Lords complain about crumbling scones and mouse-infested buffets in Parliament
Food in the House of Lords is worse than 'in any garden centre' and is worse value for money than Greggs, customers have complained.
Patrons of the dining facilities in the Upper Chamber have claimed that the offerings are not healthy enough, and one customer said they saw a mouse among the food.
Complaints lodged to the River restaurant and other facilities in the Houses of Parliament, often frequented by peers, have also expressed dissatisfaction at the prices of the meals on offer.
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed a number of written submissions to the parliamentary authorities about the House of Lords dining facilities.
After using catering services for an event they hosted in January 2024, one complainant wrote: 'Several of our guests have been in touch to express their concern over a mouse which made an appearance in the middle of the event. One has sent a video which I've attached.
'Unfortunately the mouse was crawling amongst and in some instances, directly in the food items which served as a major deterrent from our guests enjoying the catering.'
Another complaint from September 2024 said of the House of Lords restaurant: 'To be honest, the food was not good, probably worse than those in any garden centre.
'I asked for some tap water but it never came. The scones crumbled very easily. The cucumber finger sandwiches were particularly unpleasant. Deserts look bad and taste bad.'
A survey conducted by the parliamentary estate also received comments about the House of Lords food, including requests to increase 'the healthiness of the general food provision', and adding that the facilities 'need serious attention'.
Canteens across the parliamentary estate are in part funded by the taxpayer, which means that the price of meals and beverages is cheaper than average London restaurant prices.
But one customer of the River restaurant, the clientele of which can also include MPs and other staff working on the estate, complained about rising prices.
'Prices have now gone up to such a degrees [sic] that the supermarkets near Westminster and shops such as Greggs are far cheaper and far better value for things such as sandwiches, yogurts, drinks and confectionery, ' they said.
Peers can claim up to £360 per House of Lords sitting day in allowance for expenses incurred while performing their duties, as well as some travel expenses.
A spokesman for the House of Lords said: 'The catering service provides refreshment services to meet the needs of a working House. This includes supporting the regular late sittings of the House and unpredictable working hours.
'There were seven complaints about catering made in 2024, a relatively low number for a service that provided more than 150,000 meals in the same period to members, staff, political journalists and external visitors.
'The House of Lords take compliance with food hygiene regulations (including the labelling of allergens) very seriously and have regular independent audits to support our working practices. We currently hold a maximum rating of 5 from Westminster City Council's food hygiene rating.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
SNP Government rule out Scottish independence convention
Culture Secretary Angus Robertson's explicit statement came after First Minister John Swinney poured cold water on the idea at the SNP's 2026 Holyrood campaign launch in May. That in turn followed SNP depute leader Keith Brown telling party conference in 2024 that the SNP supported an independence convention including 'all democratically elected representatives' from Yes-supporting parties ahead of the 2026 vote. Alba MSP Ash Regan asked the Scottish Government about plans to take that forward. Alba MSP Ash Regan (Image: free) Regan asked the Scottish Government if 'as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, whether it will consider holding an independence convention during summer 2025'. Responding, Robertson said: 'The Scottish Government is focused on delivering for people across the country and making the case for taking decisions in Scotland for Scotland with independence. 'The Scottish Government will publish further material on independence to give the people of Scotland the information they need to make an informed choice about their constitutional future. 'We are not planning an independence convention this summer.' The 'further material' referenced is understood to be the final document in the series of white papers on independence started under Nicola Sturgeon's government. Swinney has not published any since taking over as SNP leader. Documents revealed under Freedom of Information in January showed that Robertson was happy for the series to continue, but Swinney instead decided that only one further paper, 'badged as an overview', would be published. READ MORE: SNP Government to publish final 'overview' independence white paper Regan said it was time to break the 'constitutional logjam' and reconnect the political case for independence with what she described as the 'economic necessity' of delivering it. 'We are less than a year out from the Scottish elections but, for too many, independence is drifting into becoming an abstract concept – and in the Hamilton by-election we saw that when independence isn't talked up others will talk it down,' she said. 'An independence convention would bring energy back to the movement and allow for the constitutional imperative of independence to be reconnected to the economic necessity of delivering it as an immediate priority. "It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the Scottish Government have failed to see this opportunity and have instead outright rejected holding an independence convention this summer. 'The Scottish Government and Holyrood need to seize the political initiative on independence. An independence convention would do just that.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fury as House of Lords spends £9.6MILLION on a new front door... and it doesn't even work
The House of Lords has spent nearly £10million on a front door that does not work, it has been revealed. Peers vented fury at the 'disaster' after forcing Leader of the House Baroness Smith of Basildon to disclose the massive costs. Despite the huge bill, a member of staff needs to be by the entrance around the clock to press a button that opens it. There are questions about whether it will ever work properly. The Lords authorities have refused to give figures on the spending for months, arguing that doing so could help terrorists plotting attacks. But pressed by Tory ex-minister Lord Forsyth yesterday, Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' The Cabinet minister said: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.' It is not clear whether the £9.6million figure cited includes VAT. Members said they had warned the ruling Lords Commission from the start that the design would not work. Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.'
Scotsman
6 hours ago
- Scotsman
Council secrecy over Christmas events casts a shadow
Edinburgh's Christmas Market and Hogmanay celebrations have never been far from controversy. Yet again concerns are bubbling away over procurement rules and the council's ability to recover funds from operators. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... At last month's full council my Conservative colleague Phil Doggart asked the council leader a simple question. He prefaced it by indicating he had been asking officers similar questions for six weeks without an answer. Phil said: 'Can the council leader confirm that Unique Assembly has complied with all the terms of the winter festivals contract and is not in breach of any terms of the contract, and the council has received all monies due to it.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The council leader read a prepared statement that didn't answer the question, deflected onto the cancellation of events because of weather and puffed up the benefit of the winter and summer festivals. What she did say was that work was ongoing and reporting would go to two council committees. She then used the pretext of allowing local companies who are suppliers to the contractor to be reimbursed first. The second committee met yesterday with the only reporting being a short cryptic reference to the committee having 'received correspondence' and that a legal review of issues raised was under way. Equally cryptic was the noting of the response to two Freedom of Information requests which seem to admit the funds due have not been paid. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Councillors clearly aren't happy with the secrecy as another political party added to the tension by lodging an amendment calling for a lot more information to be released to councillors, even if this must happen in private. Loved by many and loathed by others, the market's use of public space by private operators for profit causes a public debate. Reinstatement of public areas causes annoyance. Seeming flouting of planning rules has, in the past, led to allegations of preferential treatment. There is then the issue of whether this helps all year-round local businesses who pay rates and property costs by bringing footfall. Or whether it draws business away to short term market operators imported from elsewhere. Given this, you would think the council would be making sure that the procurement of these events was squeaky clean. Yet the correspondence seems to be linked to other potential operators who failed to get the contract. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the council wants the controversy to go away it will have to openly show it is acting in the best interests of the taxpayer and local businesses and has complied with all the legal rules. The disinfectant of sunlight is required here but watch this space as it may take some time.
