by Katy Scholes
This morning the BBC ran a story stating that “the cost of running the Houses of Parliament fell by more than £30m last year to just under £500m” this year.
This is true of the House of Lords but not of the House of Commons. In a written answer Baroness Royall, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, provides figures showing that the cost of running the House of Lords fell from £152.5m to £106.5m in 08/09. However the figures also show that this astonishing drop in ‘running costs’ aren’t the result of any unusual trends this year but the result of anomalous spending in 07/08 whereby expenditure was more than double that of any preceding year.
Here’s the breakdown she gave of the House of Lords’ total annual spend:
05/06: £110.2m
06/07: £107.1m
07/08: £152.6m
08/09: £106.5m
In 07/08 there was a massive increase in what is called “other administration costs.” I got in contact with the Parliamentary Information Office who shed some light on the anomaly putting it down to two reasons. The first was the final payment for the purchase of 1 Millbank made in that year and the second was down to a revaluation loss of £23m of the parliamentary estate. So while the cost of running Parliament seems less than last year, when it's put into context, that saving is not so pronounced. Furthermore, the running costs of the Commons increased by £12m. As such, it isn't accurate to say the cost of running Parliament has fallen when, contextually and with costs from both Houses combined, it hasn't.
During this process I referred to the Parliamentary Research Papers for guidance. The source lays out the expenditure for both Houses of Parliament for each fiscal year from 90/91 to 08/09, but the ‘total costs’ do not equate with those stipulated by Baroness Royall in her answer. I’ve contacted the Information Offices in the Commons and Lords regarding this discrepancy and I’m awaiting a response.