Thousands of mice, rats and birds have plagued Parliament for the last five year
Pest controllers have had to tackle over 3,000 reports of mice, rats, insects and birds in Parliament, data from the House of Commons and Lords shows.
Issues with unpleasant critters appear to be on the up as well, with the first six months of 2025 seeing almost as many call-outs as the whole of 2022.
Westminster's pest team logged more than 3,000 reports of pests in the Parliamentary Estate since 2020.
An army of mice is causing MPs and Lords the most issues, with more than 1,000 incidents to do with the small rodents.
The problem has become so bad that Labour peer Lord Gardiner of Kimble called for cats to be brought in to tackle the vermin in July.
They aren't the only challenge, though. Pesky moths flapping around have triggered more than 150 reports in the last five years.
Others pests have also been caught scuttling around the corridors of Westminster.
Dozens of rats and other 'mammals' have also been discovered in recent years.
Parliament's pest control team has also been dispatched to eradicate scores of unspecified 'insects' and flies in the lobbies and grounds.
Despite already employing baits, traps and hawks to prevent pests, issues appear to be on the rise.
During the first two years of the Covid pandemic, there were fewer than 400 pests reported in the Lord's and shared spaces.
But in 2022, that was at 578, and by last year it had hit 773.
In the first six months of 2025, pest controllers have already tackled 516 reports.
The pest control data was uncovered through Freedom of Information requests filed by Metro.
The House of Lords provided numbers dating back to 2020, covering not just the House of Lords but also spaces shared with the House of Commons in Parliament.
The House of Commons only revealed its pest incidents from August 2024 onwards.
Some of the data covered in both responses might be duplicates of the same pest report, the House of Lords stressed.
The Parliamentary Estate itself is massive, covering 16 football pitches, over 1,000 rooms and three miles of passageways.
With buildings that date back to the tenth century, and its location next to the River Thames, the site has always been vulnerable to pests.
It was revealed last year that Parliament has paid over £100,000 a year for pest control since 2014.
In 2023-24 that figure rose to £136,000 – £10,000 higher than the previous 12 months, according to Daily Mail. More Trending
A spokesperson for UK Parliament stressed it is a safe and hygienic place to work.
They told Metro: 'With an area of over 250,000 m2, the number of pest control callouts for the Parliamentary Estate remains broadly in line with expectations, given the size and complexity of our building portfolio – one of the largest in Westminster and representing dozens of sites.
'We are committed to maintaining a humane and ethical pest control programme, focussed on preventative measures and the use of various control methods
'Increases in costs can be attributed to both inflation and increased building work on the Estate, though value for money remains a key consideration and we continue to follow all regulatory obligations.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Man arrested at pro-Palestine protest after police misread 'Plasticine Action' T-shirt
MORE: 'Brazen' drug dealers selling cocaine during Mass at the UK's biggest Catholic cathedral
MORE: MPs being landlords would be comical if it wasn't so offensive
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare
Photo byThere is one clear political winner from the Epping asylum hotel ruling: Nigel Farage. True, the technical victor, as so often in English life, may be the Town and Country Planning Order (the owners of the Bell Hotel failed to apply for new planning permission). But that's not something Farage felt obliged to mention, hailing 'a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. That's a message that will resonate with an electorate increasingly wondering whether to gamble on the Reform leader (Farage's party has led every opinion poll since May). It was the Bell Hotel that became an emblem of a dysfunctional model after one migrant living there was charged with sexual assault (a second asylum seeker was arrested last week). Confronted by the case between Epping council and the hotel's owners, Home Office lawyers sought to intervene, warning that any injunction could 'substantially interfere' with the department's statutory duty to house asylum seekers and risked 'acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. But the judge, who acknowledged that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern', ruled that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, 'sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made'. The Home Office is barred from appealing and now has less than a month to find alternative accommodation for the hotel's residents. But this practical challenge could be far outweighed by the potential unravelling of the asylum hotel model. Farage has vowed that the 12 councils controlled by Reform will explore similar legal action to Epping, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp has said he would welcome other local authorities doing the same (Labour accuses the Tories of 'rank hypocrisy', noting that Philp was the first immigration minister to move asylum seekers into the Bell Hotel and that Robert Jenrick was the second). Labour knows just how politically toxic the asylum hotel policy – emblematic of the UK's profligate outsourced state – is. Aides speak with authentic outrage of the 'absolute wreck' of a system they inherited as the Conservatives' doomed Rwanda deportation scheme saw processing ground to a halt. The number of asylum seekers accommodated has fallen from a peak of 56,042 in 400 hotels in September 2023 to 32,345 in 210 hotels (with costs falling from £3bn to £2.1bn), and the government intends to end their use entirely by the time of the next election in 2029. But even before yesterday's ruling, some in Labour were warning that far faster action was required. Last month, one influential MP told me that the government should 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic). That same MP now blames a 'vacuum of leadership' for leaving the courts to rule on what voters see as a 'moral and political matter'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe For Labour, the painful irony of the ruling is that it comes just as the government is trying to tell a better story on immigration. Last month, ministers agreed a 'one in, one out' asylum deal with France that they hope will deter Channel crossings and only today announced a new agreement with Iraq to return illegal migrants. Instead, Labour is left to rue the slow breakdown of a system that it did not design but must now own. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Zarah Sultana reveals a fault line in Your Party] Related
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Migrant protests, Farage's footy shirt, and more rail fare fury
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. The disgraceful injunction (Metro, Wed) issued against housing asylum seekers in the Bell Hotel, Epping, must be appealed against. Epping Forest district council sought the court order after the hotel became the centre for protests and counter-protests. An asylum seeker staying there has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, who he was said to have tried to kiss. The council said the hotel had been the 'catalyst' for 'an increase in community tension'. Its owner plans to appeal. In effect, the injunction allows racists and fascists to arrange violent protests to get refugees moved out of any hotel in any part of the country. We are a tolerant country despite this small violent group urged on by minor but mouthy politicians such as Nigel Farage. Epping council, shame on you. George, via email George (MetroTalk, Tue) says the government encouraging police forces to release the ethnicity of suspects is a 'pathetic capitulation to far-right mobs'. Can he name one group or a political entity in this country that's 'far right'? Or is he just parroting the 'far right' narrative that's starting to get tedious? The term 'far right' is often spouted yet the ones spouting it never name a specific group. And how come the 'far left' is never mentioned, as it does exist? The protests in Epping are about safety for women and girls – you know, the very thing Jess Phillips, the minister for violence against women and girls, campaigns for yet has been very quiet on since these protests started. And why do these pro-migrant and refugee counter-protesters always have their faces covered? If you're passionate about your cause, show us who you are – otherwise it appears you're hiding your face for nefarious reasons. Also, to answer George's question about whether police will release the ethnicity of the Liverpool fan who racially abused Bournemouth's Antoine Semenyo, there's no need to. It was caught on camera and everyone saw who he was. Sounds like he's picking an argument for the sake of it. Jon, Birmingham Your report on the property tax proposal was very one-sided. Why is it worse to pay a tax on selling a house as opposed to when buying it? Capital gains tax on an increase in value is a tax on wealth that is unearned and unavailable to those who do not own their homes. Your article quotes the disapproving TaxPayers' Alliance, a shady junktank funded by large corporations, not individual taxpayers. James Murray-Smith, Muswell Hill Remember the outcry when Team GB had a flag of different colours before last year's Olympics? Nigel Farage erupted at the thought of such a thing. Yet his new Reform UK 'football shirt' has a plain white union flag. The irony is not lost on me. Neil Dance, Birmingham Further to the 5.5 per cent rise in rail fares coming down the track and Angela's view (MetroTalk, Wed) that this constitutes a 'declaration of war on commuters'. The country is living beyond its means yet there is infinite demand on government funds. It would be more of a story if it was decided fares were not going up and unrealistic to expect commuting be made cheaper and take priority over the NHS, education and pensions. If you do not get the service you pay for as a passenger, you can obtain compensation for severe delays. And while Angela is right to resent the renumeration of bosses for a job with no element of risk, this is a tiny proportion of the total budget and not the reason for high fares. Adrian (MetroTalk, Wed), meanwhile, says those who do not use public transport should be made to subsidise buses and trains to drive down prices and encourage their greater use – but these already enjoy taxpayer subsidy. More Trending And what about balancing fairness to taxpayers in rural areas where public transport is scarce? Rupert Fast, Esher I was disappointed with the commemorations for VJ Day compared with VE Day. Bearing in mind the brutality and conditions faced by those fighting against such a fanatical enemy in the Pacific, as a country we must not let them become the forgotten army. Dave, Sutton-in-Ashfield Why is there so much litter on our streets? It's everywhere. We are happy to pick up dog poo but not litter. Get a grip, people. Bin the bottle, can the can, scrap the wrapper. Do your little bit to keep Britain tidy because at the moment it's just rubbish. James, Sheffield MORE: This eye cream got rid of my eye bags in 15 minutes — it's worth the hype MORE: Cambridge Royal Papworth Hospital pays out over three deaths 'linked to its water supply' MORE: 3 iconic budget beauty brands return to Boots — these are the best products to buy
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
I know the Home Office is hiding the real costs of asylum
Our immigration system sometimes feels like an organised conspiracy against the British people. For decades, the public have voted for drastic reductions in immigration, only to see the numbers go up and up. For years, they have demanded an end to the Channel crossings and the asylum crisis, only to see politicians refuse to do what is necessary. When governments do move in the right direction, they are undermined by weak enforcement, litigious and often publicly-funded NGOs, activist judges who are often former claimant lawyers in the immigration tribunals, and human rights laws that make securing the border an impossible job. Not that governments should be let off the hook: ultimately our constitution allows Parliament to change the law. The last Conservative government had the right idea to stop the Channel crossings. Deporting every migrant coming to Britain without permission – to their home country or a third country like Rwanda – is ultimately the only way to end this wave of illegal immigration. But the plan was never going to work unless we left the European Convention on Human Rights, and that government – with exceptions like Robert Jenrick, who resigned for this reason as immigration minister – was unwilling to go that far. Immigration is the biggest single reason my party is in the predicament it is in, and we must be brutally honest about our record and radical in our solutions if we are ever to win back the trust of the British people. Labour's approach, however, is even worse. They abandoned the policy of deporting migrants who cross the Channel and are now rushing illegal immigrants through the asylum system. Approvals are up, and once asylum is granted, the migrants are hidden in the social housing and welfare systems, where it is impossible to track their costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the average 'low-wage migrant worker' arriving aged 25 will cost the British taxpayer over £400,000 by the time they reach 81. Ministers muddy the waters by claiming they are deporting record numbers of people. But this is dishonest. First, the numbers they use include migrants who leave voluntarily. And second, only about three per cent of Channel crossers are ever removed. It's no surprise that Channel crossings are up – by almost 50 per cent – under Labour. And the court injunction won by the Conservative council in Epping, which stops a local hotel being used to house migrants, throws the Government's policy into further chaos. But while the injunction is undoubtedly a clear victory for the local residents – vilified as 'far Right' by those who should know better – it may yet mean more trouble for communities affected by 'asylum dispersal'. Those hoping for a policy of detention and deportation will soon be disappointed. Human rights laws can prevent deportation, and Labour reject automatic deportation for those who cross the Channel. So the migrants will still end up housed in towns and cities across the country. There are already more than twice as many migrants in private housing, including houses of multiple occupancy, than in hotels. And accommodation like this may suit a government as cynical as this one better than hotels. Individual houses provide less of a focal point for protest than hotels, and the Home Office, working with Serco, has been building up its property portfolio for some time. With 1.33 million people on local waiting lists for social housing, this is a serious breach of the fundamental deal offered by citizenship. Foreign nationals – who broke into our country knowing it was illegal – are being offered housing that is not available to British families in need. And the unfortunate residents who live nearby are very deliberately kept in the dark. As an MP elected last year, I have been horrified by the secrecy with which ministers handle housing migrants. When I asked why MPs are not informed about migrants being moved into their constituencies, the immigration minister said we would only be told when it is 'lawful, proportional and necessary.' In other words: never. After the disorder last year, we learnt from press leaks that an internal government paper had said asylum hotels had 'stoked community tensions' and were a 'critical factor behind the summer riots.' Yet when I used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the paper, the Government said while the information was held, it would not be released because ministers needed a 'safe space' to think about policy. The truth is that Labour's immigration policy means surrender and secrecy. The illegal immigrants crossing the Channel will keep on coming, Labour will keep granting them asylum, and ministers will do everything to keep the consequences – for housing, for crime, for the cost to the taxpayer – a secret from you.
