§ Mr. DismoreTo ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make filing cabinets available to hon. Members accommodated in Portcullis House. [134325]
§ Sir Sydney ChapmanI refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.
§ Mr. SteenTo ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on recent media reports concerning Portcullis House. [135913]
§ Sir Sydney ChapmanI am pleased to have this opportunity to correct some of the misleading, or inaccurate, comments and articles made by the media about Portcullis House. During the summer, my Committee was encouraged to see in the technical press and elsewhere the positive response to the building from construction professionals and commentators. This was to be expected given the fine quality of the design and the technical achievements in the construction of the building. However, as I have said, a number of unfounded or inaccurate claims have been made or repeated from earlier reports. Hon. Members may find the following facts helpful to know.
The building has been constructed on time and within budget. The construction period agreed by the House of Commons Commission in 1993 was 30 months. Construction started on 5 January 1998 and the certificate of practical completion issued on 18 August 2000, including the additions to the brief. The budget approved by the Commission in 1993 was £165 million plus building cost inflation between then and the start of construction works and £9 million for the delay caused by the late handover of the site from London Underground. Against this total of £237 million the forecast outturn cost is £231 million.
The oft-quoted cost of "£1 million per hon. Member" is simplistic. It totally ignores the fact that at least an equal number of staff will be employed in hon. Members' offices and that two of the floors (one third of the building) provide Select Committee, conference and other communal facilities for the benefit of all 659 hon. Members, particularly those 450 now with offices north of Bridge Street.
There are no plans to spend £0.5 million on buffing up the roof and fenestration. Nor is £200,000 being spent on further planting.
The reception desk in the main entrance did not cost £75,000, nor the preposterous £300,000 as reported more recently. The figure of £75,000 is the cost of a "package", which includes the main reception desk, the security desk at the subway entrance and the security enclosure at the main entrance area.
Hiring trees such as those in the courtyard is a normal commercial arrangement. The cost includes their care and maintenance and requires the nurseryman to replace at no additional cost any that do not thrive. The trees are not purely decorative. The shading will reduce the amount of 353W cooling needed in the summer, contributing to the energy efficiency of the building. Despite reports to the contrary, the trees are not dying. The trees were distressed having been uprooted and a significant leaf fall was expected, particularly during the first few weeks. There will always be some loss of leaf, but we are advised they will fully recover.
The closure of the building after the basement flooded was a short-lived and precautionary measure lasting some four hours only. Torrential rain on 15 September coincided with a high tide. As a result, storm water backed up flooding a lightwell in an adjacent building, which overflowed through a ventilation duct into the basement, entering an electrical substation. Only four hon. Members had by then moved into the building, none of whom was inconvenienced, and the programme of moves continued on schedule without interruption.
At least three timekeeping devices have been provided in hon. Members' and their staffs rooms—on the annunciators, the telephones and personal computers.
Hon. Members require both storage and work surfaces. The most effective way to meet both requirements is to provide storage under the work surfaces using two or three-drawer pedestals. Filing and storage space is provided also in the joinery walls.
It is not the practice to comment on the implications of any alleged security lapses; suffice it to say that the reported four-inch gap near the main entrance door is due to a capping piece being awaited and, contrary to irresponsible reports, the appropriate authorities did not raise any matters of concern.
Neither feng-shui nor space utilisation experts have been used on the project.
Marble has not been used in the building. The wall and ceilings of the offices are plain concrete.
The easy chairs provided in some hon. Members' offices do not have a "snooze control" facility.
Over 150 hon. Members and their staff have now moved into the building. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. It is inevitable, however, that in a project of this size there will be some teething troubles. To date these have been minor and will be dealt with under the Parliamentary Works Directorate's normal defects and maintenance programme.