Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

7. What progress the Commission has made on reducing the subsidy on food and drink served in the House. [Official Report, 9 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 1-2MC.]

[John Thurso]

The cost of the catering service is expected to have been reduced by £1.1 million over the past three years. It stood at £5.9 million in 2010-11 and £5.1 million in 2011-12. The forecast cost for the current financial year is £4.8 million. The current aim is to reduce the cost further so that by 2015 it should be reduced by £3 million, roughly half of what it was at the start of the Parliament.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer, but recent media reports that the subsidy for Parliament’s 19 restaurants, nine bars and the coffee shop has actually increased over the past year were met with dismay from many of our constituents across the country. In addition to what he has said today about reducing the cost of the House catering facilities, I urge him to look at moving even faster on the issue to ensure that all subsidy is removed as soon as possible.

[John Thurso]

We are certainly seeking to reduce the cost wherever possible, but there have been changes in the way we operate that make turnover more difficult. I point out that the key gross profit, or kitchen profit, made by the House’s outlets is fully comparable to what we would expect to find in industry. It is the other costs, caused largely by our sitting arrangements and the staffing required for that, that put us over into subsidy. That is the area currently being tackled by the business improvement plan.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Viscount Thurso

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I recall very well that, when I and others were given their P45s and left that place, one of the discussions that we had was about why on earth we in the other place should not register dissent on secondary legislation. Indeed, that has occasionally happened, which serves to demonstrate that there is a changing dynamic. Because of that changing dynamic, we need to look at the constitutional arrangements in the round, and that topic will form the substantive element of the last part of my argument.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In the other place, by convention their lordships defer to what the Clerks say. Over the past 20 years, on the five occasions when amendments have been deemed inadmissible by the Clerks, they have deferred to the Clerks’ superior knowledge. In this House, such an amendment would be deemed to be outside the rules and we rightly follow the rules set out in “Erskine May”. Does my hon. Friend think we in this place should continue to follow those rules, or should we throw “Erskine May” in the bin?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend is asking me to ponder questions that go slightly above my pay grade, because one person alone can make those decisions in this House: Mr Speaker. It is entirely up to Mr Speaker to accept or reject the advice given. I therefore refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by Baroness Boothroyd, a former Speaker of this House. She said there were occasions when she had gone against the advice given to her by the Clerks. We do not know when that happens, however, for the simple reason that that is the prerogative of the Speaker, and we accept it without question.