Finances of the House of Commons

Debate between Nigel Mills and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, makes a valid point. The key point is that the per-pupil cost of this option was the lowest, so those of us who are in favour think that it gives the best value for money. Having said that, I completely recognise the point of view put forward by other Members. I am yet to meet a Member who is against the concept; the question is one of timing. I believe that we have to get on with it, but I fully accept that others do not necessarily share that view.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend answer the concern about how we can end up spending £7 million on a temporary building for this purpose? I imagine that schools across the country could do quite a lot with £7 million, but they cannot get it. It seems a lot for a temporary structure.

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to reassure my hon. Friend that it is not a temporary structure in the sense of being a glorified portakabin. In fact, it is quite the reverse. It is actually a purpose-built, demountable building with a minimum guaranteed shelf life of around 30 years. For a number of years we have had a very good-looking demountable building that used to be used on the green when we first started giving tours of the House. Everybody thought that it was a pretty good building and good value for money. Ultimately, it is about balancing the fact that it would be lovely to have something permanent that might or might not come with R and R with the possibility of having something not very good-looking but extremely portable. This genuinely offers extremely good value for money. The design has been undertaken by architects who were involved in some of the work on the Olympic site. It is really terribly well done. As I understand it, it is so well designed that the only objection so far on seeking planning permission is that one cannot see it—that it is not obvious enough. I therefore think we have probably got it just about right. I reassure my hon. Friend; I genuinely believe that it is good value for money. I commend it to Members of the House.

My final point is about Committee resources. One of the interesting things about this Parliament is the way in which Select Committees have taken on a more robust role following the introduction of election of their Chairs. Other than the Public Accounts Committee, which of course has the full and mighty resource of the National Audit Office behind it, Select Committees’ resources have remained broadly the same. The current plan does not envisage any particular increase, but Parliament should look carefully at what we want to do and how we might best do it. If it is recognised that there is a need for more resource, I would certainly look favourably at that in the next financial plan.

The Liaison Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), should look at the resources of Select Committees, and I would certainly commend that work. The Finance and Services Committee would be happy to engage with the Liaison Committee in that.

House of Commons Administration Estimate

Debate between Nigel Mills and Viscount Thurso

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

The hon. Lady has raised this matter tenaciously; indeed, she has raised it with me. The answer is that if the matter were put before the House in a motion, the financial consequence would have to be revealed. If it were not, and was put together by way of the financial plan, the debate such as the one we had last year would have been exactly the place to have raised such a matter. The two things go together, and that is entirely in keeping with allowing Members a say on such things in future.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

One potential consequence of the Standing Order would be that, if the accounting officer so wished, he could decline to put the financial details into the House domain and therefore the debate on the motion could not happen. What does the hon. Gentleman understand “a reasonable time frame” to mean—a day, a week, five years?

[John Thurso]

I am blessed by the fact that I would never have to make the decision; it would be a decision for Mr Speaker and his advisers. As we all know, the Speaker is always right. Therefore, whatever decision he made would be both reasonable and appropriate. It was written deliberately in such a way that the final word is with the Chair for precisely the reason that if something came up where an exception were needed, it could be dealt with. That is very important.

House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Debate between Nigel Mills and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I observe in passing that I have managed to attract both sides of the argument—clearly, I am sitting in the right place in the Chamber. I do not think that a sunset clause is necessary, because it is my hope that we will regularly, perhaps annually, have a debate of this kind. If at any time we reach a point where Members clearly feel as our hon. Friend the Member for Harlow feels, that debate would be the time to say that enough is enough. If we reach that point, I am confident that is precisely what the House would do. That is the reassurance I can offer my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles).

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the following two points? First, we are privileged to work in a palace, rather than some modern, purpose-built place that would be a lot cheaper to run, so we must find some way of defraying the costs of maintaining and repairing it, and it is right that not all of that cost should fall on the taxpayer. Secondly, we are also privileged to enjoy many services, functions and eating places. Unless we can find a way of generating more revenue to support those facilities, we will lose them, because the public will not stand for ever for that being subsidised to the extent it has been in recent years.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. On his point about catering “subsidy”, the actual sale prices in most of our outlets are comparable to either, in the case of the dining rooms, private sector outlets or, in the case of the cafes, a normal work canteen. The prime cost is that of food, which in the trade we used to call the kitchen cost, and that is comparable to similar commercial operations, so the gross profit, or kitchen profit, is comparable. The problem is that we occupy the facilities for only part of the week, so for the remainder of the week they cost money because they are serviced and there are staff. Therefore, the gross profit is insufficient to cover the total fixed cost, and on that basis we have a subsidy. I think that it is an appropriate subsidy, particularly if we are looking at this debate. Equally, his point that we should be reasonably expected to reduce that subsidy by the way we operate in order to give the best value is absolutely correct.