conserved for future consumption, as long as it is safe to do so.

In 2010-11 the cost of early-day motions (EDMs) was approximately £578,000. £431,000 of this was accounted for by the printing and publication of EDMs, amendments to them and added names under the House's contract with TSO. The Table Office's software application for processing EDMs cost roughly £12,000, and costs associated with the maintenance and technical support for the EDMi database were £57,000. The remainder, £78,000, was accounted for by staff costs in the Table Office and by the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote, incurred through the processing and inputting of notices relating to EDMs.

Since the general election, the House has ceased printing EDMs after they have appeared in print for a full sitting week. In 2010-11 this resulted in a cost saving of approximately £355,000 compared with 2009-10.