What recent discussions the Commission has had on pay and conditions for cleaners employed in the House.

The issue of contract cleaners' pay was discussed by the Commission on 18 July and again yesterday evening. The Commission took note of the progress in the ongoing negotiations between the cleaners' employers and the Transport and General Workers Union. It also took note of the offer from the employing company, Mitie, of a pay increase to its staff from £5.20 to £6 per hour, funded through internal efficiency savings. The Commission also confirmed that it had no plans to increase the contract's value. Improved on-site accommodation for the contract staff has now been provided.

Even Thomas Gradgrind and Ebenezer Scrooge would balk at the Dickensian cleaning contracts in this place, which have driven wages down to poverty levels. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Commission has a role to play in settling this dispute? Will he ask the Serjeant at Arms to convene a tripartite forum of contractors, unions and House staff, with the aim of overcoming the impasse that is bedevilling progress in this unnecessary dispute?

The issue of pay and conditions is a matter for the employer and the work force. Let me make it crystal clear to the House that the authorities of the House have done, and are doing, what they can to help to resolve this issue. However, the Commission has authorised me to reaffirm that it will not increase the £2.2 million value of the contract. It cannot become directly involved in the negotiation of terms and conditions, which are a commercial and, ultimately, a legal matter between a contractor and its staff. The authorities of the House are, however, being kept informed of the progress in these negotiations, and will continue to do what they can to assist in achieving agreement as fast as possible.

May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that his answer to David Taylor is not entirely satisfactory? Some of us think that it is not really good enough for the House of Commons Commission to hide behind the cloak of a contractual negotiation between employer and employee. As one who signed the early-day motion tabled by Mr. Malik, may I put it to the representative of the Commission that it would do the Commission great credit if it were to intervene in such a way as to offer hope to the people who toil incredibly hard in this House for a pathetically insignificant reward?

The House of Commons lets contracts for a wide variety of services within the organisation. It would be highly unusual if, halfway through one such contract, we were to renegotiate its value, and it would become impossibly difficult for the House to hold the value of any other contract on a wider front if we showed a willingness so to do. I reaffirm that the House authorities have worked with the employer to help it to find substantial savings within the contract. Parts of the building will be cleaned less frequently than before, and some will be cleaned during the day rather than in the evening. When we let this contract, however, it was not given to the lowest bidder. All bidders gave indicative pay rates, which we insisted had to be set at a level that would minimise staff turnover. Indeed, staff turnover on this contract is much lower than the industry average, indicating a degree of satisfaction on the part of the work force.

Is not the crux of the matter that the people about whom we are talking are not being paid as much as those directly employed by the House of Commons? Why should there be such a difference? Does not the Commission have a responsibility to ensure that all those who do such essential work are paid decent wages, which is not what has happened so far? The people who have been employed by the contractors have been treated disgracefully, and it is about time that the House of Commons put the whole matter right.

The wages and conditions on these contracts are comparable with equivalent contracts in the area and with the market rate. The pay of in-House cleaners reflects two points: first, that they work in sensitive areas, where it was felt that the service should not be contracted out; and secondly, that they are paid within a pay system that covers the Majority of the House's employees. Therefore, internal relativities as well as market factors have had to be considered when settling the level of pay for in-House cleaners.