Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

347366

	registered interest
	date	28/05/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Members: Postal Services
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, when and how it was decided to stop using Royal Mail to deliver parliamentary mail to hon. Members.
	tabling member constituency	Blaydon
	tabling member printed	Mr David Anderson
	uin	329
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/06/2015 answer text <p>The House of Commons spends approximately £500k per annum on the mail forwarding service for Members, and, in compliance with UK Procurement Regulations, is required to seek competition for the service, and to award the contract to the supplier that represents the best overall value for money, taking service, quality and cost factors into account.</p><p>In accordance with the Regulations, and the House’s procurement rules, the mail forwarding contract was tendered using a framework set up by the Crown Commercial Service. Invitation to Tender was in September 2014 with an award of contract made in December 2014. Royal Mail submitted a bid, but were not the best overall value for money supplier; that was DX (Group), who met all the service requirements and will realise savings of between 15% to 20% on the previous arrangements.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 03/06/2015 16:01:06 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	1486 label Biography information for Mr David Anderson

348261

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Parliament: Asbestos
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent progress has been made on the operation of Parliament's Asbestos Management Plan; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Scunthorpe
	tabling member printed	Nic Dakin
	uin	1032
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Owing to its historic nature, asbestos deposits are present within the Palace of Westminster. The Parliamentary Estates Directorate operates an Asbestos Management Plan which it uses to safely manage asbestos across the whole of the parliamentary estate, in full compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.<br><br>During the successful installation of new, modern equipment in the plant room that supplies the Chamber and adjacent offices, a series of asbestos reassurance tests have been carried out. Traces of asbestos were recently found in the ventilation trunking, but extensive sampling at the vents has provided very high confidence that it is not becoming airborne.<br><br>Professor R J Willey, Managing Director of ACS Physical Risk Control Ltd has undertaken an urgent review of the evidence, and concluded: “It is my considered Opinion that, after the discovery, proper procedures were timeously followed. Detailed investigation of the results of air tests taken, over a considerable period following the discovery, show quite conclusively that there was negligible risk to any persons supplied with air from the duct system. Providing current conditions are maintained, there will be negligible risk to any persons supplied with air in the future from the duct system.”<br><br>The Commission and the House authorities regard the safety of Members, staff and the visiting public as their highest priority. Steps have therefore been taken to ensure that the ventilation system is not disturbed in any way. Steps will also be taken to eradicate the asbestos in the trunking by the end of 2015, but in the meantime we are content with this authoritative advice that there is no reason to stop using the Chamber, or the adjacent offices and spaces.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 09/06/2015 12:44:37 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4056 label Biography information for Nic Dakin

348263

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Members: Travel
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of hon. Members travel from their constituency address to the House in (a) less than one hour, (b) more than one but less than two hours, (c) more than two but less than three hours, (d) more than three but less than four hours and (e) more than four hours.
	tabling member constituency	Isle of Wight
	tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Turner
	uin	955
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/06/2015 answer text <p>The House does not collect information on which it could base an answer to this question. Responsibility for repayment of Members’ costs for travel between their constituencies and Westminster transferred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in 2010.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 08/06/2015 15:58:27 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	1426 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Turner

349227

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Parliament: Hearing Impairment
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will consider what facilities can be made available to hon. Members and staff who are hard of hearing in non-public meetings in rooms on the Estate; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Walsall North
	tabling member printed	Mr David Winnick
	uin	1510
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>A number of meeting rooms on the estate do not currently have any microphone facilities and hence have no induction loops. Low spill induction loop systems would not be practical as the rooms are close together and would pick up easily what is being discussed in the adjacent rooms. Following the hon. Member’s question, officials in the Department of Facilities will work with the House of Commons audiovisual (AV) contractor to provide costings for a solution to address the issue he has raised and will keep the hon. Member informed of progress.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 15/06/2015 14:24:09 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	316 label Biography information for Mr David Winnick

349339

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Palace of Westminster: Repairs and Maintenance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent on repair, renovation and restoration of the Palace of Westminster in each financial year from 2005 to 2015.
	tabling member constituency	Airdrie and Shotts
	tabling member printed	Neil Gray
	uin	1774
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>The two Houses spent the following amounts on repair, renovation and restoration of the Palace of Westminster in each financial year from 2007/08 to 2014/15. Figures before 2007/08 are not available.</p><p>2007/08 - £27.6m<br>2008/09 - £18.4m<br>2009/10 - £31.6m<br>2010/11 - £29.2m<br>2011/12 - £29.3m<br>2012/13 - £36.3m<br>2013/14 - £42.2m<br>2014/15 - £48.7m (Provisional, subject to audit)</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 15/06/2015 14:22:38 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4365 label Biography information for Neil Gray

349340

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Palace of Westminster: Repairs and Maintenance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, by what process the Commission procures repair and renovation work for the Palace of Westminster.
	tabling member constituency	Airdrie and Shotts
	tabling member printed	Neil Gray
	uin	1775
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:</p><ol><li>is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;</li><li>is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;</li><li>takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;</li><li>includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;</li><li>may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.</li></ol><p><br>The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.</p><p>The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:</p><ol><li>A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.</li><li>Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.</li><li>An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:</li></ol><ul><li>compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;</li><li>business objectives;</li><li>mitigation of the risk of failure to services;</li><li>conservation of the fabric of the buildings.</li></ul><p><br>The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.</p><ol><li>The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.</li><li>The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.</li><li>PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.</li></ol><p><br>The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford grouped question UIN 1776 1777 question first answered 15/06/2015 11:46:30 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4365 label Biography information for Neil Gray

349341

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	House of Commons: Repairs and Maintenance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, what weighting the Commission gives to best value for money in its repairs and renovations procurement policy.
	tabling member constituency	Airdrie and Shotts
	tabling member printed	Neil Gray
	uin	1776
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:</p><ol><li>is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;</li><li>is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;</li><li>takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;</li><li>includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;</li><li>may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.</li></ol><p><br>The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.</p><p>The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:</p><ol><li>A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.</li><li>Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.</li><li>An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:</li></ol><ul><li>compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;</li><li>business objectives;</li><li>mitigation of the risk of failure to services;</li><li>conservation of the fabric of the buildings.</li></ul><p><br>The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.</p><ol><li>The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.</li><li>The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.</li><li>PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.</li></ol><p><br>The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford grouped question UIN 1775 1777 question first answered 15/06/2015 11:46:30 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4365 label Biography information for Neil Gray

349342

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	House of Commons: Repairs and Maintenance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, how the Commission decides when repairs and renovations to the parliamentary estate are required.
	tabling member constituency	Airdrie and Shotts
	tabling member printed	Neil Gray
	uin	1777
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>The process by which repair and renovation of the Palace of Westminster is procured – whether for the purpose of the longer-term Restoration and Renewal Programme, the Medium Term Investment Plan, or otherwise:</p><ol><li>is shaped by objectives specified in an Outline Business Case produced in accordance with the Treasury Green Book Five Case model;</li><li>is resolved by a contract awarded through an open and competitive tender procedure that is compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015;</li><li>takes into consideration whether compliant collaborative procurement options, where available, are a viable option according to the scope of the work;</li><li>includes a specification and range of award criteria which are representative of, and will be capable of realising, the value-for-money objectives determined by the respective Outline Business Case;</li><li>may be considered within a higher level Gateway Review Assurance process where considered appropriate.</li></ol><p><br>The default position in the Houses’ Procurement Policy is to set evaluation criteria weightings of 70% for price and 30% for quality. We expect these ratios to be applied when procuring repair and renovation works. The House Procurement Policy goes on to provide a waiver process by which a justification and recommendation can be made to vary these weightings according to circumstances and value-for-money considerations specific to a given procurement. A contract that looks to transfer a higher level of responsibility and liability for design to the contractor is a common example of where the balance in weighting may be moved towards quality as a consequence of a waiver application.</p><p>The need for repairs is determined with reference to a number of factors: condition surveys of the Estate; an annual exercise to prioritise the portfolio of projects; inspections carried out on a quadrennial basis; advice from the House’s Design Authority; and calls to the PED Helpdesk. In particular:</p><ol><li>A comprehensive condition survey of the Estate was carried out in 2008/09, the results of which fed into a 25-year plan. This survey identified a significant number of defects, the works for which were all priced and given recommended completion dates. These tasks were then packaged minor or major projects and added to the scope of existing works within the 25-year plan.</li><li>Following on from this comprehensive survey, there is a rolling programme of condition surveys every two years, which similarly identifies defects and further work.</li><li>An annual exercise is undertaken by senior managers, including the Director General of Facilities and the Finance Director, to assess and prioritise the portfolio of projects in order to inform the Medium Term Investment Plan for the following four-year period. Projects are prioritised, taking the following factors into account:</li></ol><ul><li>compliance with legislative or contractual requirements;</li><li>business objectives;</li><li>mitigation of the risk of failure to services;</li><li>conservation of the fabric of the buildings.</li></ul><p><br>The Medium Term Investment Plan is then considered by the Finance Committee before being approved by the House of Commons Commission.</p><ol><li>The Palace of Westminster is a Grade 1 listed building, and PED follows best practice by ensuring that an inspection is carried out every four years by the Conservation and Architectural Team. These inspections identify tasks which should be carried out to ensure the fabric of the building is maintained properly.</li><li>The PED Design Authority, established in 2011, is committed to “ensure consistent standards, value for money, statutory compliance and user satisfaction”. Practically, it concentrates on the lifecycle of the engineering assets, ensuring that initial and replacement capital costs are balanced with the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and with identified business needs. It acts as a Central Engineering department, and advises on the requirements for works and systems and services across the Parliamentary Estate.</li><li>PED has a helpdesk system which receives and handles building faults reported by Members, Members’ staff, and staff of the House. These faults are prioritised according to service level agreements.</li></ol><p><br>The Director General of Facilities would be happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail, should he wish.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford grouped question UIN 1775 1776 question first answered 15/06/2015 11:46:30 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4365 label Biography information for Neil Gray

349703

	registered interest
	date	10/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Members: Travel
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the Answer of 8 June 2015 to Question 955, what information the Commission holds on the proportion of hon. Members who travelled from their constituency address to the House in (a) less than one, (b) more than one but less than two, (c) more than two but less than three, (d) more than three but less than four and (e) more than four hours in 2009.
	tabling member constituency	Isle of Wight
	tabling member printed	Mr Andrew Turner
	uin	1979
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2015 answer text <p>The House no longer retains specific information about Members’ constituency addresses in 2009, nor has it calculated the journey times from those addresses to the House. However, details of Members’ travel costs by category in that year are available online at mpsexpenses.parliament.uk. In addition there is information about distances of constituencies from Westminster in 2008 in the Members Estimate Committee’s Third Report of 2007–08 (HC 578-II)</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 15/06/2015 15:22:38 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	1426 label Biography information for Mr Andrew Turner

349916

	registered interest
	date	11/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Parliament: Cycling
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, how much was spent on the upgrade work to the North Entrance to the parliamentary estate in the last Parliament; for what reason cyclists are forbidden from using that entrance; and whether a safety assessment was made of the potential implications of excluding cyclists from that entrance.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	2241
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/06/2015 answer text <p>The cost of the work for the North Estate (Curtis Green) entrance, including anti-vehicle barriers, security cabin and specialist security equipment, totalled £613,069, with 60% being charged to the House of Commons and 40% to the House of Lords. The work took place between 2010 and 2012.<br><br>The entrance was designed to be dedicated for vehicles, including large heavy goods vehicles, entering/exiting the estate. The cycle entry gate was installed at Derby Gate, as a separate project, as this entrance has the width safely to incorporate vehicles, cycles and pedestrians, whereas Curtis Green is narrower.<br><br>There is no formal assessment made on the potential safety implications for excluding cyclists from the Curtis Green entrance.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 18/06/2015 14:09:12 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson