Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MR PETER
GRANT PETERKIN,
MR PAUL
MONAGHAN AND
MR GREG
UNWIN
25 APRIL 2006
Q40 Pete Wishart: Can I then ask
about the role of Judy Scott Thomson in all of this ***.
Mr Grant Peterkin: She has no
role at this stage. She is the engineer who puts into place the
series of office moves that follow on when we get feedback from
the Government accommodation whip, for example: "the following
Members have been allocated the following rooms and therefore
need to move."
Q41 Pete Wishart: Is this because
we go to Judy when we have issues and problems in terms of the
allocations?
Mr Grant Peterkin: Between periods
of major moves she is the start point for trying to address routine
accommodation issues. When they become less than routine they
gravitate to myself and to then dealing with the respective accommodation
whip of the relevant party.
Q42 Pete Wishart: I am just trying
to determine what the process is if Members of Parliament have
an issue about accommodation. Judy would speak to the accommodation
whips and possibly yourself in terms of trying to get what we
consider to be a fair allocation in terms of rooms available?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I have to observe
that a number of Members who are dissatisfied with the allocation
of their offices or the fit of their offices do appeal to me,
but I am afraid I have to say, apart from providing a good ear
to them, "the allocation as it is currently arranged is done
by the party accommodation whips".
Mr Unwin: It might be useful to
clarify that allocation process, if I may. The 721 number that
has been referred to, which is a total of 14,800 square metres,
is controlled in this process that has just been described by
the whips and allocated between the parties. Then Judy and the
Serjeant's Department have an additional 5,800 square metres available
to provide to Members' staff.
Q43 Mr Jones: How much was that?
Mr Unwin: 5,800 additional on
top of the 14,800. That gets allocated just to Members' staff
where there are no Members sharing an adjoining suite hence you
have some situations which have been described, that sometimes
the residual space will not be in close proximity to the Member.
So there are two parallel allocation processes going on. That
might clarify the situation.
Q44 Derek Conway: Just on this point,
Chairman, so the Committee does not charge off down a rabbit hole.
Until 1994 with Judy Scott Thomson, the allocation of secretarial
accommodation was done by the whips, principally by the Government's
accommodation whips, but the situation had ground to a halt because
it did not work. Smokers did not want to be with non-smokers.
You were allowed then to bring dogs on to the Estate so people
did not want to work in offices with animals. It was thought at
the time that the only way to resolve these fights among many
members of staff, who had been here for centuries it seemed like,
was to have someone of Mary Frampton's and then subsequently Judy
Scott Thomson's seniority and understanding to deal with that.
I suspect where it has probably gone wrong is that an element
of favouritism has crept into the system, almost inevitably in
a way because people inevitably have favourites. I think one of
the things I would like to follow on from Peter's question to
the Serjeant is on the Furnishing Standards booklet which has
been provided, although dated 2003, which of course was never
approved by the predecessor committee dealing with that, it came
out of nowhere, and during the general election there was this
fight over the removal of nine Members' sofas. That was a staff-based
decision. It was never made by the whips' offices because the
whips overturned that and it certainly was not made by the Committee.
I wonder from the Serjeant's point of view whether sometimes members
of his Department might believe they have more right to be deciding
what goes on here than even the Members, based on their longevity?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I think the
sofa issue was an unfortunate one in the sense that we could have
communicated that much better. If there are other examples of
us not communicating better I am very ready to listen to how we
might do it better. The issue here, Mr Conway, as you know better
than I, is that there is a finite supply of whether it is articles
of furnishing or whether it is nice offices. Inevitably it comes
down to the Judgment of Solomon in the end.
Q45 Derek Conway: The sofas are nowhere
in this document on furnishing standards, are they?
Mr Grant Peterkin: They were not
in the 2003 one, no. There is a residual stock. The decision was
made, against the backdrop of course that what drove it was that
the furnishings budget is the part of the Estates budget that
is endemically always under the greatest pressure because there
is an endemic burgeoning demand for accoutrements in offices,
of which sofas are particularly expensive.
Q46 Derek Conway: What I am trying
to get at is who made the decision? Was it the Board or did the
Speaker decide?
Mr Grant Peterkin: About sofas?
Q47 Derek Conway: Yes, sofas are
just emblematic—or settees as they call them here—of
the problem. When you say the decision was made; who actually
makes the decision?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I cannot answer
that question because I think it happened before I was here. Then
from our research, Mr Conway, it was very difficult to discern
who exactly had made it. We had a very small stock of sofas, 15
in all, all of which needed to be refurbished—either cleaned
or repaired—and a decision was made by either someone in
the Serjeant's Department or someone in the furnishings department
that the demand was always going to exceed supply and we could
not meet the demand for sofas for everyone and therefore it was
better not to create politics of envy by issuing the remaining
15. That was, as you know, overturned and those have been issued
on a first come first served basis.
Q48 Mr Jones: I have heard all this
but, frankly, it just gets made up as it goes along. Mrs Scott
Thomson does make things up. She tells Members that people can
have certain things and other people they cannot. Her attitude,
frankly—when I first arrived as a Member I locked horns
very early on with her because she talks to you as though you
are a second-class citizen. That is certainly true of Labour Members
of Parliament and the way she talks to staff is even worse. If
she is leaving I shall certainly contribute to her going away
present! In terms of the standards, what I find about the entire
building very strange coming from local government is why things
here are so difficult on maintenance and the things that happen
in here. Decisions get taken like the one which has been referred
to on sofas. I understand that there is a warehouse somewhere
where all this stuff is kept and stored. It would be interesting
to see what is actually in there. In the summer recess the amount
of stuff that goes in skips out of this place is also quite interesting.
Decisions are taken—and I have raised it and I shall raise
it again—about furnishings. Ornamental ashtrays have disappeared
overnight with nobody explaining why these very nice fittings
of this building have been taken away. There needs to be a lot
more transparency in this. Also you should consult with the people
who are actually going to use them. I will give you one example
not just on sofas but in terms of the way things are. I shall
not mention his name but a good colleague of mine had moved from
Norman Shaw to here in the last election and he was told he could
not have a certain type of filing cabinet because he was not allowed
to have them here because he was not in Norman Shaw. He wanted
that type of filing cabinets, which were available, but he was
just told he could not have them because they were not allowed
in his office upstairs in here, which, frankly comes back to amateurism.
One thing we need to discuss is whether we look at outsourcing
of the accommodation like you have in some big office blocks.
Just finally in terms of allocation of accommodation, it is always
going to be difficult and I accept that, but there are empty offices
all over place in here and likewise decisions are taken such as
why you relocate people into here around your own office—and
Mr Conway highlighted one in his letter to you, which I have to
say you replied in a great Yes, Minister answer—
Mr Grant Peterkin: I am very happy
to answer it in full.
Q49 Mr Jones: One of the starting
points we have got to say as this Committee is who is in this
building and what is being done because it is not run for us,
that is for certain.
Mr Grant Peterkin: Chairman, which
bits of that question would you like me to address?
Q50 Mr Jones: Whatever you want to.
Mr Grant Peterkin: *** Again,
if you wish to outsource this when the Committee comes to decide,
that is a decision for the Committee. I do not think I can really
say anything to argue against that, although clearly there are
some very considerable factors that need to be balanced up before
you come to that clear-cut decision. All I can say is that if
there have been issues that have been addressed that you think,
Mr Jones, should have been addressed by members of this Committee,
I would welcome the initiative that the Chairman has recently
offered me to see him on a much more regular and routine basis
than has been the case hitherto so that we can actually decide
what are those issues of political interest that are ones that
your Committee would like to look at which perhaps in the first
year of your existence we have missed. If there have been many
I can only apologise.
Chairman: I think it is important, given
the point that Derek and Kevan have just made, I was looking at
the consultants' report in 2002, and I have got the final draft
here and this is the phase one report but it is pointed out in
the recommendations that there is minimal buy-in from staff and
Members who are in the House of Commons and that consultation
and communication was one of the key issues. I know that is before
your time, but I do hope that that is something that as you develop
the 25-year strategy will be a key part of it. I think you get
the message very strongly from the discussion here. The report
points out quite bluntly that this leads to resentment of decisions
that are made without their input and discouragement when their
needs are not met. I think that is a message that we want to reiterate.
Brian?
Q51 Mr Donohoe: In any other walk
of life you would be the chief executive of this building and
the Estate in general terms. That is your role. I just wonder
if as part of that you have the responsibility of looking almost
on a monthly basis at the allocation and actually where people
are placed. Do you take into account the fact that there is a
changing role and whether or not these people need to be in the
Palace itself or could be somewhere else in the Estate?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I think it
is right to say that recently we have not really, knowing there
was always going to be an accommodation inquiry done as one of
the priorities for this Committee, looked to see whether there
is a need for change of usage between one department and another.
At the moment we have a very limited amount of decant accommodation
available to the Director of Estates. The priority really has
been moving staff so that, for example, 7 Millbank can be completely
modernised so that we can optimise that part of the Parliamentary
Estate and get more people into the area than was the case hitherto.
Q52 Mr Donohoe: The likes of the
management structure in this place, with you at the head of that
in terms of the administration side, has a number of senior officers
(like the Director of Catering) that are in the Palace itself
who in any other walk of life (looking at Compass or something
like that) would not require to be where the kitchens are, but
here that is the case. Is that something that we should look at
in terms of part of how we loosen up the amount of accommodation
there is in the Palace itself?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I have always
been certain that must be one of the priority areas you would
want to look at. In a sense we have looked at that once quite
recently in terms of the HOK Occupancy Study which gave a priority
list of all the users in the Parliamentary Estate.
Q53 Mr Donohoe: I am always very
sceptical of consultants becoming involved in anything. I have
got a lifetime of experience in it and I can tell you that I do
not call them consultants, I take the first three letters of the
name!
Mr Grant Peterkin: They have just
provided the unarguable evidence on which we will have to make
judgments.
Q54 Mr Donohoe: I have been involved
in too many. They can shape what you say and what you want to
say they will say. The fact is we have got problems in terms of
the share of the cake, if we are taking it as a cake, and Members'
allocation is all about that. While it could be useful if we were
to have the three whips fight amongst themselves as to what their
fair share was, at the end of that process what would be better
to look at is whether or not we can increase, as Frank said earlier,
the number of offices and the standard of offices that are there
and allocated to the Members. Is that something you think should
be your role as to the way forward so that we can get to a situation
where we do have by far more accommodation closer to where the
Members require it to be in the Palace itself?
Mr Grant Peterkin: I have always
been certain that this was going to be absolutely central to this
particular inquiry. I would make two observations. The first is,
to use your words, when we did the carve-up with the accommodation
whips in May last year, I think that the whips would agree that
they were given sufficient accommodation for their Members. The
issue now is this burgeoning number of Members' staff and how
we optimise their accommodation in terms of the relationship that
they now have with their Members. The quid pro quo of that
in a dynamic environment is to look at which of the House officials
need to be in the Palace of Westminster and whether the data provided
in late 2003, by HOK Consultants I accept, is still valid or whether
there are different priorities or changing priorities. I expect
you to make some very clear recommendations in that area. Some
of the allocation and changes within the House of which this oft-quoted
Post Office accommodation is but one, is in a sense preparatory
for the very real likelihood that accommodation very close to
the Chamber will be given up.
Q55 Mr Donohoe: Can I finally, because
it has been referred to earlier by Derek, talk about the furnishing
standards. As a relatively new chief executive, looking at the
prices that are quoted here, I could walk into one of the best
furniture showrooms around my constituency and get better prices
than this. I am presuming in that sense that you might be able
to look more closely at how we get best value for money for the
almost utilitarian furniture we have been offered to see how we
improve upon that to get best value for money.
Mr Grant Peterkin: Mr Donohoe,
I do not think I am trying to defend that furnishing standards
draft document. As a recent arrival to the Palace of Westminster,
I think lessons over furnishing costs lie in Portcullis House,
where people now are surprised at the cost of some of the specific
furniture and fittings provided for that building, some of which
have not lasted as well as perhaps those who drew the building
up imagined when we first occupied it. I think that is a lesson
we will take away from phase two of the occupation of Portcullis
House. I think that draft document is an indicative one and I
accept that we can do very much better; we must do very much better.
Q56 Mr Donohoe: In future when you
are looking for furniture, will you put it out to tender? Is that
the way it has been done in the past? I have purchased furniture
in the past in great quantities and I have never paid anything
like the figures that are contained within this document. I am
presuming that the Serjeant at Arms will make damn sure that is
not the case in future when we are purchasing things. It is almost
bizarre we have got Members fighting over whether or not they
should have settees. I have never heard of anything more ridiculous
and you will see something of a much better quality and value
than we are getting and the prices that we are being quoted.
Mr Grant Peterkin: I do not disagree
with a word that you say.
Chairman: I think it is a bit unfair
to ask the Serjeant about a document that was produced two years
before he joined us.
Q57 Mr Donohoe: He can make sure
it does not happen again.
Mr Grant Peterkin: I can reassure
you on that.
Q58 Chairman: Mr Unwin, do you want
a right of reply to some of the remarks that were made about consultants?
If you feel you need to, you can.
Mr Unwin: I think my role generally
has been not to provide any advice on decision making and who
should be where but, wherever possible, to provide objective experience
from other industries and to help with the process of assessing
the data about the existing Estate. So our role has never been
to make political decisions on your behalf.
Q59 Mr Gerrard: Mr Unwin, you said
something in the report about using the space that we have got
more efficiently. What sort of things do you think we ought to
be looking at?
Mr Unwin: One exercise that we
carried out, which appears in the annex of the phase two report
of the 2002 Accommodation Review, was to take a fresh look or
an objective look at what is the supply of the accommodation on
the Estate regardless of its current utilisation and understanding
what that means about your capacity. In that process we used and
developed some suggested guidelines for what typical space standards
you would apply for different types of staff, based on a Member
having a requirement for having enough space to have either a
meeting table or informal meeting setting within their immediate
work space, for certain types of staff that have high equipment
requirements to have a slightly more generous provision of immediate
space and filing, and then less for more typical staff who have
a smaller footprint. So we used these three standards and assessed
the supply of space on the Estate. The observation that has already
been made is that you do not have a homogeneous set of rooms available.
There is a great deal of variety in size and quality and configuration
and to a great extent you are going to be stuck with that, as
I think the observation has been made. When you try and take a
fresh look you are working in often listed buildings which have
a lot of structural walls and the possibility of just creating
the optimum situation of a lot of suited accommodation next to
the Chamber is not an easy option. Working within the constraints
of the physical space, we applied those standards and typically
would look at the rooms that you have available. On the whole,
you have a very large number of small cellular rooms and some
larger cellular rooms. It is not a very flexible space. Applying
those guidelines, you have easily enough capacity on paper to
accommodate the current demands and anticipated demands to the
next Parliament within the Estate. I should clarify that this
was a desk-top exercise rather than a space-planning exercise.
There may be one or two variants, and we have built in a contingency,
but they may not be achievable. 3,750 is the recommended occupancy
whereas the current demand for desk space is about 2,800 up to
3,000. When looking at just Members and their staff accommodation,
and doing a similar exercise, the capacity we were looking at
really becomes a tradeoff between whether it is acceptable for
some Members to share with their staff versus how many staff should
Members on average locate on the Estate? By trading off between
those two you can chose along the scale, but if every Member requires
their own cellular office with a space of anything up to 20 square
metres, there is capacity within the existing Members' accommodation
for each Member to have 1.5 staff on average co-located with them.
If you try to start to co-locate more like two staff per Member
you need the scenario of a certain number of Members sharing space
with their staff because you have quite large rooms which are
better utilised if they are co-occupied. Effectively there is
a series of variables and decisions to be made, as Mr Dobson suggested,
about what is the minimum requirement for Members, can we meet
it within our existing accommodation, and are we prepared to set
a cap or a limit on how much space any one individual will be
allocated. By having those controlling mechanisms in place it
is quite easy to address topics like under-utilisation.
| 
